|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Where Henry and I do agree is not millenium. I use Win 2000 pro on multi
processor boxes all day every day and find it very stable. I haven't tried
XP so can't comment from experience so all I know is what I've read. It
seems that XP Pro requires a service pack for a number of reasons. If you
are interested I could dig out the facts. Further a number of vendors e.g.
AIQ will not support XP until the service pack arrives. From the benchmarks
I've seen, XP is generally more power hungry that 2000 pro and NT4. I can't
comment on the performance of these versus 98, but you can reasonably expect
a degradation in performance.
FWIW, I don't believe in being at the bleeding edge of operating systems
thus, have no plans to upgrade for some time to come.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Amand" <h.amand@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: which Windows?
> > Am planning to upgrade from Windows 98. Someone on this
> > list suggested upgrading to Windows 2000 instead of XP as
> > the former is more stable.
> >
> > My question : Windows 2000 or Windows Milleneum Edition?
>
> For sure not Millenium.
>
> W2K has alway's served me very good. But when people say that
> XP is not as stable, i have my own idea's.
>
> I had some compatability issues with some software (not trading
> related, it whas when installing a machine for a friend of mine),
> but on W2K there seem to be compatability issues aswell so
> i would not take that as "important".
>
> Some of the people i know have stepped over to XP and i must say,
> i hear very few complaints.
>
> Therefore, if i were to choose an operating system today, i would go
> for XP. It will have a longer life cycle anyway i guess because XP
> will be the platform to develop for if you are a developer. XP is
> for home and office machine's so i think the day's of W2K are
> "over".
>
> greetings
>
> Henry
>
>
>
|