Windows XP vs Windows 2000 Pro

vbimport

#1

Which do you feel is better? Why? Personally, I’ve had a lot of issues with Windows XP and really like my 2k pro. Its more of a personal preference on my part but how bout the rest of you?


#2

They’re pretty much the same, if you can live without bells and whistles 2K is just as good as XP. My personal opinion is that 2000 isn’t as “bloated” as XP but that’s another story…
//Danne


#3

I completely agree with dizzy. XP requires to much tweaking, its a bit too high maintenance. XP lasted 1 month before 2K came back, and I haven’t looked back.


#4

I used to say the same thing. At first it was all too hard to bother with XP, pre-SP1 it was clunky and buggy and crashed a lot under load, and I stuck with 2000 on my music laptop. Now I am using XP; I made myself do it, because now updates are written for XP, then backported to 2000. Eventually support for 2000 will start tapering off. Better to make the leap forward now than down the track.

XP works fine, and I didn’t even need to tweak it that much. That laptop rarely connects to the Internet though, it’s really just for writing music. I use FreeBSD on my desktop at home.


#5

XP has some cool built in things like unzipping utility, picture/fax viewer, and more codecs by default, but as a pure work machine (non gaming) for like e-mail, web, document writing, 2000 is more efficient.


#6

Eventually support for 2000 will start tapering off.
Give it a while, the demand for 2K update/support is still quite high, here in Australia anyways, Hospitals, Airports and other big corporations still use the known and trusted Win 2KServer/Pro because it works. Until M$ prove that an upgrade to XP would a smooth, cheap yet beneficial transition for large corps, they’ll stick to 2K. If M$ tried to force transition they’d be shooting themselves in the foot, and putting a match to an already volatile barrel of gunpowder. My 2 Cents :slight_smile:


#7

support for home users will taper off. big places usually sign support contracts with microsoft.

if you arent gaming, you dont need xp


#8

One thing i’ve noticed many of you say is using both Windows XP and gaming in the same sentence. Is XP a better OS for gaming? I’ve heard that once before but I wounder why it is. Could anyone help clarfiy this for me? Thanks ahead of time if ya do.


#9


A bit old but there doesn’t seem to be a noticable difference.
//Danne


#10

I personally think 2000 pro is the best OS Microsoft has ever released, plus it is aimed at the power user from the start, however i would only recommend 2000 over XP if the user can use their machine properly.

@valture

2000 is fine for games.


#11

Its ok for current games, but older 9x game needs XP’s compatibility settings.

\\VH////
:slight_smile:


#12

I haven’t been able to find a single that runs on XP but doesn’t on 2000 (not that I play games that much but still), if there are compatibility issues they’re usually for both platforums and most popular games have a workaround (new game engine, patch etc).
//Danne


#13

I have a triple boot system…W98SE, W2K Pro, WXP Pro. CloneDVD and DVD Decrypter perform a tad better with WXP vs W2K.

WXP and XMEN
Rip time…12:06
Transcode time…13:18

W2K and XMEN
rip time…12:10
transcode time…13:35

I would expect the opposite since W2K is a more efficient OS. The new drivers in WXP could account for the speed improvement.


#14

we say the thing about games because out of the box, win2k was not ready for gaming. they have patches which change this.


#15

At enterprise level - you’d be surprised how many Windows NT screensavers I see on monitors in data centre control rooms. :wink: That is, those who don’t use UNIX or a flavour of OS/2 on their open systems. I rarely see any 2000 and never XP.