Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Windows 2000 verses XP

0 helpful
10 replies

by eflow

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.
I haven't installed Windows XP because I am told it is very problemattic. What is the advantage of XP over 2000.

10 replies

by mack_shane

Are you talking about a network setup with servers or just a small workgroup of a few computers or just a standalone computer?

by eflow

I will be initially installing XP in a standalone in order to get an understanding of the OS.

by vawns

In terms of stability, it's on par with 2000 but in terms of usability it's much better. The start menu has been adapted so that you can quickly go to you most frequently used programs, there's enhanced plug and play adaptability, you can customise the way you log in. It really depends on what you want to use it for.

by nd_it

XP is just as reliable as 2000. I have migrated much of my users to XP, bypassing 2000. Plug and Play capability is better enhanced, and some of the new remote features are really handy when it comes to troubleshooting remote site users.

by lordinfidel

This is the problem with people. Upgrading to the latest and greatest because it is the latest and greatest.

Fine, XP has some extra added features. But those same features also present problems.

I decided to give XP a chance and tried it out.

Securing it was a nightmare. But then again, my definition of securing an OS and the joe blow user's definition are 2 very different terms.

The user interface is anything but intuitive. And I really despise the big crayola crayon kindergarten style graphics. (Same beef I have with RH 8 native x-windows, it looks like it was built for a 2 year old)

No end user (on a corp netwk) needs the ability to have remote access to their desktop. No corp user should be able to configure theirown personal firewall.

XP home is just like ME/98. The security sucks. Even if you install it on NTFS.

XP is just a money making scheme by M$ to force an OS down the consumers throat. And to "ease" us into the licensing scheme.

For me, 2K sp2 with hotfixes and my own special blend of secruity techniques will be as far as I go in the M$ world until .NET is fully tested and intergrated to the desktop OS.

There was no reason at all for M$ to develop XP except to make cash.

by jackofalltech

I couldn't agree more. I simply despise 'simple user' interfaces. They just get in my way. XP is the AOL of OSs, if it's simple enough for an idiot to use, then all the idiots of the world will use it and expect us to support them. I feel the same way about computers as I do about any technical discipline: If you are too lazy or stupid to at least read a book and figure it out on your own, then LEAVE IT ALONE!

Ralph

by ebilly

Have you been reading the security bullitens? There are more security concerns with XP than 2K!! Why? Because 2K has been around longer and M$ has had more time to secure it. A hole is found in XP everyday. Although this is my corporate advice. If for home use... go XP!

by lordinfidel

That I would of have bought tons of shares of M$.

But alas I did'nt and so i toil in the underbelly of computing.

(reminds me of the moview frequency and Yahoo)

This discussion is closed to new replies.