Which do you like better?

[datdamkid]

Which do you like better win xp pro or win 2000 pro? I prefferally think win xp pro is better i use to like 2000 pro but i just switched back to it the other day and its horrible but thats what i think...but i switched back today

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: datdamkid
Which do you like better win xp pro or win 2000 pro? I prefferally think win xp pro is better i use to like 2000 pro but i just switched back to it the other day and its horrible but thats what i think...but i switched back today

Try search, this question is asked weekly (if not daily)
Bill

 

[blcjr]

Windows XP is largely Windows 2000 with a pretty face. Under the hood, there's not a lot of difference. I can imagine that if one gets used to the new interface, then going back to the old one might evoke the kind of reaction you've had. But I still administer many win2k systems, and thus still prefer the old interface (which I've restored on my laptop running XP Pro).

For what that's worth.

 

[Nothinman]

Windows XP is largely Windows 2000 with a pretty face. Under the hood, there's not a lot of difference

Actually I was reading today on MSDN and there's a lot of low-level kernel changes, not nearly as many as there were between NT 4 and 2000, but still a lot of little things that add up. Mostly they help large servers because the XP base is used in Win2K3, things like more granular locking, better memory management in large memory cases on IA64, NTFS updates, filesystem filter driver changes, Winsock API additions, etc.

 

[blcjr]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Windows XP is largely Windows 2000 with a pretty face. Under the hood, there's not a lot of difference

Actually I was reading today on MSDN and there's a lot of low-level kernel changes, not nearly as many as there were between NT 4 and 2000, but still a lot of little things that add up. Mostly they help large servers because the XP base is used in Win2K3, things like more granular locking, better memory management in large memory cases on IA64, NTFS updates, filesystem filter driver changes, Winsock API additions, etc.

Your post encouraged me to seek out more information on this, and I came up with this link.

I don't doubt that these are significant enhancements, but I doubt that they make a noticeable difference to performance at the workstation or individual level.

I should probably modify my original commently thusly: "From the standpoint of support and administration, XP is largely 2000 with a pretty face. Most support and administration tasks are still pretty much the same."

Thanks for posting.

 

[Nothinman]

Whether you notice them or not they're there and they could help or hurt many situations. The reduced lock contention and registry changes especially could be noticable on dual workstations, and in general the fact that XP boots twice as fast as 2K is enough for some people. I feel they put up the logon box way too early in many situations, it causes the thing to let you login before some network services are available so you either get stuck with "can't remap drive" errors or it just sits there waiting for the services to start negating the early logon anyway.

 

[CTho9305]

Components Removed

Several Windows 2000 components are removed in Windows XP and Windows Server 2003:
?

Posix subsystem

Interesting.

 

[drag]

Ms learned there leason by examining secure Linux distro's policies of services off/uninstalled by default.

The plethera of viruses and worms attacking aspects of the OS that most sub-average skilled admins never knew existed or knew what they do, much less actually using them realy made w2k look bad when it came to security.

You could train a monkey to admin most boxes, but you still need limited computer science knowledge and expertese to configure it correctly. So in w2k3 most stuff will be turned off or not included.

Also they figured out how to make more money off of this. Many features and services that would otherwise be on by default or aviable by default will cost extra. So it's a kind of a extention on w2k/w2k server/w2k advanced server multilevel marketing stuff were they disabled/left out/limited various aspects of the OS to create different pricing scemes.

It's not nesicarially a bad thing. People who don't use many optional services will save money and have more secure operating systems aviable, but it would just add that much more liscincing insanities so it's a kinda double-edged sword.

Now I am not to sure about this, but I think so.
I mean now you have:
Windows Server, Application Center, BizTalk Server, Commerce Server, Content Management Server, Exchange Server, Host Integration Server, Identity Integration Server, ISA Server, Live Communications Server, Operations Manager, SharePoint Portal Server, Small Business Server, Speech Server, SQL Server, Systems Management Server, Windows Small Business Server, Windows Storage Server.

I suppose these all have there different pricing stuff. I would like some clarification on it though. Seems kinda scitzophrenic.

 

[Nothinman]

Interesting.

Not really, hardly anyone used it. There was one commercial company that made a decent posix subsystem for NT and they replaced the default one when you installed theirs, all the free ones like cygwin don't rely on the posix subsystem either. It was used only slightly more than the OS/2 subsystem.