Re: Application protection
- From: "Todd J Heron" <todd_heron_no_spam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:43:02 -0400
XP has better support for hardware, because it's a general-use platform.
Windows Server 2003 has a newer, improved memory model, but as a
server-platform is less-compatible with market software. You can't fully
answer this question without discussing the quality of the hardware (and
associated drivers) it is running on. One could talk for days on this
subject. MS will tell you that XP and 2003 are more stable and robust than
2000.
--
Todd J Heron, MCSE
Windows Server 2003/2000/NT; CCA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This posting is provided "as is" with no warranties and confers no rights
"Marco Shaw" <marco@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ow7hwqLrFHA.940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Between XP Pro, 2000 Pro, and 2003 Workgroup(?), which version has the best
'memory protection'? I have desktop with 4GB of memory. I'm looking from
the perspective of multiple applications running on one system, and if one
crashed, which OS might best protect all the other apps running on the
system from going down also?
Using 2003 though, might be followed by support issues, so who wins between
XP and 2000, assuming 2003 was picked above?
Marco
.
- References:
- Application protection
- From: Marco Shaw
- Application protection
- Prev by Date: RE: Should I have an anti-virus?
- Next by Date: Re: W2k3 server slow to boot after installing SP1
- Previous by thread: Application protection
- Next by thread: Print jobs failing in 2003
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
