No intention of starting a holy war or hate thread, just looking for some honest opinions.
After having tried WXP for a few months, and esp. after trying out SP2, i find myself thinking about going back to the W2K path.
For the record, SP2 does little for me but annoy me even more. My Internet connection runs through a Linux gateway (no firewall/windows worms problems), i've dumped IE a looong time ago (NS6/7-Firefox since 0.9), OE went along (NS6/7-Thunderbird since 0.8?), all my apps come from either legit sources or get scanned by several AV's long before they hit my box.
IMHO, WXP always felt more "intrusive" to me than W2K ever managed to be, and with SP2 it gets on my nerves REAL FAST.
Apart from the odd app or so that is WXP specific, and with wich i can live without (all from same software vendor, all with better non-XP-specific previous versions wich worked far better), i gained very little.
Now, i know that sticking to a 4+ year old OS is not good, but WXP and further SP's look even worse. So, what i need is some honest opinions on WHY WXP is better Moving from NT4 was based on need to do, NT4 had no AGP support, DX was stuck on 5, no USB, no PNP, no many things. So, what does WXP have that W2K doesnt that "could" make WXP a NEEDED upgrade?
Faster boot doesnt cut it, and AFA security goes, i learned how to take care of the tipical MS "holes and problems" back in the NT4 days (get a real firewall, get a software firewall, dump IE, dump OE, turn off any unnecessary services, etc etc...)
TIA for all opinions.
After having tried WXP for a few months, and esp. after trying out SP2, i find myself thinking about going back to the W2K path.
For the record, SP2 does little for me but annoy me even more. My Internet connection runs through a Linux gateway (no firewall/windows worms problems), i've dumped IE a looong time ago (NS6/7-Firefox since 0.9), OE went along (NS6/7-Thunderbird since 0.8?), all my apps come from either legit sources or get scanned by several AV's long before they hit my box.
IMHO, WXP always felt more "intrusive" to me than W2K ever managed to be, and with SP2 it gets on my nerves REAL FAST.
Apart from the odd app or so that is WXP specific, and with wich i can live without (all from same software vendor, all with better non-XP-specific previous versions wich worked far better), i gained very little.
Now, i know that sticking to a 4+ year old OS is not good, but WXP and further SP's look even worse. So, what i need is some honest opinions on WHY WXP is better Moving from NT4 was based on need to do, NT4 had no AGP support, DX was stuck on 5, no USB, no PNP, no many things. So, what does WXP have that W2K doesnt that "could" make WXP a NEEDED upgrade?
Faster boot doesnt cut it, and AFA security goes, i learned how to take care of the tipical MS "holes and problems" back in the NT4 days (get a real firewall, get a software firewall, dump IE, dump OE, turn off any unnecessary services, etc etc...)
TIA for all opinions.