Does XPro over any advantages over 2kPro? Are there heavy application conflicts with a Dreamweaver, Adobe products, or other executable programs?
2000Pro and XP-Pro
- Thread starter ceo2b
- Start date
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
basically the same OS
windows xp offers these features that 2k does not
1. Windows movie maker
2. built in ziping program
3. built in cdburner
4. stupid little picture crap
5. more nagware
6. n00b friendly
7. more bloatware that is not listed here
8. slightly more resource consuming
9. stupid user interface
10. very in your face
11. SP2 will offer more nagware and more in your face crapware
12. better compatablility with older games
13. Even more bloatware
Schadenfroh < uses windows xp pro and windows 2k at house
windows xp offers these features that 2k does not
1. Windows movie maker
2. built in ziping program
3. built in cdburner
4. stupid little picture crap
5. more nagware
6. n00b friendly
7. more bloatware that is not listed here
8. slightly more resource consuming
9. stupid user interface
10. very in your face
11. SP2 will offer more nagware and more in your face crapware
12. better compatablility with older games
13. Even more bloatware
Schadenfroh < uses windows xp pro and windows 2k at house
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,570
- 10,199
- 126
I think you forgot some of the bloatware and nagging...
(MSN Messenger, and prompting you to constantly get a .Net Passport account...)
(MSN Messenger, and prompting you to constantly get a .Net Passport account...)
You're thinking of Windows Messenger...MSN Messenger must be manually downloaded from the 'net and expressly installed.
With that said, I believe Windows Messenger no longer auto-launches after install since the release of the SP1 CDs. Something to do with an agreement they made with the DOJ or whatever.
Turn it off.
And MSN Messenger is installed by default. Just rename the folder and it goes away. I think I get a total of one promt when I install Windows XP for people about the .NET passport. No, I do not sign up for it. Windows XP is, for all intents and purposes, Windows 2000 with a new GUI. A more completely updated version of 2000, and with a few extras that you may or may not use. If you already have 2000, there is no real reason to spend more money to buy XP. If you are buying now, I would just get XP. It is newer (more up to date) likely to be supported longer (though Windows 2000 support will be around a long while too) and is better able to deal with newer and more hardware than 2000 is (though 2000 will also use most all but the most esoteric hardware in most cases just fine).
\Dan
As for application conflitcs, there should be little to non. Since the majority of Win32 software is developed on and for XP, with the remaining software developed on 2KPro.
With the number of 2k systems still in use, I'd imagine quite a bit of software is still developed with it in mind as well as XP.
imho the ONLY viable reason to get XP over win2K is if you have a CPU that supports hyperthreading, because XP handles that much better than 2K ...
also I heard XP has better power management for laptops (I will find that out mid july when I get my own lappy, so cant say anything about that)
imho 2K > XP simply because it has less bloat and crap I wont use and have to disable (some stuff aint that obveous to disable, do a forum search about how to disable the zipfile handling, okay I know how to disable a service, but still, a nice checkbox in some fancy gui would have been nice, hell, they like to put everything but the most common stuff in gui stuff, to get to the advanced usermanagement you have to type control.exe userpasswords2 in yer console .... in the console fer crying out loud, for something that just has an icon in win2K by default ... imho winXP does waaay to much information hiding, and hampers an effective in-depth management of your OS, when I'm on a winXP system I feel like I'm fighting with the Os instead of the OS helping me to Operate my System ... (the whole point it is supposedly designed for) imho MS has to offer two versions of their next OS, one for consumers that like bells whistles ... and gongs, and one for users that actually want to decide what they want to have in their OS of features ... or they could design a simple control application that lets you disable all stuff without going into registry hacking, or disabling services, because the average joe does not know how to do such stuff.
ohw, and I REALLY hate their bloody search assistant ... tho it's easy to shut off, it just gives me a bloody rage when I see it, I feel like i'm treated like a 5 year old when I see that, it's worse than clippy, and even more useless than ever before, because it does everything but bloody help u with your search ... (which you would think it's supposed to do cous it's called a search assistant)
but then again, as you have noticed, I'm quite biased, because I hate the whole winXP - lets do all the thinking for the users- idea, because it creates a whole next generation with a lower PC intellgence than the current AOL users, and guess who can go and fix their problems ...
also I heard XP has better power management for laptops (I will find that out mid july when I get my own lappy, so cant say anything about that)
imho 2K > XP simply because it has less bloat and crap I wont use and have to disable (some stuff aint that obveous to disable, do a forum search about how to disable the zipfile handling, okay I know how to disable a service, but still, a nice checkbox in some fancy gui would have been nice, hell, they like to put everything but the most common stuff in gui stuff, to get to the advanced usermanagement you have to type control.exe userpasswords2 in yer console .... in the console fer crying out loud, for something that just has an icon in win2K by default ... imho winXP does waaay to much information hiding, and hampers an effective in-depth management of your OS, when I'm on a winXP system I feel like I'm fighting with the Os instead of the OS helping me to Operate my System ... (the whole point it is supposedly designed for) imho MS has to offer two versions of their next OS, one for consumers that like bells whistles ... and gongs, and one for users that actually want to decide what they want to have in their OS of features ... or they could design a simple control application that lets you disable all stuff without going into registry hacking, or disabling services, because the average joe does not know how to do such stuff.
ohw, and I REALLY hate their bloody search assistant ... tho it's easy to shut off, it just gives me a bloody rage when I see it, I feel like i'm treated like a 5 year old when I see that, it's worse than clippy, and even more useless than ever before, because it does everything but bloody help u with your search ... (which you would think it's supposed to do cous it's called a search assistant)
but then again, as you have noticed, I'm quite biased, because I hate the whole winXP - lets do all the thinking for the users- idea, because it creates a whole next generation with a lower PC intellgence than the current AOL users, and guess who can go and fix their problems ...
I understand where your coming from Boran!
All that stuff might be ok for XP Home edition, but IMHO XP Pro is way to overbloated and loser friendly!
All that stuff might be ok for XP Home edition, but IMHO XP Pro is way to overbloated and loser friendly!
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
XP has a few nagging (nagware) problems, but I've never found its user friendliness to be an issue.
Windows 2000 costs practically the same as XP, so I'd go for XP if you were buying it now. I personally find XP to be an IMPROVEMENT over Windows 2000 as long as you turn off all the junk on there. Of coures, their is Product Activiation...
What's wrong with the built-in zip support?
Windows 2000 costs practically the same as XP, so I'd go for XP if you were buying it now. I personally find XP to be an IMPROVEMENT over Windows 2000 as long as you turn off all the junk on there. Of coures, their is Product Activiation...
What's wrong with the built-in zip support?
Again, that is incorrect. As I said before, MSN Messenger must be manually downloaded from the 'net and expressly installed. And it was designed to run side-by-side with Windows Messenger.
vasdrakken
Member
You forgot the major reason to get X(trme) P(roblems) you get wizard for any thing you want to fix weither or not it for hard been far easier and faster (in some cases possible) them... other reason you live giving up an extra 64MB of ramm to the OS to run services in the background you neither need nor want... tacky interface but you can turn it off... mostly.... you get more security holes!
I have to add this all software design to run on WinXP will run on Win2k SP3, the only reason it won't is because it is looking for services running under XP or it looking for windows query.
I have to add this all software design to run on WinXP will run on Win2k SP3, the only reason it won't is because it is looking for services running under XP or it looking for windows query.
it makes zipfiles open as folders for one, I dont want that, second, when you do a search it also searches all zipfiles, which makes a search soo much more slower (you could like this and even think this is an advantage, but I dont)
A short and less entertaining answer to the original question is NO.
If I could get all of the new desktops we order loaded with Win2K Pro instead of XP Pro I'd do it in a heartbeat.
If I could get all of the new desktops we order loaded with Win2K Pro instead of XP Pro I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I'm still torn on this issue myself...
I redid my wkstn a few months back w/ XPpro vs. 2000. The only reason I switched, and currently the only reason I'm questioning staying with it, is for cleartype subpixel rendering. There's a noticeable difference btw this and standard font smoothing. I just haven't decided whether it's worth the other headaches.
I imagine that given time, I could learn to tweak the XP install to the point that I was able to reach with 2k, but I _never_ experienced as much trouble with XP as I have w/ XP. It's a good thing XP boots up so much faster than 2000, because I'm having to reboot a lot more.
I redid my wkstn a few months back w/ XPpro vs. 2000. The only reason I switched, and currently the only reason I'm questioning staying with it, is for cleartype subpixel rendering. There's a noticeable difference btw this and standard font smoothing. I just haven't decided whether it's worth the other headaches.
I imagine that given time, I could learn to tweak the XP install to the point that I was able to reach with 2k, but I _never_ experienced as much trouble with XP as I have w/ XP. It's a good thing XP boots up so much faster than 2000, because I'm having to reboot a lot more.
yes windows 2000 pro does work with hyperthreading, but its not supposed to work as properly as windows xp with hyperthreading. it sees the 1 cpu as 2 physical cpu's rather than 1 virtual and 1 physical cpu as windows xp pro does. i run windows 2000 pro at home with a HT chip and notice no slow-down at all. granted i dont do a great deal of benchmarking and im sure im losing so benefits of the smt ability of xp but i hate windows xp with with a passion and would much rather lose a little bit of speed but have a stable os in windows 2000 so i dont have so many errors and headaches. XP = Xtra Problems!
There is so much FUD and BS in this thread it's unbelievable.
If you really think Windows 2000 is better than XP you haven't bothered to learn XP. You'll probably be using XP when longhorn comes out and then gripe about it instead. Get with the times or get left behind. It sounds like a bunch of old men in here bitching about those newfangled devices these youngsters come up with. It's pathetic and so is your self imposed ignorance.
.
If you really think Windows 2000 is better than XP you haven't bothered to learn XP. You'll probably be using XP when longhorn comes out and then gripe about it instead. Get with the times or get left behind. It sounds like a bunch of old men in here bitching about those newfangled devices these youngsters come up with. It's pathetic and so is your self imposed ignorance.
.
No one mention the build in BS Terminal Services that XP pro have that w2kpro don't have.
I tend to leave my pc on at home and RD to it from work and check my d/ls and check mail.
I tend to leave my pc on at home and RD to it from work and check my d/ls and check mail.
Originally posted by: HKSturboKID
No one mention the build in BS Terminal Services that XP pro have that w2kpro don't have.
I tend to leave my pc on at home and RD to it from work and check my d/ls and check mail.
You damn whipper snappers and your fancy schmancy RDP. Back when I was your age we paid extra for PCAnywhere that wrecked the Gina.dll and left us with Winlogon issues and we liked it!!
how about instead of insulting people you answer the original persons questions regarding the comparisons/advantages of 2k and xp? you jumping on your high horse and calling people pathetic and ignorant isnt bringing anything constructive to the thread. sorry but you're being an asshole and if you have something to bring to the discussion how about you try posting it instead of acting like a prick.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter