Question for people who own both W2K and Win XP

[Derango]

I Actualy own (bought and paid for) both XP pro and 2k Pro. I kinda sorta almost maybe prefer XP pro, but its really really close. XP Home however, I wouldn't touch.

 

[RVN]

I'm using Win2K on a laptop and a desktop, WinXP Home on another desktop and WinXP Pro on yet another desktop. (Also, 95 and 98 on two much older desktops.)

I really like the stability that NTFS had to offer first w/Win2K. XP Home uses more ram than 2K and XP Pro uses even more. I don't use the features that XP Pro has over XP Home. Both seem fine for me, no advantage of one over the other for what I do.

I was reluctant to install XP for six months, I scoffed "Fisher Price", I'm sticking w/ Win2K, but when the new Dell P4 2.0 GHz shipped with XP, I changed my mind. I like them both almost equally. I don't know why someone wouldn't "touch XP Home", there aren't enough differences to make me detest one or the other. XP Home is less expensive.

I would agree that XP is sexier than 2K but 2K is not sexy at all. XP is sexy! And therefore much more fun to tweak!



RVN

 

[Athlon4all]

<< Those of you that have XP Pro, how many of you actually use the features that make pro different than home? Home is often more suited to the casual user and will save you $75-100... >>

For the most part, there isn't much to lose in XP Pro. ut there are 2 key exceptions. One, as I've mentioned, is Home's inability to login to a Windows Server Domain. Secondly, XP Home lacks all the mobile features of 2000/XP Pro and I can't recommend Home for Laptop users.