XP Home or XP Pro?

Good points Disc

We use only DELL Server, PCs and Laptops so I would agree that
hardware plays a factor (and of course overclocking)

My ASUS Mobo at home has never blue screened either. I havent tried
overclocking it yet so can comment on its stability in XP when its
pushed.

cheers

Harry


On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:03:57 GMT, "Disc" wrote:

It's the equipment. Some computer combinations work better with Win2K others
with WinXP. Here I find WinXP about the same or slightly stabler than Win2K
with almost no blue screening save when a machine gets overclocked! There
are computers here that have never blue screened or locked up with WinXP
since its beta days ever. The particular computer I'm typing this out from
did blue screen when overclocked. I stopped overcocking - no blue screens.

Disc

"Harry" wrote in message
.. .
| Hmmm Interesting. Cant say I have had either of those happen to me or
| anyone in our company (35 of us)
|
| Harry
|
| On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 9:26:17 -0400, Singha_lvr
| wrote:
|
| On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:36:59 -0400, Harry wrote
| (in message ):
|
| In my book XP is just as stable as 2000 ever was
|
| I've had user profiles become corrupted on XP quite a few times. That's
| something that I had not experienced on 2000. I've also had a few "hard
| freezes" on WinXP which didn't happen in Win2k. (Shell frozen: can't
even
| pull up task manager, although I believe the underlying OS was still
running
| ...not that it helped much.)
|
|

My experience is not opposite, but totally different, from yours. So, what
does that say about experience? I'm well aware of the 'once bitten, twice
shy' syndrome. Ask me about Gigabyte and Asus motherboards. No, don't
ask... But, then again, I've only had problems with the OS, when it was
usually my fault (hardware choices included).

I've found both Win2k AND XP to be very stable OS's. Sometimes, we have to
swallow our pride and realize that it could be the USER. I've, certainly,
been there.



--
You, probably, thought you weren't going to die, today...SURPRISE!"

-The main character in Postal 2
"Singha_lvr" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:36:59 -0400, Harry wrote
(in message ):

In my book XP is just as stable as 2000 ever was

I've had user profiles become corrupted on XP quite a few times. That's
something that I had not experienced on 2000. I've also had a few "hard
freezes" on WinXP which didn't happen in Win2k. (Shell frozen: can't even
pull up task manager, although I believe the underlying OS was still
running
...not that it helped much.)

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:28:46 -0400, Strontium wrote
(in message ):

I've found both Win2k AND XP to be very stable OS's. Sometimes, we have to
swallow our pride and realize that it could be the USER.

Or simply different hardware combinations.

I've seen XP extremely stable on 3rd party no-name hardware, I've also seen
it very UNSTABLE on different brands of no-name hardware.

I've also seen XP be extremely stable on some name brand systems (IBM,
Toshiba and Dell) as well as unstable on some name brand systems (Dell, and
even an HP laptop that couldn't keep XP running for more than a day due to
some poor video card implementation.)