Is Windows XP Better Compared to Windows 2K?

[Kenji4861]

My dad thought he would upgrade to WinXP from Win 2K.

He thinks it's a little bit smoother now that he did install it, but not that different compared to Win2K.

I don't know what to say. Other than the smoother letters, nice bubbly looking desktop, faster bootup,... what is better about WinXP compared to Win2K?

It probably has more support for games compared to Win2K, but that doesn't matter to him.

 

[nord1899]

WinXP is not that great of a change from Win2k. I basically tell my friends don't upgrade from one to the other unless you get WinXP for free. Just not worth the money.

WinXP has some nicer features. System Rollback is great if you install new drivers/software frequently, gives you the ability to roll back the system to before it was installed. This alone has saved my ass quite a few times. Lots of little UI changes which are only improvements if you use them. It does seem to be more stable and more compatible with games, which is most likely due to a greater driver base.

Its better, but not full retail price better.

 

[BennyD]

win2k == winxp - (playdough + games + bootspeed + security + activation)

 

[vi edit]

One problem that I've found with XP is that it's not up to par yet for many corporations. It doesn't have a lot of driver support yet...especially for printers. I've had a bitch of a time finding drivers for many of my printers. A lot of legacy software also fails to run properly on XP.

I think it's great for a home user, but it just doesn't have a lot of support yet. I had it installed on several machines, but I eventually switched them all back to Win2k.

 

[Amused]

I like XP over 2K... but I wouldn't upgrade if I didn't game as much as I do.

 

[BurnItDwn]

The only things i like about XP that 2K doesnt support are
1. Abillity to have yourself signed on with things running in the background, and then signing off, but leaving your session signed on so that your aps still run un the background when somebody else signs on and does their thing
2. Task manager says who opened what task

Everything else Win2k does just as good or better for me.

 

[RossMAN]

I ordered XP Pro for $39.95, installed it and love it.

It's been rock solid stable, easy to use esp if you have a digital camera, scanner or CD burner and it plays all games with no problems.

 

[vi edit]

There are three (noticable anyway) things that XP does that Win2k doesn't do that I miss in Win2k -

1. Remote desktop. Nice feature for remote controlling the PC. Quick, stable, and very useful.
2. Stacking similar applications in the taskbar. I like how it stacks all IE windows, explorer windows, ect.
3. Picture support. The picture viewer and printing support in XP is excellent IMHO. It's great for previewing pictures and manipulating how you'd like to print them.

 

[Zenmervolt]

I'm going to agree with everyone here that XP is a little better, but not the full retail price better. XP handles games and some legacy programs better than 2K did, and I like the faster bootup. Personally I don't like "Luna" at all, so I've got XP set up to look and sound just like 2K. If you get right down to it, Win 2K is really Win NT 5.0, and the kernal for XP is Win NT 5.1 IIRC.

ZV

 

[DJSnairdA]

I've got my WinXP looking like Win2k, and I haven't had a problem with my system since

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: Kenji4861
My dad thought he would upgrade to WinXP from Win 2K.

He thinks it's a little bit smoother now that he did install it, but not that different compared to Win2K.

I don't know what to say. Other than the smoother letters, nice bubbly looking desktop, faster bootup,... what is better about WinXP compared to Win2K?

It probably has more support for games compared to Win2K, but that doesn't matter to him.

NO. XP is nowhere as stable as 2K. I've installed it atleast 5 times on 4 different machines - three fresh installs, including one on a laptop, and two upgrades from W2K. Every installation has crashed the system invariably. W2K has never crashed for me on any desktop that I installed it on - it does give very infrequent BSODs on my Inspiron, though. The only justification that I could think of was that almost all the machines that I installed XP on were under 1.2Ghz, lowest being 450Mhz, with only one having 512MB RAM with most of the others having only 256MB. As far as I am concerned, I am never again installing XP by choice :disgust:

 

[LAUST]

for home use I see no problems, in the workplace it SUCKS HARD

The Admin tools are only in BETA form... the network places is terrible and makes it hard to read for users.

IMHO 10 year exp opinion, it's like VI said, it's NOT ready for the workplace.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
One problem that I've found with XP is that it's not up to par yet for many corporations. It doesn't have a lot of driver support yet...especially for printers. I've had a bitch of a time finding drivers for many of my printers. A lot of legacy software also fails to run properly on XP.

I think it's great for a home user, but it just doesn't have a lot of support yet. I had it installed on several machines, but I eventually switched them all back to Win2k.

win xp can use win2k drivers if all else fails.

 

[CraigRT]

Win2K is way better for me... had far less issues in 2000 than I have with XP.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: LAUST
for home use I see no problems, in the workplace it SUCKS HARD

The Admin tools are only in BETA form... the network places is terrible and makes it hard to read for users.

IMHO 10 year exp opinion, it's like VI said, it's NOT ready for the workplace.

thats funny cause all 50k desktops inside MS rolled winxp beta out a long time before it came out to the public.

 

[vi edit]

win xp can use win2k drivers if all else fails.

No, they can't. I've tried. Unsuccessfully.

 

[bulldawg]

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: Kenji4861
My dad thought he would upgrade to WinXP from Win 2K.

He thinks it's a little bit smoother now that he did install it, but not that different compared to Win2K.

I don't know what to say. Other than the smoother letters, nice bubbly looking desktop, faster bootup,... what is better about WinXP compared to Win2K?

It probably has more support for games compared to Win2K, but that doesn't matter to him.

NO. XP is nowhere as stable as 2K. I've installed it atleast 5 times on 4 different machines - three fresh installs, including one on a laptop, and two upgrades from W2K. Every installation has crashed the system invariably. W2K has never crashed for me on any desktop that I installed it on - it does give very infrequent BSODs on my Inspiron, though. The only justification that I could think of was that almost all the machines that I installed XP on were under 1.2Ghz, lowest being 450Mhz, with only one having 512MB RAM with most of the others having only 256MB. As far as I am concerned, I am never again installing XP by choice :disgust:

I'm sorry your experience was so bad, but for me, XP's stability and usability is so far beyond 2k's......