full-disclosure - Re: Save XP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200801310639.32748.prb@lava.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:39:32 -1000
From: Peter Besenbruch <prb@...a.net>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Save XP

On Wednesday 30 January 2008 08:32:36 scott wrote:
> Yes and MS quietly extended 98 for a few more years until they came out
> with 2000.A much better OS than ME at the time,IMHO.

While Windows 98 SE was the best of the 9x series, I don't think anyone really 
mourned its passing (I still use it under Qemu). XP would have been hands 
down a better system except for its obnoxious copy protection. Even so, the 
stability advantages XP yielded made it a better system.

Windows 2000 and ME were released the same year (2000 first, if I remember). 
2000 was seen as an update to NT4, not 98. 2000 was the first NT OS to 
include plug and play, but the conversion from 98 to 2000 required a full 
reinstall. XP let you upgrade your Windows 9x system directly, although that 
was probably not a good idea.

If there is a "best" Windows candidate, I would vote for Windows 2000. It was 
relatively light weight, stable, and it offered minimal copy protection.
-- 
Hawaiian Astronomical Society: http://www.hawastsoc.org
HAS Deepsky Atlas: http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/