to XP or not to XP

**Fubarian** · May 8th, 2002, 10:13 PM

Well, I'm on my happy 2k machine, and I own a legal copy of XP pro that I'm not using...at all. Question is, should I clean out the 2k and install the XP?

reasons not to :
1. XP under load is slower in everything, from 17%(?) to 68%
2. 2k loves me, and I know how to control it as if I wrote the OS
3. a lot of the things I use are more hidden in XP pro, which I hate and don't like digging for

reasons to convert :
1. Work might be going to XP comps
2. Tech place I work for uses XP
3. XP is the latest OS

Ideas? Questions? Comments? (and vote will ya?)

**AlienDyne** · May 9th, 2002, 12:33 AM

In such cases, I just save an image file of my current OS using Ghost, format and try the new one. I'm pretty sure though that you won't need to reload the old OS since WinXP really rocks.

**Antimatter** · May 9th, 2002, 01:42 AM

Just switched over 2 days ago on my work machine. I've gone for a 9x/XP dual boot system.
There were a few things that were starting to piss me off with 2k, mainly boot time. I have to do a lot of hardware swaps and the swap-over was taking to much time out of my day.
XP has had enough time to mature now.

**freddy** · May 9th, 2002, 02:17 AM

agree with alian ,,do a ghost.

i have been "toying" with xp now for about 3 months , and have a "ghost" of a complete loading , inc drivers and tweaks from <a href="http://www.tweakxp.com" target="_blank">www.tweakxp.com</a> , after u tweak it up u end up with a bloated 2k ,I thought my probs were processor power (i "only" had a duron 800) so when i installed a xp1600 i was expecting a improvement ,,,,,,,not a lot.

i keep going back to 2k ,,,i dont like little "hints" all the time from "bill" telling me this and that.

personal opinion.

**Outcoded** · May 9th, 2002, 03:53 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Antimatter:
Just switched over 2 days ago on my work machine. I've gone for a 9x/XP dual boot system.
There were a few things that were starting to piss me off with 2k, mainly boot time. I have to do a lot of hardware swaps and the swap-over was taking to much time out of my day.
XP has had enough time to mature now.<hr /></blockquote>I can see your point on the boot time, it doesn't really bother me that much. I test hardware in my bench machine that runs 98. 2K's uptime 4 months, 12 days, 16 hours, 12 minutes and 34, 35, 36...

I tried XP, and really didn't like it, if you're running 2K already, there's so few reasons to change.

My basic opinion of new versions of Windows is give 'em a year to mature and iron out the big problems.

**MacGyver** · May 9th, 2002, 05:07 AM

XP is nice and I haven't had any problems with it, but:

if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

You're basically asking us to justify upgrading just for the sake of upgrading. Anybody using W2K right now should stay put, but for people upgrading from Win9x or NT they should move to XP and skip W2K altogether. MS will be focusing it's future service packs on XP over the next five years, whereas W2K is already two-and-a-half years old.

**Fierce** · May 9th, 2002, 07:33 AM

Why not Dual-boot Win2K and XP??

(If this was already mentioned, I apologize, I skimmed thru the responses...

)

**delmer_1** · May 9th, 2002, 09:48 AM

I have been running XP since it was released...and i love it. IT took me about 2 weeks until i felt comfortable with it, but i don't think i could ever go back now. It seems to run faster than 2000, adding hardware is almost effortless, and the interface(my opinion) is much better once you start using it. I agree that the administrative stuff is hidden more and takes a little while to find, but you can always make shortcuts if you want to. XP has it fair share of problems, but seems to be every bit as stable as 2000. I can't say enough good about it.

**Stalemate** · May 9th, 2002, 10:32 AM

I've been using WinXP on a PII 350 (OC 466) with 768Mb RAM and it works fine. I had Win200 on that before and I can't see the speed difference in favor of Win2000 mentioned previously. It's the opposite in my case.

Why not wait until you get it at work, experiment with it and see if you like it before installing it at home?

Also, I access the administrative tools in WinXP by right-clicking "My Computer" and selecting "Manage", as I did with win2000. That's almost all I need right there, and I've created a shortcut to gpedit.msc on the desktop.

**D@ve** · May 9th, 2002, 10:35 AM

After seeing it on-site for the first time and having only a few hours to learn it I hated XP. The I installed it on to my Workstation and hated it even more.

Now...

I use it all the time, I feel comfortable using it and I can support it. It is quite different so there is a bit of a learning curve but I think it is a better product than 2k and '98

!

**Stryfe** · May 9th, 2002, 05:35 PM

I agree totally with MacGyver on this one.

If you ever have to format, though, just load up XP and I bet you'll like it... After you've changed the interface back to classic Windows, that is.

Also if you ever load up XP, be sure to at least try the new PowerToys for XP. MS has redone them since their first release. TweakUI for XP rocks...

**silencio** · May 9th, 2002, 07:38 PM

Aside from activation it's nice.

Man, I bet my machine would scream though with dos. I wonder what kind of resolution I could get with Doom.

**confus-ed** · May 9th, 2002, 08:53 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iateyourcat:
Aside from activation it's nice.
<hr /></blockquote>You don't have to activate xp pro just home?

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> reasons not to :
1. XP under load is slower in everything, from 17%(?) to 68% <hr /></blockquote>Not here. Memory hungry.....?

**silencio** · May 9th, 2002, 11:19 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by confus-ed:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iateyourcat:
Aside from activation it's nice.
<hr /></blockquote>You don't have to activate xp pro just home?

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> reasons not to :
1. XP under load is slower in everything, from 17%(?) to 68% <hr /></blockquote>Not here. Memory hungry.....?<hr /></blockquote>mmm, you have to activate XP Pro. The only XP you don't have to active is corp. My MSDN Universal subscription doesn't give me that version.

**EvilCabbage** · May 10th, 2002, 01:39 AM

Win2k is the choice Microsoft option as far as Im concerned. Was very, very unimpressed with XP.

Thread: to XP or not to XP

Thread Tools

Display

to XP or not to XP

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions