Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Hardware/Software - Win2k3 vs. WinXP
| User | Post |
kitty
Posts: 2116/2449 |
Originally posted by FreeDOS
Hmm... I've heard stories of Win2003 lasting for up to three months, but I haven't seen it last for more than ~35 days. . .
I have nearly 3 technical months uptime on WinXP right now, and I've surpassed 3 months where 1 month = 4 weeks (Basically, 3 Febs). So I STILL don't get what your argument is about stability or uptimes.
12wks 2days 21hrs 44mins 18secs (Current uptime) |
neotransotaku
Posts: 3915/4016 |
Originally posted by FreeDOS
Hmm... I\'ve heard stories of Win2003 lasting for up to three months, but I haven\'t seen it last for more than ~35 days. . .
If uptime is such an issue, than Windows AnyVersion is definately the wrong place to look for it. However, you should be better off using Win2003 anyway instead of XP.
Yes, I know windows any version is a bad place to look for uptime but I have a computer illiterate parent who can\'t work in any other OS unless I teach her... |
FreeDOS
Posts: 1597/1657 |
Hmm... I've heard stories of Win2003 lasting for up to three months, but I haven't seen it last for more than ~35 days. . .
If uptime is such an issue, than Windows AnyVersion is definately the wrong place to look for it. However, you should be better off using Win2003 anyway instead of XP. |
neotransotaku
Posts: 3910/4016 |
i found 2k3 to be more stable than XP, but XP for me has always been stable for me as well  doesn't hurt to have more stability. SP2 has never given me problems either but since one of my computers has had quite a bit of continuous uptime, I feel 2k3 would be better suited for it...my work computer at work ran non-stop all summer and that was nice. I've run winXP for 20 days straight one time but couldn't continue it.
at work, my computer was used as both a database and a web server; so would win2k3 be good to behave as a server vs. WinXP? The computer in question currently runs WinXP. |
kitty
Posts: 2112/2449 |
Issues of compatibility and stability don't apply, yet you want it because it's more stable?
I seriously don't understand why people say Windows XP is so unstable. I can't remember how long ago I last got a BSOD on Windows, but it's been well over a year, if not more.
If Windows isn't stable for you, it's a program you use or hardware you have that causes it. It's not Windows itself. My system uptime sure as hell convinces me of this. And I still play BF1942 quite a lot, and do a lot of other crap on my PC, including print almost every day and so forth.
Uptime: [3m 1d 3h 52m 21s] |
FreeDOS
Posts: 1595/1657 |
Well, if you use Windows Server 2003, Web Edition, you'll have an OS that takes the least disk space...
Yeah, it's a whole lot faster than XP by default (until you turn on the eye-candy stuff), and far more stable. In my experience, it's more stable than Windows 2000 (yes, I've gotten BSODs on 2003, but far fewer than Win2000).
Basically, if you use non-gay programs, you'll be fine. And by non-gay, I mean those that don't force you to buy a $1000-more-costly version because you're on a server-edition of Windows. Such applies to PowerQuest, Symantec, and AntiVir I think  |
neotransotaku
Posts: 3907/4016 |
So yeah... I like Win2k3, I've found it a hell of a lot more stable than XP...then again, I haven't run the same programs on both to see. So, the question is...will it be worth it to install Win2k3 over WinXP? Or is Win2k the better choice?
Issues of compatibility and stability don't apply because I've never run into such problem with any Microsoft OS. |
|
