XP-How secure??

[DarkGuardian]

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.

[ac1dsp3ctrum]

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

[Sudo]

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

[Gavman]

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

[avdven]

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

[zigar]

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...

[DarkGuardian]

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.