• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Any material advantage of WinXP over Win2K ?

G

gustavo

Senior member
To those who have had experimented with both OS´s....

Is there any material advantage of WinXP over Win2K ? If am a home user and would like to know the advantages in order to take the buying decision, I would like to have the latest but is it worthwhile ?

Thanks Gustavo.-
 
well I am using win2k 2 years now, and I am very satisfied. I tested winxp during the x-mas but I saw no any vital difference.

Except the fact the there are many new graphs and animation that I usually disable cause the just eat your memory and waste your time ( I have an xp1800 amd, and 512 RAM)

I had a bit more fast startup with winxp

BUT

(startup in not what a OS is meant to do) during the working time the system was a bit slower that is should be, many time couldn't shut it down, ( I used only xp-certified programs- and I had still compatibility problems) .

Anyway win2k === winXP in the gaming enviroment.
problems with games in win2k are the same in winxp. no difference.

win2k more stable ... then no reason to replace win2k with a new "win2k" version with more bugs?
it sounds stupid, and its not about the money the the licence costs, its about the STABILITY & OVERALL PERFORMANCE !
 
fwiw2, I stuck with W2K, after having tried XP myself. Nothing new that I could benefit from so no need to switch. I prefer W2K's stability and gaming performance as well.
 
-------Clear Type--------

I know this is a silly reason to choose one OS over another but I have an LCD monitor and the "Clear Type" feature in XP is awesome. I just love the fsck out of it. If I could figure out how to make it work in Win2000, I'd switch back.

2000 is a better OS than XP, IMHO.
 


<< -------Clear Type--------

I know this is a silly reason to choose one OS over another but I have an LCD monitor and the "Clear Type" feature in XP is awesome. I just love the fsck out of it. If I could figure out how to make it work in Win2000, I'd switch back.

2000 is a better OS than XP, IMHO. >>



Ahh! Forgot about cleartype. Definitly worth it if you've got a laptop or a LCD.
 
Jizzler - Hyperthreading is a P4 Xeon hardware thing... not at all related to WinXP

WinXP for the MOST PART is just Win2k with some fancy shmany, resource consuming, CPU cycle wasting gop piled on top.
Oh, and WinXP has WAY too much integrated crap for my liking. I'd much rather install my own programs than use all of MS's integrated crap.

Win2k is my choice by far.
 
I've actually encountered fewer serious GUI problems under WinXP than I did under Win2K on my own systems. I had very few serious errors under Win2K, but I've had none under WinXP except when I was deliberately testing to destruction by using bad device drivers. I believe a lot of the differences in the XPerience (sorry, couldn't resist) have to do with the quality of driver support for specific pieces of hardware.

I frankly think that WinXP is a more solid piece of software engineering, albeit with some fuzzy edges. Come to think of it, there were quite a few issues with Win2K on most of my systems right up until SP2 was applied. And I knew people who had fits over the service pack / IE upgrade two-step. 😀

There are a number of differences in the underpinnings that might or might not be advantageous to a given user. One WinXP advantage that I ran into recently was the difference in the implementation of the RUNAS feature. A friend had a notebook computer that he wanted to be able to let other users have for performing certain PLC programming functions around his publishing shop floor. In Win2K there was no way to be able to use RUNAS without requiring those users to go through the RUNAS dialog. In WinXP Professional RUNAS can be used with the /savecred switch so that those end users never have a clue what the password to that admin-level account is. So we switched his OS to WinXP. It's working like a champ. As an added bonus, it's better at running the ancient PLC programming software than Win2K was.

- Collin
 
Installing software and hardware very seldom (none that I remember) requires a reboot.

Installing the o/s is the easiest thing I have ever done (when it installs). No drivers to install. No rebooting.

The restore routine has saved me a few times.

I do like the automatic update feature.

Networking was the easiest thing for someone like me who is not knowledgeable in that area.

I can't say that it runs more software or runs it better, but setup is definetely a plus.

(I still have W2k installed, but have rarely gone back to it).
 
Well, I am sort of on both sides of this "war" - 2k vs XP. 2k I can admit had fewer compatibility issues since my Audigy actually worked right (!!!!) and also it wasn't so newbie friendly, and all this new GUI stuff XP has just takes up resources and is too newbie friendly that its scary.
Anyway, XP does have ClearType and I use an LCD panel as well. Also, when a program crashed in 2k, sometimes i had to reboot before i could run it again. In XP, if it crashed, I just closed it and restarted it and no reboot was required.
XP does reboot quicker, but it has Networking problems - I have problems trying to share a printer that is connect to a computer using XP. I have a router and XP seems to not like it too much.
To sum it all up - Windows is too buggy. If Linux was the more popular, newbie friendly OS that every software company made software for first, I would switch to Linux. Games have to be WINEd to run on Linux which is a pain, etc etc.
Getting back on track, I really don't know what is better - 2k or XP. I definitely would tell all 9x/NT/ME users to use 2k or XP, but which of the two is greater, I think it might be XP. This is what I have noticed:
XP seems to go slower than 2k, even slower if you have the new fancy GUI set up onto it. However, it is much more stable.
2k seems to be more compatible with things, but then again, if it isnt compatible with something it has a good chance of crashing the program.
I haven't had any Windows crashes on XP yet, but I have had a few on 2k and they all resulted in STOP errors (sort of like the NT version of the blue screen of death, and yes, STOP errors are blue screens of deaths for those of you who havent experienced them)

Well, if you want speed and compatibility go 2000. If you want ClearType (yay!) and stability, go XP.


P.S. I have been running XP since January 7th, right after I built my computer and then installed XP, and it hasn't been turned off yet. It's not that safe since I have to reboot for the security updates to install, but I am going to wait til my old man's birthday before shutting it down. 😛
 


<< EHobaX

<Joke>

Jobs is a retard </End of joke> >>



Haha. That was Chooco and N0c.

I think Michael Roberston is the retard! 🙂
 

I took a hard drive out of a one system and plug it in a totally different system.

different motherboard,
video card,
and sound card.

Booted up to the desktop and loaded all the drivers on its own, without the cd.
and was completely stable ( for three weeks now) and all the files intact.
all I did was push the power button.

I would like to see win 2000 do that.
 


<< Some little user interface things and a whole lot of security holes 🙂 >>


this guy hit the nail on the head.
xp = hackers paradise.
why? ie6 for one, outlook express for 2, svchost for 3, generic_host_processes32 forr 4
good reasons not to use xp.
 
I hate all this scared of hackers talk.

What are u hiding on your pc?

I do not have anything on my pc's that u can't get for free on the net.

hey? did u lock the doors? are the windows shut?

I got three words for ya,

Scared to death.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top