General discussion

Locked

Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

By afterwork123 ·
This is not really a new topic; however, I wanna know what do you think? and I also wanna know how many ppl still using windows 2000 or some statics that shows the comparison.

Based on my experience and my personal opinion, I prefer 2000 cuz it is stable( xp as well cuz is built on 2k core), not much problems on installing service packs (xp has lots of problems on sp2), less bugs?!(that's wat I feel cuz I experience more problem on xp), etc...


It is true that XP has more features on GUI, some extra features like windows media player (allow you to burns CD or DVD, encode movies files, etc.), a Remote Desktop (terminal service) built in, firewall, etc...

However, as a business user or even home user, do you think you really need them? may be terminal service? burning software? a better or more control on the GUI?

Tell me what you think? and if you know some statistics, just show us what do the majority prefer here

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

15 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

hmm..

by jkaras In reply to Windows 2000 vs. Windows ...

Well we normally use 2k here at work. Some in my group use XP. At home I use 2k and never have an issue. For the office I prefer 2k because it has all you need for a business that works well with multiple programs, XP doesnt do so well or at least we havent fully attempted. I was dead set against XP however lately I am noticing that it isnt that bad afterall. My initial stance was that it was the new ME.
Can anyone explain how in my office we had pictures from our monthly bowling game on cd and displayed the pictures on multiple 2k machines that looked horrible with a fuzzy look to it. We popped the disk into one of the pc's that had XP and it looked crystal clear beautiful and both that computer and the 2k had the exact same hardware just different OS?
What I do like about XP is that they fully protect the TCP/IP protocol from being overwritten or corrupted from ISPs. As far as I know you cant un-install it, can you? I did intially like the cookie reducer however it caused too many issues trying to go to just about any site.
I am thinking about using XP at home and seeing if it is good with gaming like 2k is. Any opinions? What I dont like is the auto push for updates with XP that I am hearing about. Granted I havent looked into it since I dont use XP but is that a good thing? If you build another system and reinstall the XP license on the new pc and wipe the old one of course isnt there a annoying amount of re-regeristing since it notices the system change?

Collapse -

Remote

by jbaker In reply to Windows 2000 vs. Windows ...

In terms of features for remote users, XP and Server 2003 rock. VPN access is simple to setup and maintain, and with Exchange 2003 I can keep even the remote users mail local, with them caching to the server for backup and archiving purposes.

The built in firewall is garbage, and I would not use it to secure any type of corporate data. It is more likely to disable needed software than to stop a malicious action.

As far as built in burning, it makes creating a data CD basically idiot proof. Even my most tech challenged users can now burn their own archives for whatever reason. Which is good, but could be a potential security hole, in regards to proprietary data.

Collapse -

Depends on the use

by JamesRL In reply to Windows 2000 vs. Windows ...

At home I have XP, as I do like some of the nifty features.

At work, I have Windows 2000, and it does all I need of an OS, plus its stable and runs faster on less hardware.

When my parents asked me to get them a machine for email and simple web surfing, I bought a refurbished workstation that came with Windows 2000 - I could have bought XP as its fast enough but in the end 2000 has all they will need and it will run faster than the same box with XP.

James

Collapse -

by jbaker In reply to Depends on the use

I must disagree, my XP boxes tend to manage their hardware a little better than the 2K boxes do. I have both on the network here at the office, and run XP at home.

XP also seems to be faster in my environment, but all of my machines have either 512 or 1GB RAM (except for the machines that are ready to be retired, or are supporting legacy equipment that MUST run on 9x or NT)

Collapse -

XP is definitely Bloatware!

by zetacon4 In reply to

You pay dearly for all those new bells and whistles by huge harddrive usage and as the last person said, you need serious RAM to make the OS run smoothly. That has always been one of the main considerations when moving from older versions of windows to the next newer version.
I'd like to see a OS that was lean and mean, using any available RAM sparingly and letting the bulk of it be available for applications.
At least with 2000 and XP, you get good support for hardware. XP still has video driver troubles in some cases. But, for the most part, it's a pretty good OS.

Collapse -

Small resources

by JamesRL In reply to

I bought a low end box for my parents - 1 Ghz PIII and 256 MB of RAM. With Windows 2000 Pro it pretty much zips along. XP with all its new functionality, would be happier with 512 MB of RAM. My previous home PC was a 700Mhz Processor with 320MB of RAM and it struggled at times with XP.

If you are using well established HW, ie stuff where there are easily available windows 2000 drivers for the hardware, and you don't need all the bells and whistles of XP, it makes sense to run lean and mean.

James

Collapse -

You sure?

by lastchip In reply to Small resources

Microsoft says you only need a 233MHz CPU and 128Mb of RAM.

Well, I suppose even they have a sense of humour!

Any machine with less than a 1Gig CPU and 256KB of RAM; forget it!

But to go back to the original question, for me W2K is by far the best system to date Microsoft has produced. It creates a balance between being stable and functional, but nowhere near as bloated as XP.

Perhaps it is lack of XP use on my part, but W2K also seems more configurable.

Let's face it, Microsoft's marketing machine wants you to believe you "must have" XP. I don't believe that.

Collapse -

Min Requirements

by jbaker In reply to You sure?

Actually,I have a Pentium Pro 180, with 128 MB RAM, and it runs XP Pro. It is by no stretch of the imagination fast, but it is stable. Since it is slower than the minimum requirements, I loaded it just to see if it would work. It took almost 6 hours to load, and takes almost ten minutes to boot, but what do you expect?

Collapse -

2K and XP pros and cons

by afterwork123 In reply to Windows 2000 vs. Windows ...

I think most ppl prefer 2K; but what about the pros and cons in 2k and XP?

My opinion:

2K has been out for almost 6 yrs and ppl still use it(i guess at least 60-70% ppl at work); it seems to be pretty stables and it has a good history compare with XP. Easy to use, to get help, to get support on the web, forum, etc...

(I personally like windows 98 as well, run very fast even on low end machine! and pretty stable as well)

With XP is kind of so-called "new"; getting support from web is ok; however, there are always nasty things happened like you cannot boot up your windows XP after messing up some of your hardware, for example, install a usb printer (based on my experience, my manager tried to install a usb printer on a xp laptop, and he ended up the laptop can't boot up the XP no more, and the solutions is parallel install XP again and backup everything, then reinstall everything again).

Well, I am not saying that it won't happen in the 2K; some nasty experience I got from 2k with a linksys usb wireless nic as well, it just didn't work on 2k.

XP does have it's good side; as I remember it runs less services compare with 2K; the desktop theme can be customized; other extra features mostly for gamers, or home users. However, I don't think I really "need" those features.

In some companies, I have bad experience on setting up 2k3 server with xp... but no problem on 2k server.

Since the life cycle for 2k support will be gone soon, it sounds true that we should move forward to "newer" or "better" technology. However, if there are no good reasons to change, why should we do so?!

Is it a matter of fact that 2k is gonna be retired soon, so we have to move to XP?

Is it a matter of fact that xp is the latest technology, then we have to upgrade?

As of today, I still can't think of any big difference or anything that using XP has significantly or extraordinary benefit over 2k.

what do you think?!

Collapse -

W2K & XP

by CG IT In reply to 2K and XP pros and cons

We run a mix. W2K, XP Pro. Our XP Pro workstations run pretty solid. Our W2K workstations run solid as well however we are up against the 3 year in O/S business cycle the same as the 6 month new hardware business cycle. I call it the "Latest and Greatest Craze" . Hardware geeks and the online gaming community are especially vunderable to this and the businesses that sell this stuff play into that.

Our problem is that we can not afford to upgrade software in a 3 year cycle or hardware more than a 5 year cycle. Something I don't think mfgs realize. We do know that defense contractors use a 3 year cycle [girlfriend works for one and gets the scoop] because the equipment isn't purchased by them but leased [as well as the O/Ss and application programs].

We like W2K and we like XP Pro. For the little guy [thats us] [and consumers because all our friends complain], having to buy new stuff all the time is just not affordable.

We buy and the $$ is considered capital expenditure and depreciated.

Back to Windows Forum
15 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums