XP-How secure?? - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: XP-How secure??

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    89
    Originally posted here by Fakeboy


    Windows XP Professional
    Windows 2000 Professional
    Windows 2000 Home
    Windows XP Home
    Windows 98 S.E.
    Windows 95
    Windows NT
    Windows ME
    Windows 3.1

    If you were going to use Windows, that is how I would rank them.... In my opinion...
    Um, to my knowledge, there is no 2000 Home. Proffesional, Server, Adv. Server, but not Home.

    I haven't used XP Professional yet, so I can't judge it, but XP Home is definitely less secure than 2000.

    I'd put NT over 95, and 98, but just in terms of security (for everyday use, I still prefer 98).

    And ME should be at the bottom. Just plain crap.
    Just remember: Abraham Lincoln didn\'t die in vain. He died in Washington D.C.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,463
    Hmmm....

    Windows 2000 Adv Server
    Windows 2000 Pro
    Windows 98 SE
    Windows NT
    Windows XP (Home Or Pro)
    Windows ME
    Windows 3.1
    Windows 95

    XP is like having a 5 Million $ security system to your house, buty leaving the doors and windows open every night

  3. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    65
    Originally posted here by ac1dsp3ctrum
    XP is like having a 5 Million $ security system to your house, buty leaving the doors and windows open every night
    How do you figure? And how is 2000 less vulnerable than XP (or vice versa)? And how is XP home more vulneable than XP pro? l'd say an equal amount of exploits have been discovered on all of these versions.

    Remember, anything is hackable, being more or less secure is purely related to the number of people searching for those exploits.

    Originally posted here by ac1dsp3ctrum

    Windows 2000 Adv Server
    Windows 2000 Pro
    Windows 98 SE
    Windows NT
    Oh, and BTW, Windows 2000 is Windows NT (NT 5.0)

    --Sudo

  4. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    8

    Thumbs down XP Top!!!

    Hey

    In my experience Xp caused a lot of problems for a lot of people when it first came out and its a lot better to use 2k. Okay so i'm probably the only person that thinx this but when Xp first came out i had serious problems with it. Xp might be slightly more secure but it can be a bitch to use for newbies.
    I'm not saying your wrong its just my opinion.
    2k Home
    2k Professional
    Me
    Xp
    9x

    Keep rockin'

    Gavman

  5. #15
    The Iceman Cometh
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,210
    I'd go along with Acidspectrum's for the most part with a few little changes (disregarding any server lines, since, for the average person, even the average "computer guru", they are completely unnecessary)...

    Windows 2000 Pro
    Windows XP Pro
    Windows NT 4
    Windows XP Home
    Windows 98 SE
    Windows NT 3.5
    Windows for Workgroups 3.11
    Windows ME
    Windows 95

    I've been working with almost only NT-based and *nix computers for the past few years, so I have a pretty strong bias against 9x operating systems... Though, if you want secure, Windows 3.1 and 3.11 have very few virueses which affect them nowadays... everything now is being written for a 32-bit operating system.

    AJ

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    682
    Originally posted here by Sudo


    How do you figure? And how is 2000 less vulnerable than XP (or vice versa)? And how is XP home more vulneable than XP pro? l'd say an equal amount of exploits have been discovered on all of these versions.
    i agree up to a point but win2k is at sp2 (almost sp3)...which means a lot of holes have been plugged...xp is just too new...i probably won't even look at it for at least a year...imho...for software...especially m$ software...new=bad...and until they fix all the problems that all the new "features" they introduced have/will cause...i'm staying away...
    I used to be With IT. But then they changed what IT was. Now what I'm with isn't IT, and what's IT seems scary and weird." - Abe Simpson

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    89
    Originally posted here by Sudo




    Oh, and BTW, Windows 2000 is Windows NT (NT 5.0)

    --Sudo
    NT usually refers to NT 4.0, while NT 5.0 is Windows 2000.

    And for that matter, XP is built on NT, hence NTFS.
    Just remember: Abraham Lincoln didn\'t die in vain. He died in Washington D.C.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •