Anyone happy running Windows 2000?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TBerk
  • Start date Start date
T

TBerk

Well, of course it has been around for a long time and development on
bug fixes and security loopholes has stopped (to the best of my
knowledge) but w/ the recent turn of events in Vista vs XP and the
continued/extended support for XP rollouts on new systems I was
wondering about those who found no good reason to 'upgrade' to XP, let
alone Vista.

(This is germane, at least to _me_, at the moment because a project
has me working on systems running 95, 98SE, Win2k & XP at the moment.)

In a way it is somewhat satisfying to see the older OSes running
lickety-split on the current fast(er) hardware.


TBerk
 
TBerk said:
Well, of course it has been around for a long time and development on
bug fixes and security loopholes has stopped (to the best of my
knowledge) but w/ the recent turn of events in Vista vs XP and the
continued/extended support for XP rollouts on new systems I was
wondering about those who found no good reason to 'upgrade' to XP, let
alone Vista.

(This is germane, at least to _me_, at the moment because a project
has me working on systems running 95, 98SE, Win2k & XP at the moment.)

In a way it is somewhat satisfying to see the older OSes running
lickety-split on the current fast(er) hardware.


TBerk
Click to expand...

Yes, there are many W2K installations still in use. I recently passed
through a Customs and Immigration checkpoint and noticed that one unattended
station had the W2K screensaver logo floating around. Also, near me, a
hospital with 10,000 employees still has many W2K systems. On the other
hand, some of their diagnostic equipment has control apps that run on XP.

People - and organizations - generally don't buy computers to run a
particular OS. They buy them to run specific *applications*.

And this is of course the great marketing challenge; if there are no
compelling new applications that people absolutely have to run that can't
run on an older OS, why go to the expense and effort to move to a new OS?

-pk
 
I have it on 3 systems and love it , been on one for 6 yrs without being
re-installed . Only reason I have XP is for the SLI support for multiple
video cards .



TwiZted
 
TBerk said:
Well, of course it has been around for a long time and development on
bug fixes and security loopholes has stopped (to the best of my
knowledge) but w/ the recent turn of events in Vista vs XP and the
continued/extended support for XP rollouts on new systems I was
wondering about those who found no good reason to 'upgrade' to XP, let
alone Vista.

(This is germane, at least to _me_, at the moment because a project
has me working on systems running 95, 98SE, Win2k & XP at the moment.)

In a way it is somewhat satisfying to see the older OSes running
lickety-split on the current fast(er) hardware.
Click to expand...


Although I do use XP and Linux...
my operating system of choice is Win2k.


Why?

Simply because all the apps I use run on it just fine...
and since Win2k is lighter on resources that XP (and Vista)...it leaves more
resources
for the applications rather than the OS itself.

Also, since I do a lot of work for a non-profit organization
that gets a lot of donated p-II's and P-III's, I can easily keep machines
like that quite productive.
I am an authorized Microsoft refurbisher, so can re-certify a machine with
Win2k...
the license cost is just $5 !

As far as stability...
Win2k is excellent. Problems have been pretty close to zero.

As long as win2k licenses are available on the re-certification program...
I expect to keep using it.
 
I still run W2K AS on a desktop alongside my XP Tablet PC. I must say
that I am more satisfied with performance on 2K than XP ... still.
 
Back
Top