Any opinions? What I dont like is the auto push for updates with XP that I am hearing about. Granted I havent looked into it since I dont use XP but is that a good thing? If you build another system and reinstall the XP license on the new pc and wipe the old one of course isnt there a annoying amount of re-regeristing since it notices the system change?
In terms of features for remote users, XP and Server rock. VPN access is simple to setup and maintain, and with Exchange I can keep even the remote users mail local, with them caching to the server for backup and archiving purposes. The built in firewall is garbage, and I would not use it to secure any type of corporate data. It is more likely to disable needed software than to stop a malicious action. As far as built in burning, it makes creating a data CD basically idiot proof.
Even my most tech challenged users can now burn their own archives for whatever reason. Which is good, but could be a potential security hole, in regards to proprietary data.
At home I have XP, as I do like some of the nifty features. At work, I have Windows , and it does all I need of an OS, plus its stable and runs faster on less hardware.
When my parents asked me to get them a machine for email and simple web surfing, I bought a refurbished workstation that came with Windows - I could have bought XP as its fast enough but in the end has all they will need and it will run faster than the same box with XP. I must disagree, my XP boxes tend to manage their hardware a little better than the 2K boxes do. I have both on the network here at the office, and run XP at home. You pay dearly for all those new bells and whistles by huge harddrive usage and as the last person said, you need serious RAM to make the OS run smoothly.
That has always been one of the main considerations when moving from older versions of windows to the next newer version. I'd like to see a OS that was lean and mean, using any available RAM sparingly and letting the bulk of it be available for applications.
At least with and XP, you get good support for hardware. XP still has video driver troubles in some cases. But, for the most part, it's a pretty good OS. With Windows Pro it pretty much zips along. Free YouTube Downloader. IObit Uninstaller. Internet Download Manager. Advanced SystemCare Free. VLC Media Player. MacX YouTube Downloader. Microsoft Office YTD Video Downloader.
Adobe Photoshop CC. VirtualDJ Avast Free Security. WhatsApp Messenger. By joining Download. Free YouTube Downloader. IObit Uninstaller. Internet Download Manager. Advanced SystemCare Free. VLC Media Player. MacX YouTube Downloader. Microsoft Office YTD Video Downloader. Adobe Photoshop CC.
VirtualDJ SO why don't they both use the most up to date NT 5. Windows Professional is the client edition of Windows and Windows Server is the server edition. They both use the NT 5. The difference is the licensing and the server version has server features not present in WIndows Pro.
But they both have the same kernel version? I have always wondered about this, but have yet to find a a valid explanation? Are there any advanatges of the NT 5. Or are all improvements in the NT 5. If the NT 5. There must be improvements in the NT 5. Dec 9, 13, 0 0. Your statement is false, only some configs are on different kernels 64bit and server are on 5. Aug 2, 1, 0 0. Jun 22, 5, 0 0. It is true that Windows Professional and Windows Server versions all use the same kernel version right?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Oct 15, 12, 0 Erm, all he's asking is why Windows XP can not use kernel version 5. Is a kernel upgrade not possible financially? If not, why not? Would it not help anyway? Would XP's internals become incompatible with a new kernel? Kernel upgrades are routine for patches in Linux systems.
0コメント