Windows 2000 or XP Pro?

[RaiseUp]

Sorry If this has been asked before but I was curious as to what is better.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: RaiseUp
Sorry If this has been asked before but I was curious as to what is better.

I believe that XP is the superior of the two, it's got numerous internal improvements (and some external, not all of which is loved like the LUNA interface). This is the general platform that will be supported longer of the two (2k desktop will probably go away quickly when Longhorn is released).

Bill

 

[peterskm]

I was reluctant to put XP on my PC when I built it 2 years ago, but I bit the bullet. I love it! Stable as hell. I hate the interface, though, so I switched it back to "Windows Classic."

 

[PanzerIV]

I was forced out of necessity to use it after vowing not to because customer's had it and I had to familiarize myself with it. I grew to love it quickly. You can disable the eye candy and get it for all intense and purposes to look like Win2K. Not to mention that coupled with BootVis the bootup time blows 2K out of the water! It's great

 

[xenos500]

anyone still fighting for 2kpro over XPpro is just plain stubborn. Its like those guys who still use NT4.0 because they think its still "the way to go".

 

[agentorange3]

xp pro is better.

 

[SpeedFreak03]

I think it matters about CPU speed. Like on my P3 500 with 256MB ram, XP Pro SP1a is a dog. But Win2K Pro SP4 runs sooooooo unbelievably fast on it, so I just run Win2K Pro. Now once I get my Barton2500 setup, XP Pro it will be

 

[anandfan]

If you reinstall your system often, Win 2000 might be a better way to go. At least you won't be on the phone explaining to Microsoft why you need to activate your XP Pro for the n'th time.

 

[lucky9]

as noted you can get rid of a lot of resource hogging fluff if you need more speed. i let it sit on my desk for almost a year. and only put it on after i purchased a new hard disk and plugged it in and unplugged my old system disk completely. i've been with it since, about a year, and just formatted my old system disk. it's great.

 

[F117NightHawk]

When you put XP on your 2 year old machine, did you have to flash the BIOS or did it work without a hitch? Also what OS did you have on it before? If it was Win98, did you upgrade from it or do a clean install?

Originally posted by: peterskm
I was reluctant to put XP on my PC when I built it 2 years ago, but I bit the bullet. I love it! Stable as hell. I hate the interface, though, so I switched it back to "Windows Classic."

 

[Schadenfroh]

well, with 2k, you will have less updates to install after you put SP4 on it, when compared to xp pro SP1

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: SpeedFreak03
I think it matters about CPU speed. Like on my P3 500 with 256MB ram, XP Pro SP1a is a dog. But Win2K Pro SP4 runs sooooooo unbelievably fast on it, so I just run Win2K Pro. Now once I get my Barton2500 setup, XP Pro it will be

I agree with this, get what your computer can handle. Oh and dont pay attention to the Microsoft Reccomended Minimum Requirements, here's what they really are!

800Mhz processor (based on personal experience, more is better though, get the most you can afford)
256MB memory (but 512MB is a lot faster, trust me)
7200 or 10000RPM hard drive (if you care about loading times, otherwise sit around for a while)

I think that's it!

-Por

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: xenos500
anyone still fighting for 2kpro over XPpro is just plain stubborn. Its like those guys who still use NT4.0 because they think its still "the way to go".

Or maybe they've just had more problems with XP than 2K and don't see any benefits?
That would be me by the way.

Going from NT4 to 2K was a given, 2K was a substantial upgrade from NT4 while XP offers me nothing that 2K doesn't.
So, in the end, I had more problems with XP than with 2K, and no benefits, so obviously it doesn't make any sense for me to upgrade, no?

Anyway, this topic has been beaten to death, just use whichever you like better.

 

[mooojojojo]

Here are the reasons I use XP Pro over 2K Pro.
1. the interface. People don't like it but it's not ugly as they suggest.
2. Support for 72x72 (or was it 64x64?) icons. Transparency in the icons.
3. the camera wizard. The Canon drivers that come with my camera just suck.
4. XP can run YZ Dock. And I like it a lot. See.
5. number of small things like the lack of background behind the icon captions, the grid lock for the icons etc.

 

[ITJunkie]

I think you will be well served either way BUT I would definitely let your hardware be the deciding factor. If it is a newer system with at least 256 of RAM you can run XP otherwise go with 2K....IMO.

 

[mooojojojo]

Oh. If you're going XP you should definitely have at least 256MB RAM (512MB highly reccomended) and ~800-1GHz CPU. But that's standard equipment these days

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: PorBleemo

Originally posted by: SpeedFreak03
I think it matters about CPU speed. Like on my P3 500 with 256MB ram, XP Pro SP1a is a dog. But Win2K Pro SP4 runs sooooooo unbelievably fast on it, so I just run Win2K Pro. Now once I get my Barton2500 setup, XP Pro it will be

I agree with this, get what your computer can handle. Oh and dont pay attention to the Microsoft Reccomended Minimum Requirements, here's what they really are!

800Mhz processor (based on personal experience, more is better though, get the most you can afford)
256MB memory (but 512MB is a lot faster, trust me)
7200 or 10000RPM hard drive (if you care about loading times, otherwise sit around for a while)

I think that's it!

-Por

Both OS is good. XP is have more newer drivers than Win2k. I personally Like Win2k better, because I'm use to it.

As for ram. I don't know how much of a different on a fast CPU system, but I found it doesn't make much different for my daily use on a 500mhz or 700mhz system with 256 Megs or 768 Megs or ram.

 

[redmist01]

2000 is ok.. But I like XP better.

 

[emjem]

Win2k does not support HyperThreading whereas XP does. And Microsoft said that they will not upgrade W2k for HT. Maybe it's thus safe to say the Microsoft will not upgrade Win2k for any other new technologies coming down the road.

So here I am now, planning to switch from W2k to XP.

 

[Abhi]

XP Pro.

 

[batmang]

xp pro with windows classic theme > win2k

bust out msconfig and turn off all the crap you dont need/want, then it will act more like win2k, with winxp benefits.

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: PorBleemo

Originally posted by: SpeedFreak03
I think it matters about CPU speed. Like on my P3 500 with 256MB ram, XP Pro SP1a is a dog. But Win2K Pro SP4 runs sooooooo unbelievably fast on it, so I just run Win2K Pro. Now once I get my Barton2500 setup, XP Pro it will be

I agree with this, get what your computer can handle. Oh and dont pay attention to the Microsoft Reccomended Minimum Requirements, here's what they really are!

800Mhz processor (based on personal experience, more is better though, get the most you can afford)
256MB memory (but 512MB is a lot faster, trust me)
7200 or 10000RPM hard drive (if you care about loading times, otherwise sit around for a while)

I think that's it!

-Por

Uhm, thats BS. I ran WinXP SP1 on a Celeron 600 with 192mb of PC100 and a 7200rpm HD and it ran just fine, even with the eye candy on.