If you instruct the OS to optimize for performance, you strip away all the new fangled XP interface and are left with a leaner 2000-like GUI.
-Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Tom Faulkner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 04:42 PM To: sambar List Member Subject: [sambar] OS Upgrade {03} >From my experience with XP and 2000 I'd recommend 2000. XP seems to have more trouble with certain hardware. Primarily scanners, which even though you wouldn't use a scanner on a webserver if they have trouble with that hardware it may have trouble with other hardware. Not to mention the fact that "Luna", the pretty thing that makes everybody love XP, takes 5mb of your precious memory. That and from experience 2000 is a very stable system, as where XP seems to have some problems. Also one other thing, I think that if you can find a copy of 2000 still it is cheaper than XP. Just my .02 Tom Faulkner -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rolf Dittus Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 2:55 PM To: sambar List Member Subject: [sambar] OS Upgrade {02} I'm running Sambar V5 since more than a year on XP prof, but 'only' the native web / ftp server functions on a pentuim 230mhz,so far without any problems. Regarding the difference among 2000 + XP, I think there are differences but they are mainly the users view...the functions are similar to a large extend... ------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe please go to http://www.sambar.ch/list/
