> I was thinking that when I wrote this comment, but it's hard for me to > think of any specific reasons XP is better than W2K... Only a few > ideas come to mind: >
I sill run Pro2k on several machines, but on my primary communication PC I do use XP Pro. Largely to be familiar with it for clients questions. I find Win2k has a smaller RAM footprint, runs fast, and is reliable. But at some point it will no longer get the updates (less likely to need them <g>) we get today. I also run NT4 Server sp6a, Server 2000 and Server 2003, again just to be familiar with them, and how they all interact. That said, here is the one major benefit I find in running XP and Server 2003 over Win2k Pro/Server... For backup software that supports it, these newer OSes have Virtual Shadow-Copy Service (VSS), which allows me to back up files that are open (I use SyncBack, more on that below). On some PCs I use Norton Ghost v-9/10, or Norton Save & Restore to automatically burn weekly images of my boot HDD units, and retain the most recent 4 image sets (I limit the target file size to 4.0Gb, not 4.7Gb, as some DVD burning apps can't handle files over 4.0Gb). On my Servers I use r-tt.com's r-DriveImage, $50, and it works great unless you need to boot off the CD and restore to an SATA HDD. For that I use a separate machine to restore an SATA drive as their CD boot loader does not handle SATA, although in run-time under Windows it works fine burning images from SATA HDDs. Back to SyncBack and VSS, a personal license for SyncBack generously covers you for up to 5 PCs. For business use they want a license per PC (I think it is now $30 or $35/license, I have one per PC). To use VSS you must be running XP or 2003 (don't know about Vista), the source HDD must be a local unit, you must be running NTFS format (compressed or not), and VSS must be running as a service (some times it has to be set to run automatically). It is the cat's meow, and certainly makes XP/2003 a viable choice just to make certain I am getting solid backups of my .pst, quicken and quickbooks files as I rarely close those apps. Gil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Derek Kalweit > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:35 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [NF] Vista, all it's CRAPPED up to be > > > > > Vista will take a LONG time for mainstream adoption, just as Windows > > > XP did, but I think it'll be even longer this time. > > > I think you're right, as there is much less of a compelling reason to go > > from XP SP2 to Vista than there was from 2k to XP. > > I was thinking that when I wrote this comment, but it's hard for me to > think of any specific reasons XP is better than W2K... Only a few > ideas come to mind: > > o new 'look and feel'/themes > o Easy Alternate IP configuration for NIC's(useful for laptops) > o ClearType fonts > o Better handling of multiple monitors > o Able to run IE7(Microsoft's attempt at forcing late adopters > from W2K to XP) > > Quite a lackluster list, honestly... It makes me wonder why I have XP > installed at home and want it here at work... > > > -- > Derek > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
