which is the best edition of windows

i am thinking of upgrading windows from 98se to 2000 .

anyone here using 2000 edition how is it ?

 

I hear win2000 is quite safe (I believe it would be even safer then xp) but no matter what you use, you still need some amount of information and workarounds to set it up right...

to be honest, I am quite familiar with xp now and at the moment I don't want anything else cause it is keeping me busy and I like the tweaking and setting up of it...I surely would miss all this if m$ would make *the perfect* operating system...

 

Many folks believe that Win2000 is the best OS that Microsoft has produced to date, one of those folks is respected pc security expert Steve Gibson, http://www.grc.com/

As I understand it, and someone correct me if I am wrong, Win2000 is actually the foundation upon which WinXP was built.

Acadia

 

Hi john_81, I would say Windows Server 2003 is the most secure as everything internet is off by default though it is not really for personal users but more for business environments.
XP SP2 is probably more secure than W2K as it now has many of the previous holes plugged in it's default settings. XP is based on the W2K core.
Acadia, I believe Steve Gibson's comments were about previous versions of XP and with that I would agree

 

I may be shunned, but I actually like Windows XP with SP2...

Don't ask me for advice on security, however a user of 98 for a while, it took me a while before I upgraded...

The best upgrade I've ever made. No more Illegal operation errors...

And you can restart explorer without restarting.

 

For the home user xp sp2 is without doubt the most secure OS to date. Hopefully Longhorn will even be more secure.



bigc

 

"Best" in your topic title is of course open to debate -- generally upgrading means gain some, lose some, and hopefully gain a lot more than you lost.

XP is pretty good for security if you keep it up to date, watch your settings, and keep in mind you'll certainly want third-party security software to plug Win's holes. On the other hand, if you've been around computers long enough that you're accustomed to using DOS, you can pretty well kiss that goodbye with any of the newer Win versions.

 

Hello everyone,

First of all I do NOT recommend upgrading - it will cause your system not to run as optimally as it should and you could have several program incompatibilities too, because you are upgrading from a Win9x based OS to an NT core - which means every driver for your system will be different.

That means - your gonna have to reinstall some of your software, and maybe some of your drivers - and it STILL wont function as optimally as it would with a clean install.

At least that's how it is for ME.

As for the OS choice - I used Win2k and would have stuck to it but certain audio cards seem to have problems with certain games on Win2k.

That said - if your an audiophile, Win2k is not the optimal playground.

If your PC is fairly old or has less than 256MB RAM, Win2k will prove itself to run better on your computer.

As far as security is concerned - both OS are supported and have patches for the latest bugs - so both are secure, though XP is more so with SP2.

However, if you have the latest Service Packs and patches for both OS, I feel Win2k's a bit more secure than XP.

Overall Win2k is an EXCELLENT OS - If only I didnt face those sound problems. I mean, music and movies and DVDs would play fine, but games had problems with EAX 2.0

Make your choice - Just make sure the OS you upgrade to is not WinMe or WinNT 4.0

And yes, Windows XP was built on 2000 - and XP Home Edition actually has a bit less features than 2000.

Regards,
Firecat

 

Uhm..can you name some which were not closed in Win2k? (as it is also compared with a patched XP) In comparison I could name quite a few holes which don't even exist by default in Win2k but in XP

 

Wow, there're so many OS out there. IMO Windows XP Professional is the ''best'', no OS is the BEST or completely perfect, just use the OS that you like the most.

 

I have the best of both worlds - dualbooting Windows XP Home along with Windows XP Pro here - REALLY!

 

The security of a system relies on it's user, and their common sense.

Let's just say Joe bought a pc with Sp2, Updated NAV 2005, and a decent firewall (many to choose from). Joe decides to look up pr0n. 1st Mistake. Then Joe decides that the flashing banner with the bouncy girl that displays "Free Sex Toolbar" is irresistible, so downloads the toolbar (and the dialer with it). 2nd mistake. Joe jumps on MSN and a worm says "Check out my free porn pic" (attachment) in an instant message. Joe clicks on it. Finally he gets fooled by a nice little nasty called "Stop Sign Antivirus"...and his other
antivirus/antispyware gets shut off...

Windows and perfect do not go in the same sentence...
Now, Joe's security has shredded to pieces, and is no longer good...

 

I'm NOT a respected pc security expert , but I have to agree with Steve Gibson: Win2000 is The Best.

 

XP for me!

 

Windows XP Professional SP2 really should be the Microsoft OS of choice for individual workstations. The reasons are many and vast, and also largely very nuanced and esoteric; however, it should be sufficient to say that Microsoft largely does make advances with subsequent code releases. There is only one case, IMHO, where Microsoft really took a step back with an OS release and that was Windows ME. Windows ME is substantially worse, IMHO, than Windows 98 SE because Microsoft was trying to rush out some features for the Win9x platform when, in reality, all of the core Microsoft developers knew that within a year or two the OS codebase would fully transition to the WinNT/2K/XP line. ME was a rush job and lacked internal developer enthusiasm since they knew it was a stopgap.

Truthfully, at the kernel and driver level, there are only nuanced differences between Windows 2000 and Windows XP (see, for example, Windows XP: Kernel Improvements Create a More Robust, Powerful, and Scalable OS by Mark Russinovich and David Solomon, of Sysinternals and Microsoft Windows Internals fame.) Steve Gibson is an intelligent man, but he largely makes a name for himself by sort of being a "raw sockets" gadfly. He had/has a great fear of the implementation of raw sockets in Windows. To many in the computer and information security industry, his alarmist claims where way overblown and somewhat misdirected. If you want, I can probably dig up a bunch of articles by, IMHO, more informed information security professionals that tear apart Steve Gibson and his claims. This debate used to be the rage for awhile back about 2 years ago, but I haven't followed it for a longtime since I made my mind up about Gibson's raw sockets claims long ago.

@TrBot: Security will always rely to some degree on the user and common sense. To say otherwise is naive or misleading. Security isn't about just technology, but also about end-user behavior... hence the rise of social engineering as a vector for attack. Good security practice will always involve some amount of continuing education and training, as well as a balancing of useability versus technology.

@Firecat: Why on earth would you dual-boot between XP Home and XP Pro?

@tBB: My guess is that probably 50-75% of these patched issues also affect Windows 2000 because so much of their core code is the same. Not to mention, but with the advent of SP2 every system exectuable has been recompiled with support for various compiler-level security technologies like stack guards and software DEP.

 

I like XP SP2 because of the added security features.

 

@Alec:

"Why on earth would you dual-boot between XP Home and XP Pro?"

-Call me insane, but I'm doing a bit of testing - I got stuck with legal licenses of both, and my brother needs his own OS b'coz of the variation of software that we use as primary for many things - so I gave him his own OS, and that is XP Pro.

Oh yeah, I have YET another XP Home license with me - my vendor was a generous guy .

Besides, it also helps to determine RAM requirement of both OS and I can also see if the extra services in Pro make any performance difference in benchmarks

Firecat

 

You are right but my guess is that probably 100% of the XP issues which affect also Win2k were fixed by a corresponding patch for Win2k.

 

Very true if the user is that uneducated in the use of the internet and did the things you mentioned any os will get hit. But XP has a better chance to repel some of the crap out there if it is fully up to date than other os's available. even if the user is doing dumb surfing.

bigc

 

And also encourage it lol.

....or downloading

bigc is cool.

Why not just ditch MS's traditional software and go Linux ..

 

You would be wrong, there are many patches and bugfixes that Microsoft has purposely chosen not to backtest on older operating systems. Yes, clearly the largest security issues will be patched, but many of these smaller issue will remain unpatched. Just as clearly, the recompilation of executables as I previously discussed has not (and most likely will not) occur for Win2000. Heck, just look at the SPs... the last one for Win2000 was SP4 issued back in Nov 2003. Yes, Microsoft has patched many problems with updates on Windows Update, yet still there are many problems for which they have not issued a full service pack. Besides, your entire point is rather specious, since for nearly every problem that you can point to that occurs in the original WinXP and not the original Win2000, I can probably point to about 5 problems that occured in the original Win2000 and not in the original WinXP. I would ask you to point out one of your "holes" in XP that has gone unpatched.

Look, Win2000 was a good OS. I used it for several years. But to act as if Microsoft has done nothing in the last 3-5 years to further their operating systems is ludicrous.

 

I have used about every version of linux available and I do not care for it. It has a long ways to go to become user friendly enough to even start to become any threat to windows as the leading home users OS.

bigc

 

No, what encourages people to download crap and to get hit is this mindset that if one only uses a "secure" OS like Linux or uses a "secure" browser like Firefox that one will be safe from all ills that can befall one's computer. That rhetoric is blatantly false and I challenge anyone to argue otherwise. Much having to do with information security has to do with the mindset and knowledge of the end-user, and not simply the technology one chooses.

Yes, Linux is usually affected to a lesser degree of malware because it's users are often more knowledgeable and more willing to make use of limited-privilege user accounts. Yes, Firefox and other alternative browsers are often somewhat more secure because of the absence of features like ActiveX. However, having said all of that that does not make either alternative technology choice a security panacea, far from it. Nor does it make Microsoft-technologies necessarily a poor choice when used by those who understand the various technologies and means of configuration.

Because many people have tons of Win32 apps and are comfortable using it. Linux is a decent OS, I won't argue that. I have used and do use Linux for specific tasks on ocassion, but I'm not going to be naive and act ignorant of the attractions of Windows on the desktop either.

 

Look, I gave my 2 cents to the discussion because one claimed that there are known unfixed security issues in Win2k which were patched in XP. This this is clearly not the case. Besides, I can't see where I should have mentioned that m$ didn't do anything in the last years or even, that Win2k is the better OS at all.

As Steve Gibson was mentioned, one of the 'holes' (and that means just a exploitable part which does in this form not exist by default in Win2k) is UPNP.

 

Also remember that Win2k's mainstream support ends on June 30 of this year, and that probbly means that only critical patches will be released after that...