to windowsXP or to windows2000

[Talonboy]

I was thinking do you guys think it would be a benifit to me to get windows2000 on my next machine. Reason i am asking is my major is computer science but im a totally newbie at all this program and what not but i have noticed that all the computers i use run 2000. I was going to start using it just to get use to using that OS. I have had windowsXP for a while now. Is there a big difference between them ?

[TripleRLtd]

I was thinking do you guys think it would be a benifit to me to get windows2000 on my next machine. Reason i am asking is my major is computer science but im a totally newbie at all this program and what not but i have noticed that all the computers i use run 2000. I was going to start using it just to get use to using that OS. I have had windowsXP for a while now. Is there a big difference between them ?Yeah there is a difference: XP is better, and the BESr os MS has put out to date.
But if you want to learn, try Win2000 Server and learn the ins and outs.

[silencio]

Windows XP has a new feature that allows your tv to come in better (evin if it's digital cable). I'd use XP.

[mystickschic]

Well I used Windows 2000 Professional for the past 2 years, and have been on XP for 3 months to try it out.... here's what I've noticed..... XP has tons of security features, and constant security fixes downloading, it freezes up frequently, has more process threads running at all times, and it is not set up for you to really go in and "tweak" your entire OS to your way of using it & you have to load a seperate java machine because it is the only OS windows didn't include the virtual java with.... Win 2000 Pro.... is set up more like a mixture of windows NT 4.0 and Windows 98 I find... it seemed to have taken the best of both OS's to suit you at personal levels and business... you have less process threads running due to your own set up on the system... I find it much easier to use, less complicated, and much faster processing wise... I can't wait to switch back this weekend.... XP has been a big disappointment...

[Gollo]

You can make xp look just like win2k with a few tweaks and you then get the benifit of having all the hardware support in xp (2k has terrible hardware support).

[CeeBee]

Get XP Pro. You will then have the right to downgrade to Win2000 and you can still switch to XP whenever you wish. Otherwise you would need a license for a future upgrade from 2K to XP.

[slgrieb]

XP Pro by all means. It runs older software better than W2K does, runs at least as reliably and will be supported much longer. It may be something like 2006 before MS replaces XP. W2K has already been replaced by XP.

[CeeBee]

XP Pro by all means. It runs older software better than W2K does..
Huh???? :confused: Obviously you haven't had to deal with enough applications to say that! Some stuff doesn't run at all, not even in compatibility mode, while in 2K it has no problem! And I'm not talking about some stupid games! While overall it might be better, I would still stick to Win2K for a while. Getting XP Pro license and downgrading is the smartest choice.

[Shalafi]

XP Pro by all means. It runs older software better than W2K does, runs at least as reliably and will be supported much longer. It may be something like 2006 before MS replaces XP. W2K has already been replaced by XP.

No disrespect, but I really must disagree with anyone who makes these kinds of statements.

Since it was mandated that we upgrade our NT/W2k network (400-500 users) to 100% XP, we have had MANY issues with 'older' software not running properly ('older' being anything from 2 to 13 yrs old - mostly 2-5 though), in addition to numerous issues with XP (seemingly) randomly making things crash that had ZERO issues running under W2k. This is not hardware related either. All of our XP machines are brand new IBM workstations, all of which have at least a 2.4ghz P4 with 512mb.

Its also a bit unfair that say that W2k has horrible hardware support. From my experience, nearly all (a huge majority at the least) the drivers I see are combined XP/W2k, not just XP drivers.

I very much like W2k, except that it seems to take a very long time to boot. XP DOES indeed have stability issues that W2k didnt have, but then again XP has ALOT of features that W2k doesnt have. They're both good, I just feel W2k is more stable from the XPeriences I have endured in the past 6 months...

I would say XP is great for home stuff, but in many ways I prefer W2k for the corporate desktop. The simple truth is that we have found more support in the enterprise world for W2k AT THIS TIME than for XP. I am speaking strictly about apps and services that the average consumer would never see.

My $.02.

[Shalafi]

Huh???? :confused: Obviously you haven't had to deal with enough applications to say that! Some stuff doesn't run at all, not even in compatibility mode, while in 2K it has no problem! And I'm not talking about some stupid games! While overall it might be better, I would still stick to Win2K for a while. Getting XP Pro license and downgrading is the smartest choice.


Couldnt agree more.

Before anyone flames CeeBee or myself for saying W2k is more stable, PLEASE - PLEASE keep in mind (as CeeBee pointed out) we ARE NOT talking about games and the typical crap you would find on a home user's machine (*cough* Gaator, Kazaa). Were talking about things that corporate users need on a daily basis, like Outlook, Lotus Notes, Visio, MS-Office, AutoCAD (for our engineers), Photoshop, and many other high end apps you wont find on your Grandmammy's PC. Yes, XP is a wonderful choice for her, but it isnt always a smart move on the corporate desktop, unless you have Windows 2003 Server and simply MUST have the latest version of Active Directory in native mode.

The bottom line is that XP does NOT have better support for 'legacy' apps (not games), despite what you may find on MS's website.

$.02

[Radical Dreamer]

I have to put my vote in for XP, just remove the unneeded services. It supports hardware better and seems to run more programs better (Dont flame, from my experience, it is better) but then again I dont run things that are 3-5 years old.

XP also has much better hardware support, not that 2k was bad or anything, but XP is just better. But thats just because its newer

[Ya_know]

Couldnt agree more.

Before anyone flames CeeBee or myself for saying W2k is more stable, PLEASE - PLEASE keep in mind (as CeeBee pointed out) we ARE NOT talking about games and the typical crap you would find on a home user's machine (*cough* Gaator, Kazaa). Were talking about things that corporate users need on a daily basis, like Outlook, Lotus Notes, Visio, MS-Office, AutoCAD (for our engineers), Photoshop, and many other high end apps you wont find on your Grandmammy's PC. Yes, XP is a wonderful choice for her, but it isnt always a smart move on the corporate desktop, unless you have Windows 2003 Server and simply MUST have the latest version of Active Directory in native mode.

The bottom line is that XP does NOT have better support for 'legacy' apps (not games), despite what you may find on MS's website.

$.02

AutoCAD seems to work much better under Windows XP then 2k. That's version 2000, 2002, and 2004 AutoCAD, Arcitectual Desktop, and Building Systems. I just install the apps, our CAD manager configures all of the tools within. Again, very stable, and I think he is growing to like XP more than I do...

[buksida]

just my experience so here goes:

Have XP pro at work and 2K pro at home. Hardware support wise i like XP, its quick and relatively easy at installing new hardware. Software wise I'd have to go with 2K, it has less errors with non M$ apps, a LOT more stable IMO. I find XP often point blankly refuses to run some apps (autoCAD being one) that run fine on 2K.

Performance wise both machines are of the same spec and while XP boots a lot faster when they're running I notice little difference. Using 2K for 2 years and XP for about 6 months, I dont think i'll be formatting my home beast with XP yet.

just my two cents worth so no matches or petrol please :rolleyes: