Windows2000 or WindowsXP?

I would like to say that I currently us XP professional on both of my machines,it gives you plenty of control especially the administration section,forget about using some type of program to install a new hard drive..all you have to do is go to admin section,right click on the new drive,format,partition or whatever else you want.I wouldnt trade my XP for nothing!!

Quote: Originally posted by paoliwd
XP is kind of slow, 2000 is annoying. It's a toss-up, I'd go with XP just because its newer. My XP is running on a NTFS file-system, I dont know how a fat32 file-system on XP runs.

Performance wise, NTFS is a bit slower since it has more overhead. The best thing about NTFS besides security is that you don't see scandisk if your computer is turned off unexpectably.

XP is kind of slow, 2000 is annoying. It's a toss-up, I'd go with XP just because its newer. My XP is running on a NTFS file-system, I dont know how a fat32 file-system on XP runs.

Misread you as zollet when I replied hence my comment bout waiting(sorryz) note to self need more then 4 hours sleep a night.

hmmm thats interesting about your version not reporting, I am wondering if that is because it is a corporate version. Or perhaps something specific in the australasian release of XP? probably the former.

I noticed I had trouble running O97 in XP as well, so we bought licenses for O2k.

I hate Roxio's software as well, moreso since they made it neccessary through incompatibility to upgrade. So my personal box I took back to 2k and ran adaptec 4.

We are running a small lab of 50 or so preinstalled XP machines here at the moment, they have been nothing but trouble so far. alot more instability with these compared to 2k. Seems odd, these are Acer P4 512 and AMD 512 boxes, pretty vanilla. go figure I guess. Network is vanilla, no LDAP, no novell, no surprises.

Maybe I should start considering dumb terminals

"yes hello citrix?... I have some money I need spent."

Several machines have been on XP for months. Most of those were P4's with Intel MB's and 3com NIC's. So no major problems there. The machines were home-brewed.

It is a network with a PDC but no roaming profiles. Most users have fixed machines so it wasn't necessary to setup roaming.

As far as compatibility, I don't upgrade anything from 2000. These are all upgrades, clean installs from 98. Lower speced machines get 2000. Those with higher specs get XP. It costs me the same whichever OS that I load.

I personally detest Roxio's burner software but I generally will load it on a users machine that doesn't know any better. Version 5 works fine. There are certainly some issues with software but the same as with 2000. Mostly with Office97 and the Palm software. Neither likes to run as anything but admin but both can be made to run.

Nothing in any logs about XP reporting anything.

thats good! but I'd wait still to see how the PC's mature with usage. Dreamweaver 4 problems took a month to eventuate, although they seem to be based on detecting the root site across a mapped drive.

I assume you are running a network with a PDC, have you seen any issues with roaming profile corruption? Or have you never used roaming profiles in your network? Not everyone does. If you do use roamers, and you have no corruption, can I ask what your procedure was?

Also you should get XP reporting on you on occasion, software installs, updates, and various other things (Multimedia also), check your server logs unless you arent concerned, personally I dont have the luxury as I'm in the security industry. It gets locked down. Period.

If you are having no stability issues, can I ask what your platforms are? We have multiple platforms here, intel/AMD variants, are your machines brand name oem's? (dell, gateway, HP) or generics?

If you are getting the same amount of compatibility issues, were the issues high in the first place encouraging the change to XP? or low?

more info please please! lol:D If i've done something wrong to receive this crap performance from XP, id want to remedy it.

PS did you have any issues with older adaptec software for burners? We had to purchase new Roxio licenses for ours.

I have not noticed any of the things that hagar mentioned. There is a slight performance hit running XP over 2000 but not very noticable on any machine that I have used. I have about the same number or errors on XP as 2000. I also use a corporate version of XP that doesn't have to go through the Product Activation routine. I have also had about the same amount of compatibiilty problems with XP as with 2000 but much better driver support. On the 20 or so machines that I have installed it on, it has only failed one time to not detect some hardware, an older HP laserjet.

If you are running 98, upgrade to XP. If you are running 2000, stick with 2000.

ok there are some technical considerations here when going with XP, which I have abandoned as an OS.

first is compatibility hardware AND software, example: if you are using a CD burner, and you are using older adaptec software to burn your CD's prepare to shell out for new burning software from roxio or nero to burn, the older software does not work with XP. Older hardware can make XP very unstable even if its disabled in profile.

XP is more memory/CPU intensive, I run 1gig of memory on an athlon 1.5ghz, and I see a dramatic visible improvement in 2k from XP. XP is slow, and it likes to think about what its doing before it does ANYTHING

If you use roaming profiles in a MS server environment, your 2k profiles can easily be munched by the XP machine when you log in. It just does not play well:-)

XP loves to report on you. And it does, frequently. I've had to alter my home proxy server to specifically block XP's attempts to report elements of my desktop PC to conxion servers & MS servers. I also locked it down at a local level with sygate pro(when I was using it)

And the best part, I've found the damn thing to be unstable. The BSOD has been replaced with the report this error to microsoft button click of death. Recoverable, but DAMN annoying. Especially as Dreamweaver 4 seemed to not work well with it over network shares:confused: , the BSOD is still around though, so dont fret:D

Compulsory registration of XP or have it die in 30 days. This part really annoyed me, forcing me to register it on MS's site. And not only that but as this was the OEM version I was using, it fingerprinted my system, so any hardware changes at all, made it die, forcing me to ring MS and get new codes to make it work with the new Hardware I purchased.

peronsonally, I use 2k with open office, gimp, dreamweaver now, but eventually I will probably migrate to mandrake/open office/gimp/dreamweaver on WINE.

XP is pretty, but i question the value of upgrading to it. Its not a step forward as an OS and offers no visible improvements apart from eye candy, which quickly gets tiring.

I agree with mjames, if you are happy with 2k, you have stability and functionality, absolutely do not trade it for XP's fluff and sparkly bits.

Also I hope you werent even considering XP Home... Id rather use an abacus.

My "theory" on this is if you are happy on Windows 2000, stick with it. If you have 9x/ME, you should have already upgraded to XP considering how many worlds better it is. XP is basically a better, more friendly version of 2K with a considerable amount of useful features and add-ons.

If you're formatting and can spare a few bucks, I recommend going to XP just because it has better driver and compatability than 2K. I'm currently running 2K with no problems, but as soon as I have to format or get a new computer, it'll be XP.

Yeah, I'll probably install RedHat on the other computer and use it as a local webserver. Windows2K for my desktop though.

xp is better than 2000, and yeah, i have to agree with the anti-mac stuff, i have never liked macs, win xp is my favorite os right now because it doesnt need to scandisk and defragment takes almost no time compared to say.... winME ...(run away from winME)

Quote: Originally posted by Suzanne
Silly people -- especially since I know that one or more of you prefer Unix.

Now there you go. It's Linux not Unix. That's like saying Lisa instead of Mac.

Silly people -- especially since I know that one or more of you prefer Unix.

LOL! That's a good one

I love Macs.. their great for target practice.

I hate MACs...

The two are quite similar in operation. XP has better driver support and looks better but it is slightly more resource hungry. It costs the same for 2K as it does XP, so I would probably go for XP. At work, I have some machines that are P3-450's. I usually install 2000 on them and XP on any config above it or a notebooks.

As far as Mac goes, it generally depends on how much money that you want to spend and what kind of programs you are running. There is more of a learning curve for PC-to-Mac users than the other way around.

Linux is great as far as a server goes, but for a desktop there are better options.

heh, I'd suggest Mac, too. Seriously, though, to answer your question, XP is a nicer os, from those who have upgraded. Why? It's closer to a Mac than ever...

I know all that but for my desktop I'm happy with Windows. The questions i XP or 2000. I've been running 2000 ever since it first came out so I'm used it but I know XP has more up to date features that might be cool to have.

Go for a Mac if possible, or use Linux
It's free and if there is a bug, its usually fixed quickly
I've had no problems with it
RedHat 8.0's BlueCurve system looks a lot like Mac OSX and it's not as hard to install. Plus it's free

If you are stuck with using Windows, use XP
As long as you get all the updates, it works pretty well

I'm not big on Windows 2000

If you want control, get Linux
If you want stability, get Linux, Mac, or XP
If you want compatability with older and brand new hardware, use 2000 or Linux
If you want to see some cool stuff, use Linux
If you like big sleazy corporations, use XP or 2000

Just MY opinion though