China DOS Union

This is my own work, and it will soon be published in the magazine <Computer Applications Digest>. Since it contains a large number of pictures, and uploading pictures to this forum is really inconvenient, I can only put it on my own homepage. But during these days of the college entrance exams (the 7th-11th), the server has to be shut down, so please visit my homepage on the afternoon of the 11th and give me your comments. Thanks!

Sounds good, I'll take a look then. I feel it's not as good as winXP for personal use.

I installed a test version, and it feels pretty good: the WINXP interface with the speed of WIN2000. My machine is only a Celeron 300. It's just that installation is a bit too slow. And some hardware can't be recognized, such as my 8029 network card and 724 sound card.

Wouldn't WIN2003 run too slowly on a Celeron 300?

Windows 2003's hardware requirements aren't as high as people imagine, but memory is still best at 256M or above (all my machines have 512M or more, hehe). Its support for hardware isn't that great, but one thing to note is that its support for server devices is quite good! The stuff we normally use may not necessarily be well supported, after all it's meant for servers. For general use, I strongly recommend XP!!!

I personally like WIN2000 a bit more,
WINXP is too slow.

My website is accessible now. After reading the article, it'd be best if everyone could leave me a message, okay?

I'll go take a look next. Hehe...

Not bad, not bad. Very lengthy and flowing...
Since this machine doesn't have Office installed, I couldn't view the graphics. What a loss...
Some time earlier I also installed win2003 on another hard drive and experienced its power, ease of use, stability, and security...
Since I'm not a network administrator, I didn't do any testing of the service side...
I heard others comment that it's more stable and faster than win2000, and the interface is more gorgeous (moving toward XP).
In the end I still didn't switch to win2003, because I'm used to win2000. I use a lot of my software under win2000, and I haven't tested them in detail under win2003... And if I want to optimize win2003, I'd have to spend quite a while learning again.
Right now I don't run services, and I have no way to run services, so it's still better to use win2000, hehe...
Besides, my win2000 has also been upgraded to SP4, so it shouldn't be bad either.
Later on, when I buy a new computer next year, I may upgrade to win2003...

Windows Server 2003's hardware requirements are not very high, basically on par with 2000, and its compatibility is also good. It can be adjusted; if software can't run, it can be changed to a 2000 or 9X runtime environment, which is similar to XP. Of course, it is different from 2000 Professional—XP is the one that corresponds to that

I've admired your great work, it's fantastic!!!!!!