|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.network-plus > February 2003 > XP or Win2000?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| J. Trojanek 2003-02-20, 5:24 am |
| If you were putting together a small network today (4 to 8 computers in each
of 5 locations, connected as a WAN), would you go with Windows XP Pro, or
Windows 2000?
A tech friend feels strongly that XP is too bloated, and that 2000 is the
way to go. But I worry about 2000 not having as much "lasting power" as XP
a few years down the road.
| |
| Daniel Lawrence 2003-02-20, 7:24 am |
| I would agree with your friend go with Windows 2000. As for lasting power I
wouldn'tworry there is almost no difference between Win2K and XP, also just
look at Windows 95 and the large base still using it.
"J. Trojanek" <jtroja@home.com> wrote in message
news ZOcnS5VGtOZK8mjXTWcpg@co
mcast.com...
> If you were putting together a small network today (4 to 8 computers in
each
> of 5 locations, connected as a WAN), would you go with Windows XP Pro, or
> Windows 2000?
>
> A tech friend feels strongly that XP is too bloated, and that 2000 is the
> way to go. But I worry about 2000 not having as much "lasting power" as
XP
> a few years down the road.
>
>
| |
| Steven L Umbach 2003-02-20, 9:25 am |
| I would definetly go with Windows XP Pro. No it is not too bloated.
Yes it does run better with more memory, but who cares at todays prices. It
has some great enhancements like remote desktop,efs with file sharing,
driver rollback, built in firewall (weak one but better than none) and the
way it handles pictures/mutimedia. It took some getting used to for me but I
now love it. It is not as secure out of the box as W2K with its simple file
sharing. XP has has many more settings to lock down/secure computer using
group policy/security settings even without a domain controller. Just as
stable as W2K and I believe the price is about the same. I have done many
installs on various computers and NEVER had to find a driver. Just be sure
to get SP1 and do all the updates. --- Steve
"J. Trojanek" <jtroja@home.com> wrote in message
newsZOcnS5VGtOZK8mjXTWcpg@co
mcast.com...
> If you were putting together a small network today (4 to 8 computers in
each
> of 5 locations, connected as a WAN), would you go with Windows XP Pro, or
> Windows 2000?
>
> A tech friend feels strongly that XP is too bloated, and that 2000 is the
> way to go. But I worry about 2000 not having as much "lasting power" as
XP
> a few years down the road.
>
>
| |
| Michael E 2003-02-20, 1:24 pm |
| XP Pro all the way.. It runs much smoother on all of my puters in comparison
to 2000.. I got a p4 1.7 with 512 RDRAM..etc .etc And windows 2000 ran like
crap on it.. even with all the proper video drivers (and other drivers)
installed.. XP is much more smooth and you can use microsofts bootvis.exe to
speed up the boot up time..
Oh, how I miss the old dos defragmenter.. its was so cool.
"Steven L Umbach" <sumbach@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:2Z65a.14027$UF6.1358068@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> I would definetly go with Windows XP Pro. No it is not too bloated.
> Yes it does run better with more memory, but who cares at todays prices.
It
> has some great enhancements like remote desktop,efs with file sharing,
> driver rollback, built in firewall (weak one but better than none) and the
> way it handles pictures/mutimedia. It took some getting used to for me but
I
> now love it. It is not as secure out of the box as W2K with its simple
file
> sharing. XP has has many more settings to lock down/secure computer using
> group policy/security settings even without a domain controller. Just as
> stable as W2K and I believe the price is about the same. I have done many
> installs on various computers and NEVER had to find a driver. Just be sure
> to get SP1 and do all the updates. --- Steve
>
> "J. Trojanek" <jtroja@home.com> wrote in message
> newsZOcnS5VGtOZK8mjXTWcpg@co
mcast.com...
> > If you were putting together a small network today (4 to 8 computers in
> each
> > of 5 locations, connected as a WAN), would you go with Windows XP Pro,
or
> > Windows 2000?
> >
> > A tech friend feels strongly that XP is too bloated, and that 2000 is
the
> > way to go. But I worry about 2000 not having as much "lasting power" as
> XP
> > a few years down the road.
> >
> >
>
>
| |
| Simon Telrenner 2003-02-20, 1:24 pm |
| Actually, XP runs better with less memory than 2000. We have a laptop with
a 233MMX and 130M memory, and it runs great with XP but always lagged a bit
with 2000.
Just my 2 cents worth.
"J. Trojanek" <jtroja@home.com> wrote in message
newsZOcnS5VGtOZK8mjXTWcpg@co
mcast.com...
> If you were putting together a small network today (4 to 8 computers in
each
> of 5 locations, connected as a WAN), would you go with Windows XP Pro, or
> Windows 2000?
>
> A tech friend feels strongly that XP is too bloated, and that 2000 is the
> way to go. But I worry about 2000 not having as much "lasting power" as
XP
> a few years down the road.
>
>
| |
| J. Trojanek 2003-02-21, 5:24 pm |
| Thanks for your replies. I really appreciate the input. Unfortunately
though, the answers are mixed, so anyone else that once to jump in here, to
sway this vote, please do.
"J. Trojanek" <jtroja@home.com> wrote in message
newsZOcnS5VGtOZK8mjXTWcpg@co
mcast.com...
> If you were putting together a small network today (4 to 8 computers in
each
> of 5 locations, connected as a WAN), would you go with Windows XP Pro, or
> Windows 2000?
>
> A tech friend feels strongly that XP is too bloated, and that 2000 is the
> way to go. But I worry about 2000 not having as much "lasting power" as
XP
> a few years down the road.
>
>
| |
| Gareth Church 2003-02-22, 5:24 am |
| "J. Trojanek" <jtroja@home.com> wrote in message
news:9FadnVrjQ_DUKcujXTWc3A@co
mcast.com...
> Thanks for your replies. I really appreciate the input. Unfortunately
> though, the answers are mixed, so anyone else that once to jump in here,
to
> sway this vote, please do.
Ok then, I say Win2000. That is, unless you specifically need any of the
features Daniel listed.
Really, the differences between the two, except for one or two noticable
improvements, are fairly minimal - and mainly cosmetic. Like Daniel says,
there are quite a lot of features in XP that you would probably end up
turning off immediately. So I agree with your friend. I say go 2k.
Gareth
| |
| steve harris 2003-02-22, 8:24 am |
| J. Trojanek wrote:
> If you were putting together a small network today (4 to 8 computers in
> each of 5 locations, connected as a WAN), would you go with Windows XP
> Pro, or Windows 2000?
>
> A tech friend feels strongly that XP is too bloated, and that 2000 is the
> way to go. But I worry about 2000 not having as much "lasting power" as
> XP a few years down the road.
Win2000, then down the road switch to Linux.
| |
| Jeffrey W. Roach 2003-02-22, 11:24 am |
| When it comes to getting your PC back up and running quickly, XP Pro is the
way to go. Restore Points and the Compatibility Tab so older software can
run are great...
--
Jeffrey W. Roach
MCSE, MCSA, CNA, Network+, A+
"J. Trojanek" <jtroja@home.com> wrote in message
news:9FadnVrjQ_DUKcujXTWc3A@co
mcast.com...
> Thanks for your replies. I really appreciate the input. Unfortunately
> though, the answers are mixed, so anyone else that once to jump in here,
to
> sway this vote, please do.
>
>
> "J. Trojanek" <jtroja@home.com> wrote in message
> newsZOcnS5VGtOZK8mjXTWcpg@co
mcast.com...
> > If you were putting together a small network today (4 to 8 computers in
> each
> > of 5 locations, connected as a WAN), would you go with Windows XP Pro,
or
> > Windows 2000?
> >
> > A tech friend feels strongly that XP is too bloated, and that 2000 is
the
> > way to go. But I worry about 2000 not having as much "lasting power" as
> XP
> > a few years down the road.
> >
> >
>
>
| |
| Steven L Umbach 2003-02-22, 12:24 pm |
| I agree. It builds on all the good points of W2K. The remote desktop is
a godsend for anyone that has to configure/troubleshoot/fix other peoples or
remote computers and works fine over the internet. There are MANY more group
policy and security configurations. Software restriction policy is something
new that can help really lock a desktop down from users who want to junk up
their workstations. -- Steve
http://www.uksecurityonline.com/hus...restriction.htm
"Jeffrey W. Roach" <JNJROACH@sbcglobalnospam.net> wrote in message
news:EZN5a.1351$nL5.62701714@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> When it comes to getting your PC back up and running quickly, XP Pro is
the
> way to go. Restore Points and the Compatibility Tab so older software can
> run are great...
>
> --
> Jeffrey W. Roach
> MCSE, MCSA, CNA, Network+, A+
>
>
>
> "J. Trojanek" <jtroja@home.com> wrote in message
> news:9FadnVrjQ_DUKcujXTWc3A@co
mcast.com...
> > Thanks for your replies. I really appreciate the input. Unfortunately
> > though, the answers are mixed, so anyone else that once to jump in here,
> to
> > sway this vote, please do.
> >
> >
> > "J. Trojanek" <jtroja@home.com> wrote in message
> > newsZOcnS5VGtOZK8mjXTWcpg@co
mcast.com...
> > > If you were putting together a small network today (4 to 8 computers
in
> > each
> > > of 5 locations, connected as a WAN), would you go with Windows XP Pro,
> or
> > > Windows 2000?
> > >
> > > A tech friend feels strongly that XP is too bloated, and that 2000 is
> the
> > > way to go. But I worry about 2000 not having as much "lasting power"
as
> > XP
> > > a few years down the road.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
| |
| Sully 2003-02-22, 10:24 pm |
| XP has my vote. It is much better than w2k for remote administration not
just because of it's built-in Remote Desktop Protocol, but you can also do
more stuff via the command prompt such as reboot workstations and run a
defrag.
"J. Trojanek" <jtroja@home.com> wrote in message
newsZOcnS5VGtOZK8mjXTWcpg@co
mcast.com...
> If you were putting together a small network today (4 to 8 computers in
each
> of 5 locations, connected as a WAN), would you go with Windows XP Pro, or
> Windows 2000?
>
> A tech friend feels strongly that XP is too bloated, and that 2000 is the
> way to go. But I worry about 2000 not having as much "lasting power" as
XP
> a few years down the road.
>
>
| |
| Daniel Lawrence 2003-02-24, 3:24 pm |
| off topic but how would you shutdown another XP workstation from the command
prompt?
"J. Trojanek" <jtroja@home.com> wrote in message
newsZOcnS5VGtOZK8mjXTWcpg@co
mcast.com...
> If you were putting together a small network today (4 to 8 computers in
each
> of 5 locations, connected as a WAN), would you go with Windows XP Pro, or
> Windows 2000?
>
> A tech friend feels strongly that XP is too bloated, and that 2000 is the
> way to go. But I worry about 2000 not having as much "lasting power" as
XP
> a few years down the road.
>
>
| |
| Andy Barkl 2003-02-24, 4:24 pm |
| "Daniel Lawrence" <delphiworks@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%mv6a.1801$kf7.288585@news20.bellglobal.com...
> off topic but how would you shutdown another XP workstation from the
command
> prompt?
Get the Remote Shutdown utility from the Resource Kit tools CD.
www.ResKit.com
| |
| Daniel Lawrence 2003-02-25, 9:24 am |
| Andy,
If you are there, I might be blind but I find no mention of that Remote
Shutdown utility on the resource kit page.
"J. Trojanek" <jtroja@home.com> wrote in message
newsZOcnS5VGtOZK8mjXTWcpg@co
mcast.com...
> If you were putting together a small network today (4 to 8 computers in
each
> of 5 locations, connected as a WAN), would you go with Windows XP Pro, or
> Windows 2000?
>
> A tech friend feels strongly that XP is too bloated, and that 2000 is the
> way to go. But I worry about 2000 not having as much "lasting power" as
XP
> a few years down the road.
>
>
| |
| Andy Barkl 2003-02-25, 10:24 am |
| "Daniel Lawrence" <delphiworks@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0bL6a.2420$VG.424654@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Andy,
> If you are there, I might be blind but I find no mention of that Remote
> Shutdown utility on the resource kit page.
It is on the CD when you purchase the kit from Microsoft Press but you are
correct, I don't see it on the "free" download page. There may be some other
freeware available if you do a quick Google search.
| |
| J. Trojanek 2003-02-27, 10:24 am |
| Thanks to all of you for your answers here. Very helpful. In the end, my
tech friend is still so emphatic about 2000 that we'll probably go with
that. But I'll hit him over the head with these good XP arguments every
time it seems appropriate!
"J. Trojanek" <jtroja@home.com> wrote in message
newsZOcnS5VGtOZK8mjXTWcpg@co
mcast.com...
> If you were putting together a small network today (4 to 8 computers in
each
> of 5 locations, connected as a WAN), would you go with Windows XP Pro, or
> Windows 2000?
>
> A tech friend feels strongly that XP is too bloated, and that 2000 is the
> way to go. But I worry about 2000 not having as much "lasting power" as
XP
> a few years down the road.
>
>
|
|
|
|
|