From: H C <hccebay_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:03:04 -0800 (PST)

Hi, All.

To me, the Remote Desktop feature, that was added in
XP, is worth the upgrade alone. I use that feature
daily. It is faster, more stable, and better
integrated than any of the other remote-control apps I
have ever tested, and I have certainly tried most of
them. The speed really shines over a high-speed LAN,
where other solutions simply can't keep up.

My only regret is that they left it out of the Home
edition.

I did find that 2000 was slighly more stable than XP,
but only slightly. XP's improvements are worth it.

Soundman

--- roland <for_spam_at_gmx.de> wrote:
> > I've used XP and 2000 extensively. I had 2000 at
> home and moved to XP. At
> > work I still use 2000. I have found the stability
> and robustness of XP to
> > be superior to 2000. I have also found that it
> sports various improvements
> > including faster startup and shutdown and better
> compatibility with older
> > apps. I also appreciate some of the little
> touches, like the way that XP
> > has the ability to sync with time servers and its
> ability to natively handle
> > ZIP files. As soon as you go away from the hokey
> XP interface and go back
> > to "classic", everything is good.
> full ACK.
> don`t call Xp _that_ "worse" - it really _is_ the
> "best" (or at least the "fewer buggy")
> Microsoft OS. i heard a colleague at work say: damn
> 2000/XP - NT4 is the best! that
> colleage is known to be someone, who really doesn`t
> like to dig into new things and
> he judges about things, he doesn`t really know.
> furthermore, i heard the brother of a girlfriend
> say: naaahh, XP is crap. i get worms
> from the internet, when i use it. so i better stay
> with win98 - i`m safe there :D *hahaha*
>
> sure - some things changed in XP, maybe some things
> are even worse than in 2000 - but
> all things considered......
> regards
> roland
>
> ps:
> ooooppps - this is offtopic. let`s stop :D
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Maxwell" <rockbox_at_anti-spam.org>
> To: <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 4:32 PM
> Subject: XP vs. 2000 (was: Avos and strategy (was:
> avos))
>
>
> > Chris Holt wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:29:39 -0500, Fred Maxwell
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In other words, if
> > > > you bought a peripheral that worked with
> Windows 2000, then the
> > > > drivers should have been updated at no
> additional charge to you so
> > > > that it would work with Windows XP.
> >
> > {snip}
> >
> > > I agree with you, except I can't figure out why
> someone would want to
> > > downgrade their OS like that. ;-)
> >
> > I've used XP and 2000 extensively. I had 2000 at
> home and moved to XP. At
> > work I still use 2000. I have found the stability
> and robustness of XP to
> > be superior to 2000. I have also found that it
> sports various improvements
> > including faster startup and shutdown and better
> compatibility with older
> > apps. I also appreciate some of the little
> touches, like the way that XP
> > has the ability to sync with time servers and its
> ability to natively handle
> > ZIP files. As soon as you go away from the hokey
> XP interface and go back
> > to "classic", everything is good.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Fred Maxwell
> >
> >


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Received on 2003-12-16