Should i upgrade to XP Pro from 2000 SP3?

Ok i am currently using windows 2000 with service pack 3… i also have windows xp professional, and was thinking of upgrading to it.

i have heard multiple opinions about xp… it seems as if many people think that it is crap… but all that they say is that it is pretty much the same thing as 2000 with a few enhancements… so why not upgrade because there are a few enhancements

i think by now, most compatibility issues are resolved (as long as you have newer software)

pretty much all new computers ship with windows xp on it, so it cant be that bad??

plz post your opinions about windows xp

I think XP is one of the best MS os’s. But as you say it isn’t a lot different from 2k. The differences I have noticed is much more hardware support and better for gaming and ofcourse the new interface and as you have probably heard before it takes more system resources. On newer systems it doesn’t use a large portion of the resources but it’s more noticable on older systems. And it has some nice new features like system recovery.
so if:
You have a newer system and play a lot of advanced games or has any hw compatiblity issues. Uppgrade

If your system is older and you don’t need the new features. Don’t uppgrade

Hmmm though question. Althouh I know quite some ppl that prefer XP strongly above 2k, I can’t find a way to get XP to work I want.

A really good and strong point of XP is the immensive build-in hardware database. A wide of range of products is supported. Just hook up your camera, printer, scanner or whatsoever, and XP’ll probably support it (as long as you’ve got a decent brand).

2k Is way compacter (saves diskspace;)), is faster (although for me), has less crap in it (no text balloons popping around the screen), has better memory managment etc etc… yes 2k for me…

But I guess there’ll be enough ppl telling the same bout XP…

Only you can answer the question of whether or not to upgrade. If W2000 does everything you want, now and in the forseeable future, why change? There are only 2 possible reasons:

  1. Enhanced security. Windows XP Pro is more secure than W2000 but most home users are unlikely to notice the difference.
  2. The improved interface. It is more intuitive to use with better help. However, if you are already familiar with W2000, learning a new approach will initially slow you down.

The arguments for not upgrading are:

  1. Very occasionally Windows XP is a dog to install. Look at the MS forums, some systems don’t like XP and it causes the users a nightmare. There seems no way to tell whether your system will fall into this category.
  2. Support for older hardware. If you have anything running through the parallel port (apart from a printer) it is unlikely it will work under XP. This includes scanners, force feedback steering wheels etc.
  3. It uses more resources and so unless you have a modern (>1GHz) machine, it will be slower under XP.

If you want to try it and see, use Partition Magic and install as a second operating system. Dual boot for a while and once you have reached a decision on what to use, take the losing operating system off your machine.

im running windows 2000 with SP 3

see no reasons why i should upgrade to windows XP
running just fine under 2K

But how can you live without a green start button that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy? :confused: :slight_smile:

yeah xp surely does look fruiter (although you could change it back if you wanted to)

how is the startup time… it seems as if my win2k will not boot up in less than a min (even right after a format, with a p4 2.4 ghz)

my grandma’s 1ghz CELERON with xp home takes about 30 secs to boot

i think this is a strong argument for switching… if it is true??

I have similar system specs thenate, and I’d suggest staying with windows 2000 unless you need all that extra garbage that comes with windows xp. If you select and unselect the right options, you can have a quite small win2k install (about 650 mb). Windows 2000 also is quite a lot speedier and requires less ram.
If you do have winxp, id suggest disabling themes and uninstalling movie maker, media player 8, and messenger (use trillian) There’s also an annoying program running in the background of xp/2000 called messenger (not related to windows/msn messenger). This service is useless and can be used for advertising. Use Kazaa lite if you need kazaa. Use Office 2000… smaller and faster than Xp

It’s WinXP for me.

The first time u run winxp its full of crap, but u can make it smaller.
With your specs it should run great!
Another pro of WinXP is that you can change your win-look in whatever you want with WindowBlinds (So say goodby to that crappy green start-button :p). I like this theme.
Like Lowtrawler said, you could try WinXP and decide later.

Why I don’t like WinXP

  • There’s nothing Win XP can do which Win 2K can’t
  • It hogs memory (256 MB is less - yes)
  • App launch time is significantly longer than Win 2K
  • The skinning and textures hog resources
  • There are still bugs in it - my Explorer crashed more than once
  • System Restore is on by default and is verry bugging
  • Crappy Roxio built in even if I dont want it
  • Some bugs with IDE channel bus mastering
  • Control Pannel is overwhelming - Thankfully though the classic view is there
  • Windows Explorer has bugs in it. Drag and Drop sometimes lands in the wrong folder

I have switched back to Win 2K SP3. My experience with Win XP was bad.

Originally posted by TheNate04
[B]yeah xp surely does look fruiter (although you could change it back if you wanted to)

how is the startup time… it seems as if my win2k will not boot up in less than a min (even right after a format, with a p4 2.4 ghz)

my grandma’s 1ghz CELERON with xp home takes about 30 secs to boot

i think this is a strong argument for switching… if it is true?? [/B]

if you boot 25 times a day the boot time maybe importand.
but i boot 2 or 3 times a day, so boot times is not an issue for me.


XP Pro is more stable and faster than all the previous MS OSs. Although for some strange unexplained reasons, XP is not compatible w/ some users. To better define the term compatible, I’ll give a couple examples.

I have 2 AMD XP systems running WinXP Pro SP1, LAN using a 4 port switch sharing the net. Everything’s smooth and I’ve rarely, very very rarely encounter major error, freeze or crash.

I’ve setup an identical system for friend #1, who is sharing the DSL w/ a linksys dsl/cable router, and also has 2 G4 PowerBooks sharing that connection through an AirPort hub. Everything’s smooth.

On the other hand, WinXP Pro hates friend #2’s guts. He has an identical system as friend #1, using dial-up, but gets crashes every freaking day. I’m gonna go over and get the system back tomorrow and tell him to buy a dell.

Why you ask? Well, friend #1 doesn’t play much games. Only word processing, photo editing, and web surfing. Friend #2 is a game freak who can’t restriant himself from installing bootlegged games on his system everyday. So there you have it. If you fsck w/ you system, it’ll fsck you back. There a lot of details people who complains about XP Pro didn’t tell you about. I for one isn’t much of a gamer and both systems are for encoding divx, web design, and recording CDs, so I rarely have problems, and I highly recommand WinXP Pro.

If win 2000 does all that you ask then I see no reason to up grade unless you want to be more modern and enjoy the extras that XP provides :slight_smile:

Oh and XP is not junk…what ever 2000 can do XP can do better. Bottom line , no reason to upgrade unless you want the extras in XP…

Frankly speaking, I realy don’t see any ‘extras’ in XP apart from some jazzed up UI (which hogs RAM), some really novice-like menus enhancements, etc.

The only plus point of Win XP I noted was: Faster hibernation and resume. Apart from the jazz and UI graphic improvements (and a few not really required shell improvements) - WinXP is just a jazzed up version of Win2K.

So the bottom line is - if you need a powerful OS, without all the jazz - go for Win 2K. If you prefer more of UI jazz, go for XP. You may even want to check out Microsoft’s Windows comparison site at:

But as far as stability, etc go, Win2K is as good. As I said earlier there’s nothing that WinXP can do that Win2K can’t. It may be possible that WinXP comes with integrated utilities, but there are always (much better) third party options available.

Quite funny that MS comparison site… they tell us that 2k and XP both do support Kerberos. That’s true, however they changed the code of the Kerberos module a little so it isn’t compliant with the real Kerberos system (as used in UNIX, Linux etc) anymore…

2 Other things I like about XP:

  • low boot times (nice for my laptop, my home system is always on so for that I one I don’t care)
  • the picture viewer (but I’ve got ACDSee…)

I could not resit reviving this post…

As the time passed this question is still valid, and the answers will still be valid, but now the question is:

Should I upgrade to Vista from XP SP2?

Same answer



Obviously not wearing our sensible head today are we. Why on earth revive a 4 year old thread?
Have you nothing better to do than search out something that old.

The question you post is valid but deserves it’s own thread.