July 23rd, 2004 08:28 PM
Er, why would you say that? Window's 2000 is actually quite secure (if not THE most secure distribution of the Window's family) and is very stable. If anything, I wanna keep your curiosity alive
win 2000,is not secure as i thought it would be
July 23rd, 2004 08:36 PM
Ya they still do exist and ya that would be why they would call ME 2000 and XP way more secure...
July 23rd, 2004 08:41 PM
Calling Window's ME secure is like calling a homeless person for some money.
July 23rd, 2004 08:46 PM
I run Windows 2000 Pro and I love it. It doesn't crash doesn't do anything without my permission. However I have a buddy who is running the OS on identical hardware and he has a horrible time always crashing getting screwed by viruses and the like. Your box is only as secure as you make it. But I believe Windows 2000 Pro is a rather good OS probably the best MS has put out.
Yeah thats right........I said It!
Ultimately everyone will have their own opinion--this is mine.
July 23rd, 2004 08:54 PM
Couldn't agree more. My Win98 box is more secure than my friend's Redhat box (probably because he doesn't believe in physical security ) and it work's relatively well compared to the typical stereotype you hear/think of when you think of Win98. Same can be said about my OpenBSD system, although it has a good rep and my system only further's that one .
Your box is only as secure as you make it. But I believe Windows 2000 Pro is a rather good OS probably the best MS has put out.
July 23rd, 2004 10:07 PM
2000 and XP can be more secure than 98, Since they are based of NT and have some reasonable secureity features out of the box. But saving your connection password to any machine is sort of trusting that it can't be compromised. Theres a number of programs that are legit for displaying the passwords for connections on XP. One that comes to mind is 'behind the astrixs'. Progams like this only work if you choose to save the password. Cain and able on the other hand reveal more than just the saved connection password, cain cain pull quite a number of them from everything to the email passwords to the actual login password for the admin account on the machine.
July 23rd, 2004 10:55 PM
No doubt. It all is "in the eye of the beholder" though. Meaning it's all up the user, is the OS'es security.
2000 and XP can be more secure than 98, Since they are based of NT and have some reasonable secureity features out of the box.
July 24th, 2004 01:15 AM
My reply would be that Win95/98/98Se and ME are stand alone home computer OSes, they actually don't have any security. Anyone who can access the machine logs in with full Admin rights.
NT4/NT5(2K) and XP do have inbuilt security, as they are intended for commercial networks.
The comments about the user having to make the system secure are absolutely correct. The reason you have seen more "warez" for the home OSes is because they are far less secure in the first instance. And they were more common in the marketplace.
And whilst I am here I will have a "pop" at Spyder~ Actually Win98 and ME are equally insecure...........it is just that ME tends to be much more UNSTABLE, which is a bit different.
I am a great fan of Win2000, but I used to use NT4, which it was developed from. I have not had any problems with my XP box for over 18 months either for that matter.
However, as has been suggested, no OS is secure if you don't make it so, and anything can be hacked/cracked if you have a mind to do so.
just my thoughts
If you cannot do someone any good: don't do them any harm....
As long as you did this to one of these, the least of my little ones............you did it unto Me.
What profiteth a man if he gains the entire World at the expense of his immortal soul?
July 24th, 2004 09:25 AM
i truely agree with milatant win 2000 is a very very stable os , the best ive seen in the M$ family not even Xp gets any where near it , you know Xp is more aboutlooks and sale than win 2000, win 2000 is quite better , well thats my personal opion , cant want to see win 2003 in a box
thanx foe quenching my quiery
July 24th, 2004 09:33 AM
Why is XP better?
Oh man, the lists of comparisons just go on and on. XP isn't just a visual upgrade, the code has been rewritten from the ground up, whereas 2k was based on a mixture of 98 and NT4 source code. Everything from network protocols (it uses the FreeBSD IPstack) to system handling (gold and super thread handling), AMD and Intel specific processing instructions, multitask latency handling (things run faster when multi tasking in XP than in 2k).
I did a ton of self tests to see the differences in everything from speed to gaming, security to stability. I suprised myself, being an old win2k zealot. XP beat it in every single aspect, even RAM usage. (I can get windows XP running down to 30-40 megs of ram, sometimes less)
Of course, that's just my studies and research but I can bet plenty of others who have sat down to learn XP as good as any admin should, can tell you why 2003 or XP is a much better choice than 2k.