migrating from Win2K to XP?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I've got three computers with Win2K Pro on them. They work find but the
booting is very slow. It seems the OS is huge and cumbersome. I have an XP
laptop which boots in no time.

My Dell workstation is 4 years old. When I bought it, it was state of the
art.. I want to buy a new one, state of the art. I checked with DELL. They
do not offer Win2K as an operating system anymore. Only XP. One has to buy
it separately from them, I guess. It is $299.00. Thus I have to either order
a PC with XP and then load the Win2K on it or call them and see if they
would do it for me. I have the following questions, since I am not very
knowledgeable in this.

(1) Is Win2K still supported by Microsoft?

(2) Is it more reliable OS as compared to XP? I would guess it is more
secure since not too many users are out there and perhaps not too many
hackers would be familiar with its internals.

(3) What is the future of Win2K? I mean 4 years from now. Would it still be
around?

(4) If I buy a CD with Win2K from Dell would it have all the security
patches and current updates? How about SP2 and others? I remember I had to
reformat my hard disks three or four times over the past 4 years and every
time on my three computers because of viruses and other disasters and every
time I had to bring the OS up to date and it took days because the original
CDs were so old.

(5) Should I go for an XP instead? I want high security and reliability. Is
XP secure? I do go many places on Internet. I roam. I do not get into
controversial places but every time I check I have a few spies or viruses on
hard disks.

(6) Is it reasonable to have two operating system XP and Win2K on one
computer and boot them depending on circumstances? What would be the
advantage of such setup?

(7) I can afford 2 processors. I have never had two on any computer. I am
wondering if anyone has any experience with that? What advantage can it give
me? I do software development. Can I use the second processor
programmatically or it is beyond my control? If it is beyond my control,
will the operating system use it? Will it give me additional speed of
execution? I do have computation intensive tasks. I need superior speed.

(8) I am thinking about buying a PC with Intel Xeon 3.0 GHz with 1MB L2 Cash
and 800MHz FSB. Will it make a difference if I go for 3.4 GHz instead? In
terms of speed? I would mean additional $600.00 or so.

I would greatly appreciate any comments.

Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Windows XP Professional is far more advanced and stable than
previous Windows operating systems. When you order a new
Dell computer, Dell will only charge you approximately $79.00
for Windows XP Professional. Also, you'll not notice a significant
increase in performance by purchasing an Intel processor greater
that a P4 3.0GHz.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"alexV" wrote:


| I've got three computers with Win2K Pro on them. They work find but the
| booting is very slow. It seems the OS is huge and cumbersome. I have an XP
| laptop which boots in no time.
|
| My Dell workstation is 4 years old. When I bought it, it was state of the
| art.. I want to buy a new one, state of the art. I checked with DELL. They
| do not offer Win2K as an operating system anymore. Only XP. One has to buy
| it separately from them, I guess. It is $299.00. Thus I have to either order
| a PC with XP and then load the Win2K on it or call them and see if they
| would do it for me. I have the following questions, since I am not very
| knowledgeable in this.
|
| (1) Is Win2K still supported by Microsoft?
|
| (2) Is it more reliable OS as compared to XP? I would guess it is more
| secure since not too many users are out there and perhaps not too many
| hackers would be familiar with its internals.
|
| (3) What is the future of Win2K? I mean 4 years from now. Would it still be
| around?
|
| (4) If I buy a CD with Win2K from Dell would it have all the security
| patches and current updates? How about SP2 and others? I remember I had to
| reformat my hard disks three or four times over the past 4 years and every
| time on my three computers because of viruses and other disasters and every
| time I had to bring the OS up to date and it took days because the original
| CDs were so old.
|
| (5) Should I go for an XP instead? I want high security and reliability. Is
| XP secure? I do go many places on Internet. I roam. I do not get into
| controversial places but every time I check I have a few spies or viruses on
| hard disks.
|
| (6) Is it reasonable to have two operating system XP and Win2K on one
| computer and boot them depending on circumstances? What would be the
| advantage of such setup?
|
| (7) I can afford 2 processors. I have never had two on any computer. I am
| wondering if anyone has any experience with that? What advantage can it give
| me? I do software development. Can I use the second processor
| programmatically or it is beyond my control? If it is beyond my control,
| will the operating system use it? Will it give me additional speed of
| execution? I do have computation intensive tasks. I need superior speed.
|
| (8) I am thinking about buying a PC with Intel Xeon 3.0 GHz with 1MB L2 Cash
| and 800MHz FSB. Will it make a difference if I go for 3.4 GHz instead? In
| terms of speed? I would mean additional $600.00 or so.
|
| I would greatly appreciate any comments.
|
| Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

alexV wrote:

>
> (1) Is Win2K still supported by Microsoft?
>


Windows Desktop Product Lifecycle Guidelines
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle.asp


> (2) Is it more reliable OS as compared to XP? I would guess it is more
> secure since not too many users are out there and perhaps not too many
> hackers would be familiar with its internals.
>


No to both supositions. WinXP exceeds Win2K is both stability and
security, everything else (hardware compatibility, device driver
compatibility, application compatibility, and user knowledge) being equal.


> (3) What is the future of Win2K? I mean 4 years from now. Would it still be
> around?
>

See (1) above.


> (4) If I buy a CD with Win2K from Dell would it have all the security
> patches and current updates? How about SP2 and others?


Ask Dell. Only they can tell you which specific service packs they've
slipstreamed into their propriatory OEM installation media. Regular
patches and hotfixes released subsequent to the included service pack
would not be included. A retail Win2K CD will likely contain whatever
service pack was available art the time it was pressed.


> I remember I had to
> reformat my hard disks three or four times over the past 4 years and every
> time on my three computers because of viruses and other disasters and every
> time I had to bring the OS up to date and it took days because the original
> CDs were so old.
>

Formatting the hard drive and reinstalling the OS, regardless of
whether it's Win2K or WinXP, to solve a virus or spyware problem is
rather like using an axe to trim one's fingernails. Sure, it'll
probably get the job done, but it's rather messy...., and almost always
unnecessary. What preventative measures do you routinely employ? What
other corrective measures had you already attempted?


> (5) Should I go for an XP instead? I want high security and reliability. Is
> XP secure? I do go many places on Internet. I roam. I do not get into
> controversial places but every time I check I have a few spies or viruses on
> hard disks.
>

No OS can protect you from yourself, although WinXP does an
ever-so-slightly better job of it than Win2K did.

Neither adware nor spyware, collectively known as scumware,
magically install themselves on anyone's computer. They are almost
always deliberately installed by the computer's user, as part of some
allegedly "free" service or product.

While there are some unscrupulous malware distributors out there,
who do attempt to install and exploit malware without consent, the
majority of them simply rely upon the intellectual laziness and
gullibility of the average consumer, counting on them to quickly click
past the EULA in his/her haste to get the latest in "free" cutesy
cursors, screensavers, "utilities," and/or wallpapers.

If you were to read the EULAs that accompany, and to which the
computer user must agree before the download/installation of the
"screensaver" continues, most adware and spyware, you'll find that
they _do_ have the consumer's permission to do exactly what they're
doing. In the overwhelming majority of cases, computer users have no
one to blame but themselves.

There are several essential components to computer security: a
knowledgeable and pro-active user, a properly configured firewall,
reliable and up-to-date antivirus software, and the prompt repair (via
patches, hotfixes, or service packs) of any known vulnerabilities.

The weakest link in this "equation" is, of course, the computer
user. No software manufacturer can -- nor should they be expected
to -- protect the computer user from him/herself. All too many people
have bought into the various PC/software manufacturers marketing
claims of easy computing. They believe that their computer should be
no harder to use than a toaster oven; they have neither the
inclination or desire to learn how to safely use their computer. All
too few people keep their antivirus software current, install patches
in a timely manner, or stop to really think about that cutesy link
they're about to click.

Firewalls and anti-virus applications, which should always be used
and should always be running, are important components of "safe hex,"
but they cannot, and should not be expected to, protect the computer
user from him/herself. Ultimately, it is incumbent upon each and
every computer user to learn how to secure his/her own computer.

To learn more about practicing "safe hex," start with these links:

Protect Your PC
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/default.asp

Home Computer Security
http://www.cert.org/homeusers/HomeComputerSecurity/

List of Antivirus Software Vendors
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;49500

Home PC Firewall Guide
http://www.firewallguide.com/

Scumware.com
http://www.scumware.com/


> (6) Is it reasonable to have two operating system XP and Win2K on one
> computer and boot them depending on circumstances? What would be the
> advantage of such setup?
>


Perfectly reasonable, if you've a need or desire for such a
configuration. The most common reasons that people create multi-boot
scenarios are:

1)They want to learn and experiment with different operating Systems

2) They develop software that needs to be compatibile with different
operating systems

3) They have a legacy application or hardware component that they
cannot (or don't want to) do without, but is not compatibile with the
newer OS.

Multibooting with Windows 2000 and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/administration/management/mltiboot.asp


> (7) I can afford 2 processors. I have never had two on any computer. I am
> wondering if anyone has any experience with that? What advantage can it give
> me? I do software development. Can I use the second processor
> programmatically or it is beyond my control?


If, as a software developer, you write your programs correctly, you'll
obviously be able to take advantage of the greater processing power
provided by two CPUs. I can't go into greater detail than that, as I'm
not a developer, and therefore lack the fundamental knowledge that you,
being a developer, should have.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

alexV wrote:
> (1) Is Win2K still supported by Microsoft?

Yes. Patches will still come out. Not sure when 2K reaches end of life,
anybody here know?

However, it seems that SP4 will be the last SP for 2K. MS will make a
security rollup-package, similar to the post-SP6a-package they made for NT4.

> (2) Is it more reliable OS as compared to XP? I would guess it is more
> secure since not too many users are out there and perhaps not too many
> hackers would be familiar with its internals.

2K is more mature than XP in the sense that XP introduces new features which
there are less experience with than any 2K feature. But if anything the age
of 2K means that hackers will have _more_ intimate knowledge of it's inner
workings than with XP.

> (3) What is the future of Win2K? I mean 4 years from now. Would it
> still be around?

On some level, probably. I am not sure if MS is still supporting it, though.

> (4) If I buy a CD with Win2K from Dell would it have all the security
> patches and current updates? How about SP2 and others?

Probably not. If this worries you, make your own installation CD with SP2
and other fixes slipstreamed into it.

> (5) Should I go for an XP instead? I want high security and
> reliability. Is XP secure? I do go many places on Internet. I roam. I
> do not get into controversial places but every time I check I have a
> few spies or viruses on hard disks.

If so, I doubt if migrating from 2K to XP is the most efficient step you can
take to increase security. I would suggest considering alternative browsers,
e-mail clients and (if applicable) IM clients than those that comes bundled
with the OS. Also make sure you have an up-to-date anti virus solution in
place, and a properly configured firewall (software or, preferably,
hardware).

> (6) Is it reasonable to have two operating system XP and Win2K on one
> computer and boot them depending on circumstances? What would be the
> advantage of such setup?

It is possible. The advantage would obviously be the option of running
either one, depending on circumstances. The drawbacks would include wasted
system resources (two OSs fills more of your hard drive than one,
obviously), and making system changes is more hassle since you will have to
make changes in two OSs rather than one.

> (7) I can afford 2 processors. I have never had two on any computer.
> I am wondering if anyone has any experience with that? What advantage
> can it give me? I do software development. Can I use the second
> processor programmatically or it is beyond my control? If it is
> beyond my control, will the operating system use it? Will it give me
> additional speed of execution? I do have computation intensive tasks.
> I need superior speed.

Both 2K Pro and XP Pro supports more than one CPU. I am not sure about XP
Home, but from the top of my head I think it supports two. Usage is more or
less out of your control. Usage basically falls into two categories:

1) You run more than one CPU intensive task. The tasks can then be spread
across the processors, and you will get better performance than with only
one CPU.

2) The applications you use have native support for Symmetric Multi
Processing (SMP). Without knowing excactly what applications you use I
really cannot say if this is the case for you.

If your processing needs is restricted to running one single CPU intensive
task at a time, and this task does not support SMP, multiple CPUs will give
you little, if any, performance boost.

> (8) I am thinking about buying a PC with Intel Xeon 3.0 GHz with 1MB
> L2 Cash and 800MHz FSB. Will it make a difference if I go for 3.4 GHz
> instead? In terms of speed? I would mean additional $600.00 or so.

This one I'll leave entirely up to you.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

> (1) Is Win2K still supported by Microsoft?
i dont exactly know, but i don't think so... even if it was still
supportet it won't be for long... microsoft is just stopping support for
windows xp rtm, for that purpose
>
> (2) Is it more reliable OS as compared to XP? I would guess it is more
> secure since not too many users are out there and perhaps not too many
> hackers would be familiar with its internals.
i would say xp with sp2 is more secure... ok, you have new bugs with it,
but thats normal to ms products +g+ if you secure your system properly
you can use xp, too!
>
> (3) What is the future of Win2K? I mean 4 years from now. Would it still be
> around?
no
>
> (4) If I buy a CD with Win2K from Dell would it have all the security
> patches and current updates? How about SP2 and others? I remember I had to
> reformat my hard disks three or four times over the past 4 years and every
> time on my three computers because of viruses and other disasters and every
> time I had to bring the OS up to date and it took days because the original
> CDs were so old.
even if there are no patches integrated to the cd, take a look at
http://nuhi.msfn.org/ - theres a program calles "nLite" with it's help
you can create a windows 2000 (or xp or 2003) setup-cd with integrated
service pack, integrated hotixes and integrated drivers... in addition
to that you can remove unused components (e.g. windows messenger and stuff)
>
> (5) Should I go for an XP instead? I want high security and reliability. Is
> XP secure? I do go many places on Internet. I roam. I do not get into
> controversial places but every time I check I have a few spies or viruses on
> hard disks.
xp is secure if you make it secure! that means: install a persident
scanner against viruses (i recommend anti-vir), stop all unused
services, DO NOT use a desktop firewall for portblocking from outside,
but use the internal windows xp sp2 firewall to block connection tries
from inside!
>
> (6) Is it reasonable to have two operating system XP and Win2K on one
> computer and boot them depending on circumstances? What would be the
> advantage of such setup?
that wouldn't give you any advantages i think... things you can do unter
2k can also be done under xp, most times even better!
>
> (7) I can afford 2 processors. I have never had two on any computer. I am
> wondering if anyone has any experience with that? What advantage can it give
> me? I do software development. Can I use the second processor
> programmatically or it is beyond my control? If it is beyond my control,
> will the operating system use it? Will it give me additional speed of
> execution? I do have computation intensive tasks. I need superior speed.
multiple processors give you advantages on multi threaded applications.
that means it would speed up apps that are splittet in more than one
process. it's also good if you do a lot of multitasking... you can
easily controll which processor shall process each app running... for
example: you run your software development on processor 1 (maybe
compiler, debugger, GUI - if there's one and so on) and on the other
processor you run another app that costs a lot of proccessing power
(e.g. seti ^_^)
>
> (8) I am thinking about buying a PC with Intel Xeon 3.0 GHz with 1MB L2 Cash
> and 800MHz FSB. Will it make a difference if I go for 3.4 GHz instead? In
> terms of speed? I would mean additional $600.00 or so.
erm no, i don't think that these $600.00 are worth the additional speed
>
>

i hope i could help you

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

>>(2) Is it more reliable OS as compared to XP? I would guess it is more
>>secure since not too many users are out there and perhaps not too many
>>hackers would be familiar with its internals.
>
>
> 2K is more mature than XP in the sense that XP introduces new features which
> there are less experience with than any 2K feature. But if anything the age
> of 2K means that hackers will have _more_ intimate knowledge of it's inner
> workings than with XP.
in addition to that you mustn't forgett that the source code of windows
2000 was partitionally become public

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"alexV" <alexV7623@comcast.net> wrote:

>I've got three computers with Win2K Pro on them. They work find but the
>booting is very slow. It seems the OS is huge and cumbersome. I have an XP
>laptop which boots in no time.
>
>My Dell workstation is 4 years old. When I bought it, it was state of the
>art.. I want to buy a new one, state of the art. I checked with DELL. They
>do not offer Win2K as an operating system anymore. Only XP. One has to buy
>it separately from them, I guess. It is $299.00. Thus I have to either order
>a PC with XP and then load the Win2K on it or call them and see if they
>would do it for me. I have the following questions, since I am not very
>knowledgeable in this.
>
>(1) Is Win2K still supported by Microsoft?

Yes. Mainstream support will be avaiable for Windows 2000
Professional until 30 June 2005.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycleconsumer.asp

>
>(2) Is it more reliable OS as compared to XP? I would guess it is more
>secure since not too many users are out there and perhaps not too many
>hackers would be familiar with its internals.

Windows 2000 uses the internal version desgination of Windows NT 5.0
and Windows XP uses Windows NT 5.1

To put it another way, Windows XP is in many aspects Windows 2000
Second Edition.

The internals etc. are very similar if not identical, except for the
new functionality added in XP as compared to 2000.

>
>(3) What is the future of Win2K? I mean 4 years from now. Would it still be
>around?

It will still be around, and there will probably be a number of people
still using it. I still encounter many people using Windows 95,
which is 9 years old, and Windows 2000 will be 8 years old in 2008.

How much support, if any, will be provided by Microsoft and by
hardware manufacturers for Windows 2000 in 2008 is an entirely
different question. I would suspect there will be very little, just
as there is very little support for Windows 95 with current hardware
or software.

>
>(4) If I buy a CD with Win2K from Dell would it have all the security
>patches and current updates? How about SP2 and others? I remember I had to
>reformat my hard disks three or four times over the past 4 years and every
>time on my three computers because of viruses and other disasters and every
>time I had to bring the OS up to date and it took days because the original
>CDs were so old.

Not necessarily. You would have to inquire at the time of purchase.

>
>(5) Should I go for an XP instead? I want high security and reliability. Is
>XP secure? I do go many places on Internet. I roam. I do not get into
>controversial places but every time I check I have a few spies or viruses on
>hard disks.

XP is as secure as 2000, and it is the version that is going to be
maintained and supported by Microsoft, at least for the next few
years.

>
>(6) Is it reasonable to have two operating system XP and Win2K on one
>computer and boot them depending on circumstances? What would be the
>advantage of such setup?

Yes it is feasible. Very little advantage unless you have a specific
need for Windows 2000 for things you cannot do in Windows XP (and I am
not aware of many such things). I have 3 versions of Windows on my
computer at present (XP, Me, and 98SE) and I use the other two very
rarely, just when I need to check something specific in one of those
versions of Windows. Otherwise it is XP all the way.


>
>(7) I can afford 2 processors. I have never had two on any computer. I am
>wondering if anyone has any experience with that? What advantage can it give
>me? I do software development. Can I use the second processor
>programmatically or it is beyond my control? If it is beyond my control,
>will the operating system use it? Will it give me additional speed of
>execution? I do have computation intensive tasks. I need superior speed.

Dual processors requires the Professional version of XP. The Home
version will ignore the second processor.

You can, depending on the programming language, design your
applications to detect and to utilize dual processors. Technical
advice on programming is beyond the scope of this newsgroup and you
should refer your performance related questions to a programming
newsgroup.


>
>(8) I am thinking about buying a PC with Intel Xeon 3.0 GHz with 1MB L2 Cash
>and 800MHz FSB. Will it make a difference if I go for 3.4 GHz instead? In
>terms of speed? I would mean additional $600.00 or so.
>

I am not familiar with the Xeon models. These are most often found in
servers running server operating systems such as Windows Server 2000
or Windows Server 2003. Stand-alone and network workstation computers
are most likely to use Pentium or AMD Athlon CPUs, and that is what
most people working with Windows XP will be familiar with.


>I would greatly appreciate any comments.
>
>Thanks.
>

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:3Medncvjg_PNaizcRVn-tg@comcast.com,
alexV <alexV7623@comcast.net> typed:

> Thus I have to either order a PC with XP and then load the
> Win2K on
> it or call them and see if they would do it for me. I have the
> following questions, since I am not very knowledgeable in this.
>
> (1) Is Win2K still supported by Microsoft?


Yes.


> (2) Is it more reliable OS as compared to XP?


Definitely not. The difference is small, but it's the other way
around. Windows XP is more reliable and stable.


> I would guess it is more
> secure since not too many users are out there and perhaps not
> too many
> hackers would be familiar with its internals.


No, not true. Windows XP is probably more secure since more
effort is being put into it to make it so.


> (3) What is the future of Win2K? I mean 4 years from now. Would
> it
> still be around?


Sure. Almost any number of years into the future, almost all
operating systems will still be around. But the older the
operating system, the fewer copies of it will still be running.
There aren't many people still running Windows 3.1, but there
undoubtedly are some.


> (4) If I buy a CD with Win2K from Dell would it have all the
> security
> patches and current updates?


Dell probably doesn't sell it. You might have to go to somewhere
like eBay for this. And you would then need to download the
latest patches.

I don't recommend this at all.


> How about SP2 and others? I remember I
> had to reformat my hard disks three or four times over the past
> 4
> years and every time on my three computers because of viruses
> and
> other disasters and every time I had to bring the OS up to date
> and
> it took days because the original CDs were so old.


Almost certainly you did not *have* to reformat. You chose to do
so, and in each case it was almost certainly overkill. It's a
rare situation when reformatting is necessary to recover from a
virus. And if you maintain your computer properly, you can reduce
the risk of getting a virus to a minimum. I've used almost all
versions of Windows since 3.0, never had a virus, and never
reformatted any of them.


> (5) Should I go for an XP instead?


Yes.


> I want high security and
> reliability. Is XP secure?


If be "secure" you mean *perfectly* secure, no of course not.
Such perfection doesn't exist. Security exposures do pop up. But
Microsoft generally does a very good job of quickly closing the
security loopholes as they appear.


> I do go many places on Internet. I roam. I
> do not get into controversial places but every time I check I
> have a
> few spies or viruses on hard disks.


Then you are not doing a good job of running anti-virus and
anti-spyware software and keeping them up to date. Neither
anti-virus nor anti-spyware programs are perfect, but you
certainly shouldn't be infected anywhere near every time you
check.


> (6) Is it reasonable to have two operating system XP and Win2K
> on one
> computer and boot them depending on circumstances?


It's possible, but completely unnecessary, in my view.


> What would be the
> advantage of such setup?


Few or none.


> (7) I can afford 2 processors. I have never had two on any
> computer.
> I am wondering if anyone has any experience with that? What
> advantage
> can it give me?


Greater speed, if you have software that supports it.


> I do software development. Can I use the second
> processor programmatically or it is beyond my control?


You can use it, but I can't provide any specifics.


> If it is
> beyond my control, will the operating system use it?


Yes, if the operating system is Windows 2000 or XP Professional.
No, if it's XP Home. And if the operating system can't use it (XP
Home), your applications (or any applications) can't either.


> Will it give me
> additional speed of execution?


Yes. See above.


> I do have computation intensive tasks.
> I need superior speed.
>
> (8) I am thinking about buying a PC with Intel Xeon 3.0 GHz
> with 1MB
> L2 Cash and 800MHz FSB. Will it make a difference if I go for
> 3.4 GHz
> instead? In terms of speed? I would mean additional $600.00 or
> so.


Yes, a faster processor will provide faster result, but be aware
that the processor is only one component that affects speed. It
depends on what apps you run, but going from 3.0GHz to 3.4GHz
will probably not often provide a dramatic difference.

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"alexV" <alexV7623@comcast.net> wrote in
news:3Medncvjg_PNaizcRVn-tg@comcast.com:

> I've got three computers with Win2K Pro on them. They work find but
> the booting is very slow. It seems the OS is huge and cumbersome. I
> have an XP laptop which boots in no time.
>
> My Dell workstation is 4 years old. When I bought it, it was state of
> the art.. I want to buy a new one, state of the art. I checked with
> DELL. They do not offer Win2K as an operating system anymore. Only XP.
> One has to buy it separately from them, I guess. It is $299.00. Thus I
> have to either order a PC with XP and then load the Win2K on it or
> call them and see if they would do it for me. I have the following
> questions, since I am not very knowledgeable in this.
>
> (1) Is Win2K still supported by Microsoft?
>
> (2) Is it more reliable OS as compared to XP? I would guess it is more
> secure since not too many users are out there and perhaps not too many
> hackers would be familiar with its internals.
>
> (3) What is the future of Win2K? I mean 4 years from now. Would it
> still be around?
>
> (4) If I buy a CD with Win2K from Dell would it have all the security
> patches and current updates? How about SP2 and others? I remember I
> had to reformat my hard disks three or four times over the past 4
> years and every time on my three computers because of viruses and
> other disasters and every time I had to bring the OS up to date and it
> took days because the original CDs were so old.
>
> (5) Should I go for an XP instead? I want high security and
> reliability. Is XP secure? I do go many places on Internet. I roam. I
> do not get into controversial places but every time I check I have a
> few spies or viruses on hard disks.
>

Q1,2,3,4,5, A:XP, the OS itself really has little to do with security. I
can open XP up to be vulnerable to every virus, spyware package, and DOS
attack on the planet. Or, I can lock it down where noting can get
in....or out. It's up to you. As for reliability, my XP systems can run
for months without re-booting.

<SNIP>
>
> (8) I am thinking about buying a PC with Intel Xeon 3.0 GHz with 1MB
> L2 Cash and 800MHz FSB. Will it make a difference if I go for 3.4 GHz
> instead? In terms of speed? I would mean additional $600.00 or so.
>

Here's a link to all kind's of articles about CPU's.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/ .

Particulary, about 3/4's down the page, there's an article entitled
'Massive Attack: Performance Tests of 14 Processors Priced at $200+'.


DanS





> I would greatly appreciate any comments.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>