mailing list archives
Re: XP vs 2K
From: <youreallythoughtiwouldgiveyoumy-eh () yahoo com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:46:31 -0800 (PST)
Good Morning Everyone,
Ha! I'd like to add my "two cents" to this discussion.
with XP, I sometimes get the feeling like the OS (get
this) doesn't trust me to config the system the way
*I* want. For example, I decided one day to disable
some services (server, messenger, etc) for security,
the same ones recommended to disable on any win2k/xp
machine exposed to the internet. So, all's going good
and fine, until i reboot. Now, XP gives me
(intermittently) a BSOD at startup! I check the system
logs, and find that the crashes were from "server"
service not being able to startup. very weird....
I always feel that when i'm using XP, it's like I'm
given kiddie gloves to admin the operating system.
Some things to administer the system are almost buried
or take multiple steps to accomplish. Mind you, i've
only worked with XP Home (XP Lite?), sometimes it's
like i'm working with a copy of a Mac OS, pre OS9.
Everything's about appearance; administration comes
second. It also bothers me that the OS screams bloody
murder when I try to make changes to it (see above),
almost like it's saying "Hey! What the hell do YOU
think you're doing?!? Don't you know who wrote me?
Don't you trust them to make a secure and great
operating system?? Get yer damn hands out o' me!!
All i'm saying is that it bothers me that I can't have
the same amount of freedom to administer changes and
security on a machine running XP as I do on one
running win2k. Stranger than this though, is that not
everyone has had the some problems as I with XP. I can
find many people who gush about the features and how
much they like XP. Might specific hardware and
software effect XP's performance and compatibility
(see XP2, and http://isc.sans.org/xpsp2.php. The site
may be down, a problem with their server (I think), so
check back later, or see google's cache:
http://tinyurl.com/5boty.) I don't know, it's probably
just be me, XP might just have it out to ruin my day,
who can say....
I hope i didn't offend anyone w/ this post, I'm just
giving my story to this thread. I know many people
will probably agree with my take on XP, and anyone who
doesn't is just wrong. No, I'm joking, there's no way
one person or one opinion can have the upper hand in
this discussion, it's like any other OS debate: one's
got this, the other doesn't; one's got super-secret
loop-back encryption, the other doesn't; and it goes
--- Gregh <chows () ozemail com au> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geo" <georger () nls net>
To: <full-disclosure () lists netsys com>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] XP vs 2K
Curt, as XP can have its bells & whistles shut
down to perform as 2K can, your preference must
be security related. Would you be spcefic, or
should I just read every advisory again? This
perplexes me as M$ at least eventually patch XP
while 2K is entering its next life.
You don't have to be security oriented to not want
XP in the workplace.
There are plenty of other reasons. Install XP to
someplace other than C: and
the default directory name, delete boot.ini then
try and recover using the
Cd if you want to experience but one of them..
(you'll have to try the same
thing with W2K to understand the full meaning of
what I'm describing)
I'd like to know what it is you mean to be honest.
Never had to do that with W2K before but wiped XP
off C and reinstalled the same image of C as G
before. Then had to run a repair install directly
after that. Never a problem that wasn't fixed by
altering card entries in registry or easier -
updating to the next SP.
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.