XP or 2000 pro?

XP, for many many reasons (firewall for one).

For about the same price, this is a no-brainer...

Go with XP Pro, shun XP Home like the plague ('cuz it is) and get the real thing.

Firewall, much faster load time, greater compatibility, even better stability, flexibility... and no, I don't work for Microsoft.

2000 is much more of a workstation OS, and even there, XP Pro is better. So yea, XP Pro all the way.

Re: XP or 2000 pro?


Neither. The best choice of OS is Linux, hands down. Linux is more powerful and more secure. Now it is almost as easy to use.

Mac OSX would be my second choice.

XP Pro is one of the only things that I don't hate about Microsoft. It runs beautifully, no compatibility issues with any hardware or software I own.

Re: XP or 2000 pro?


I can't fault you for that second choice, and yes Linux is very much a secure OS but as far as a personal desktop, Linux just doesn't have the software support that many home users need, and it is not standardized enough. As it is, those who use Linux have the time and desire to invest in using Linux. I personally would love a Linux workstation just so I can spend time learning it but I really don't see any practical uses for the home user beyond that and word-processing. Halo still hasn't come out in Linux flavor yet...

What gets me most about your two choices though is the philosophical disparity between the two:
--Apple has maintained security and stability in it's OSes by limiting the users ability to manipulate system functions. It has also maintained a tight hold on all hardware built for th Macs so your choices are very limited when it comes to upgrading (and the prices are astronomical compared to comparable hardware created for PC's where there is greater competition).
--Linux is the ultimate in transparent computing, allowing the user complete access to all parts of the OS and its darkest operations at all times (depending on priviledges of course).

And as far as security goes with Linux, there are security issues with Linux, but they are not as publicized, partly because they are fewer than comparable issues with MS, and partly because we all really enjoy seeing the big guy get his come-uppance. Take for instance the developer who built a backdoor into his distro that he could then take advantage of.

My point is that while OSX and Linux are both fine and secure OSes, if you want the flexibility and options, you get Windows. XP is a stable robust OS which performs well in an extremely wide variety of applications. And if you keep your AV definitions up-to-date and use a decent firewall (like ZoneAlarm or Sygate) and know what you're doing, you shouldn't have issues.

XP - it is the only one that will reach into the future........

I can't wait for longhorn. I hope it destroys Google.

Bill when you say XP you must mean XP Pro - well I hope so.

I would think that it would be both "Pro" and "Home". The only thing I am referring to is MS revamping there software and only supporting recent previous versions so that they can stay away from upgrade discounts as much as possible.

Craven- Don't even say that in a joke. If Google ever tanks, I am lost in cyberspace!

I mean it Phoenix. My biggest internet wish is for Google to be beaten in the upcoming search war. I am optimistic.

Google won't go away, but hopefully they will lose most of their market share. Longhorn can help.

please tell us more about longhorn - what's the url?

This is the Longhorn you are talking about ??

Yeah, Husker. "Longhorn" is the code name for the next generation version of Windows which Microsoft says will probably ship in 2006. There've already been alpha development previews from Microsoft. One thing Microsoft is actively developing is new search technology, and they'll be directly (and strongly) competing with Google. . .possibly even before Longhorn comes out.

Longhorn will probably take on search the same way IE took on Netscape.

Embedded search. ;-)

Eventually MS will have a search function that searches everything. your emails, files, folders and the net.

And together with Yahoo dumping Google Google's market share will go down.

2004 is going to be an interesting year for search engine marketers and search engine enthusiasts.

I'm hoping that Yahoo and Microsoft will decimate Google.

Craven, I am curious.

What is the reason for such a strong dislike of Google?

I have always considered Google the "underdog", and that distinction alone puts it high on my list - America needs more competition with the giants, not less, IMHO! Of course, Google is a giant now, but not as vertical or horizontal.................

HUH????

what about Longhorn has the possibility of destroying google?

unless MS incorporates some web crawler into each OS that creates it's own, on the box, search engine

Matt,

I respectfully disagree. Linux is a great choice for home users.
The image that Linux is hard to use and doesn't offer software for the home user is simply not true.

There is a large amount of high quality software for home users available and much of it works better than the Windows equivalents. I use Open Office professionally and personally. It does everything that I have ever needed to do with MS Word. Furthermore it saves in MS Word format which I use to send documents to clients.

Modern distributions like Redhat make Linux easy to install, learn and use. The installation process automatically detects and installs hardware and sets up a desktop for you. When you start up Linux after installation you are presented with a fully functional desktop (very much like window) with a load of preloaded software.

Now, there are advantages to using Microsoft. As you point out Microsoft's market dominance means that third party software companies focus on the Windows platform. If you want to play games you will certainly want a Windows computer.

However there are many more advantages to Linux.

I use Linux to read and write A2K posts, I do my finances, watch streaming video, edit photos, draw graphics, write documents (in MS Word format), see Shockwave animations.

(In fact, the only thing I can't do on Linux is play Empire Earth.)

There is much more flexibility with the Linux OS. I can configure my programs as I like and can control how things work together.

Linux programs are much more flexible with how I use them. I can take the output from one Linux program to use with other programs in ways that the designers wouldn't have ever thought of. This is very difficult to do on Windows.

Without question Linux is much more secure than Windows. This is partly because of the way the OS works. It is also due to the fact the MS has made some huge errors. Many of the viruses and spyware take advantage of holes that don't exist in Linux. MS opening up Macros to Word documents, for example. Why would you ever want the abilities to put a virus in a text document? What were they thinking?

And the current spate of spyware is a direct result of MS idiocy. If you want to fix this you need to know about "regedit". Linux does not have this program simply becuase this hidden magical registry does not exist. You can clean up changes to your evironment (due to an errant click or whatever) simply by cleaning up your directory.

I want to repeat that Linux is easy to use. A linux user does need to learn a few things about maintanance, but not much. Most people can easily grasp this, and the advantage is they won't need to learn about the registry. (Right now MS users need to either learn about the registry, or ignore it and accept what is in it).

So my point is this. Linux is a fine choice for you desktop machine. It will provide a wide variety of software some of which works better than the Windows variants. It will require a bit of extra knowledge but it will give you a lot more control over your system. It will give you a desktop that is more secure, more robust and more flexible.

I use Linux for my home computer and won't ever go back.

And notice, that I didn't even mention the price...