XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.

Whats is the question then?



Ridge Walker wrote:

> XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.

Development for Windows 2000 stopped long ago. Ask the hardware manufacturer
if they support Windows 2000.

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Ridge Walker" wrote:
| XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.
|

In article <1136088395.824632.77140@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
tokyootaku@hotmail.com says...
> XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.

Strange, I've got more than 1000+ Windows XP SP2 computers running in
all sorts of settings, and other than flaky custom applications written
by noobs, they are as stable as my Fedora Core 3 and 4 boxes, as stable
as my Windows 2000 Prof boxes, and as stable as anything else I use.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos wrote:

> In article <1136088395.824632.77140@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
> tokyootaku@hotmail.com says...
> > XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.
>
> Strange, I've got more than 1000+ Windows XP SP2 computers running in
> all sorts of settings, and other than flaky custom applications
> written by noobs, they are as stable as my Fedora Core 3 and 4 boxes,
> as stable as my Windows 2000 Prof boxes, and as stable as anything
> else I use.

What are you, some sort of God?? At least pcbutts1 can help people.

I remember you claiming that you have never been infected by a virus
and this is something I cannot beleive. You are like pcbutts1, a
complete liar.

You troll around and attempt to stalk pcbutts1 in aps group, you are
pathetic.

--
Jimmy

Ridge Walker wrote:

> XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.


I don't agree at all. I found Windows 2000 to be stable, and I find XP to be
even more stable.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> Ridge Walker wrote:
>
>
>>XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.
>
>
>
> I don't agree at all. I found Windows 2000 to be stable, and I find XP to be
> even more stable.
>

In my experience it's pretty much a draw overall. XP is more finicky
about hardware (particularly RAM), that much is true, but if you use up
to snuff hardware for XP and don't do stupid stuff with the machine it's
quite stable. Problems tend to arise when users screw with system
settings they have no business with. I used to bitch about system
settings in XP being buried half-way to China but now I wish MS would
have buried them even deeper.

Happy New Year!
Steve N.

Jimmy wrote:

>
> What are you, some sort of God?? At least pcbutts1 can help people.
>
> I remember you claiming that you have never been infected by a virus
> and this is something I cannot beleive. You are like pcbutts1, a
> complete liar.
>
> You troll around and attempt to stalk pcbutts1 in aps group, you are
> pathetic.
>


There are good system administrators, managers and installers.
And there are also lucky system administrators, managers and
installers. Probability indicates that a small number may be
both good and lucky. Leythos could be both very good and lucky.
Or perhaps he supports an organization that has zero-tolerance
for users whose computers get infected. The fear factor works
every time.

In article <xn0ebnka3b3x2000@news.microsoft.com>, jimmy12345@hotmail.com
says...
> Leythos wrote:
>
> > In article <1136088395.824632.77140@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
> > tokyootaku@hotmail.com says...
> > > XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.
> >
> > Strange, I've got more than 1000+ Windows XP SP2 computers running in
> > all sorts of settings, and other than flaky custom applications
> > written by noobs, they are as stable as my Fedora Core 3 and 4 boxes,
> > as stable as my Windows 2000 Prof boxes, and as stable as anything
> > else I use.
>
> What are you, some sort of God?? At least pcbutts1 can help people.

Why would one have to be a GOD in order to have always practiced safe
computing methods, maintained/designed secure networks that actually
were secure, and that has never had a compromised computer that was part
of their managed networks?

The only computers I've experienced that were compromised were the home
computers of clients were they didn't follow the standards, let the AV
subscriptions expire, and didn't want us to check them on a schedule.
Those machine are not ones I count as managed, since they were
unmanaged, but for the 1500+ systems in Medical centers, Small
businesses, State Agencies, Nursing homes, Physicians Offices, and a few
residential systems, we've not had one compromised, ever, and I've been
doing this since the 70's.

If you had actually take then time to follow PCBUTTS1's adventures, you
might learn that he's never provide any technical help that could not
easily be found on the Net, impersonates reputable members of these
groups frequently, morphs his nickname in order to hide from MVP's and
others that can/do delete his posts on the MS Servers, and has been
outed several times by vendors for pilfering/improperly hosting their
code/apps.

> I remember you claiming that you have never been infected by a virus
> and this is something I cannot beleive. You are like pcbutts1, a
> complete liar.

Just because you don't have the skills to maintain a secure network, it
doesn't mean it can't be done, it actually quite simple. Even the latest
exploit has not impacted our managed clients, since they were not
permitted access to public, non-business partner, websites, not
permitted HTML/RTF email (text only) and the firewall and AV software
already blocks the exploit paths.

> You troll around and attempt to stalk pcbutts1 in aps group, you are
> pathetic.

Thanks, it just means you're one of the Sheep that don't think for
yourself and have no technical skills to save yourself.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

On 31 Dec 2005 20:06:35 -0800, "Ridge Walker" <tokyootaku@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>XP is finicky and thought of using Win2k instead.... more stable.

Both are quite stable, I've found. Have you checked the Intel site?
--
Top 10 Conservative Idiots:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/