i agree, that my view is very dependent on my individual circumstance and my experience with my network computers. where i have 1win2k Hp P3 Dual processor Net server, 5 Desktops on win2k ,6 laptops on Xp pro on HP & Toshiba machines.
out of these above, i have to tend to the Xp machines every often. I personally use w2k and it still has to crash the first time on my Hp vectra. The Xp based machines, also do the frequent "Blue scree of Death" every now and then, when there is no cpu usage. I changed two of them to win2k and they are as stable as a laptop can be... so far By the way my sambar webserver is a Compaq Presario, with win2k, 256mb ram, 6gb Hdd, and sambar 5.3b4 and a AMD cpu. and never flipped on me so far (o/s vise.... sambar crashed many times due to the sql bug). Thanks anil. "Jeff Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 5.2.0.9.2.20030121175716.00b32b98@localhost">news:5.2.0.9.2.20030121175716.00b32b98@localhost... > At 09:28 AM 01/22/2003 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >w2k (2000) is just as userfreindly, but more stable. > > This must be very user-dependant viewpoint. Over the course of a year and > a half, I had Windows 2000 Professional dump out on me about a dozen > times. I have yet to have Windows XP Professional crash on me since it was > released. This is on and using the exact same hardware and applications > that Windows 2000 choked on. As well, none of my Windows XP installations > at work have puked even once but I have had the very infrequent support > call about a Windows 2000 blue screen. So as a personal judgement/opinion > based on about 50 Windows 2000 and 30 Windows XP installations, I've found > XP to be more stable. > > -Jeff > ------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe please go to http://www.sambar.ch/list/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe please go to http://www.sambar.ch/list/
