Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

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?

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.

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

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?!

I do agree with you. I use both OS's XP. XP only because one Adobe's Premier Pro requires XP. The additional GUI features in XP are quite skimpy.
Further, because obvious reasons, that box is not allowed in the internet and the infamous SP2 will not be installed.

I myself use both windows 2000 and windows XP and have my own business and have clients that use both systems. I like both and they have advantages each, also windows XP builds on windows 2000 but XP has some features that windows 2000 does not, like the ability to run older programs and even dos programs, as some businesses still have programs that are dos, I do still like windows 2000 pro but there are cases that will require windows XP and I have not had a lot of problems with XP overall thank you for your time

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.

If XP Pro is not stable and fast, it is either the system that it is loaded on was not properly integrated, or it is imporperly configured. If properly setup, XP Pro is exttremely fast and stable.

As far as advantages, one of the greatest is software emulation mode, which enables the user to emulate all the way back to DOS, thus supporting old applications that would otherwise have to be either updated or retired. I have yet to find an old application that this mode will not support. Gratned, you may have to do some massaging to the emulation mode settings, but these are no different than the settings that owuld have to be set if you were loading the application on a true DOS machine.

2000 was a good operating system, but XP has further refined the kernel, and manages memory and hardware much better than 2K did.

Knowing exactly where you're coming from, I was hesitant on switching from Windows 2000 to XP myself. Believe it or not, the beefed up, pretty interface is what finally drew me in, but that's not important now. Security and stability is what Windows 2000 has always offered, and in fact I still install it on most client machines when the time comes. However, if done right, Windows XP has proven to me that it can *exceed* Windows 2000. Here's what you need to do - install a fresh copy of Windows XP (preferably professional), and immediately after, before bothering with your drivers, install Service Pack 2. A new purchase of Windows XP will have SP2 built in, which is even better. I upgraded to SP2 when it first came on on a spare computer of mine, and it was the least stable machine you've ever seen. However, if installed right and in the right order, Windows XP can achieve the same glamour and fame that Windows 2000 is noted for. Browse through www.maximumpc.com and you can find the exact order of when to install drivers, sp2, antivirus software, etc. to ensure a stable machine.