New sys- Win2k or XP

[zrider]

Building new system and trying to decide which OS. Old 667 PIII sys using Win98SE. Tried ME but to unstable. Heard many horror stories about XP so leaning toward Win2k. Not a gamer but do a bit of audio/video editing. Any suggestions and/or do's and don't's would be greatly appreciated. Why does Win2k create (4) boot disks? Thanks in advance for all you guys help. past, present and future.

New Sys:
Asus P4S533
P4 1.6A
512MB Corsair PC2700 DDR CAS 2
Gainward ULTRA 650 XP (TI4200)
WD 40GB 7200 rpm
Toshiba SDM1502TA DVD
Plextor 40X24X12
Sony G400

 

[sohcrates]

NT4 had multiple boot disks, and so does win2k. BUT, it doens't matter, cause you can just boot off the win2k cd, no need to create boot disks.

i would go with win2k over xp...works great (and has been working great) for me for years now. XP really doesn't have that many cool extras that warrant an upgrade, especially when running on a slightly older system.

 

[spamsk8r]

Another vote for Windows 2000 here, I love it so much more than XP because XP is just too much frilly crap, I like the basic feel of windows 2000, plus it doesn't make my computer crash when I install aspi drivers like xp did

 

[Sleek]

2k is king.

 

[OaTmEaL]

2K is the best OS Microsoft has ever made (IMHO). It's the way to go. However, if you are a gamer, you may want to think about getting XP...it seems to me to have better compatability with older games and it is silghtly faster (my 3DMark in XP is about 300 points higher).

 

[leezard]

i'll go for Win2k...............is so so so stable........

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: Sleek
2k is king.

Ditto

 

[Shuja]

WIN 2K is so cool I luv it..

 

[Mem]

Looking at your PC specs you will have no problems with WinXP,those that say it`s not as stable as Win2k I say what planet are you on? I`ve never had any problems with XP & nor have my friends, infact some have upgraded to XP from 2K.

My opinion is there`s a new king in town called WinXP . Little tip, clean install of OS is always the best way.

 

[c0rv1d43]

I'd suggest taking a good hard look at the Hardware Compatibility List. Download the text version if you don't have the patience to deal with the dorky Web interface. There are some systems, even older ones, that are better supported by WinXP than by Win2K. My 500 MHz PIII notebook is much faster and more stable under WinXP than it was under Win2K SP2, for instance.

And WinXP is most definitely not just Win2K with a bunch of frilly crap added. At base it's a better OS. Given the first service pack, I think it'll tower over Win2K. At any rate, my experience with WinXP has been that it is a more responsive and well-thought-out OS than Win2K (on a wide variety of desktops and notebooks). BUT -- and this is an important exception -- if the device / driver support for your hardware is iffy, you're better off with Win2K. Win2K gets grouchy when you feed it a bad device driver, but WinXP goes all the way South.

Suggestion: Whichever way you go, learn the OS before you start tweaking it. So many people are barely finished loading Win2K or WinXP before they start asking other people (who know barely any more about the OS than the newbie) how to "tweak" these operating systems. These aren't your grandma's DOS-based Windows operating systems. Turning off (most) services is a seriously dumb thing to do. It doesn't gain you so much as 1% total in performance, and it stands every chance of crippling system functionality. /end rant

- Collin

 

[pac1085]

I've gotta agree with the win2k people. If I still had win2k i'd be running it, but I lost my copy so i'm stuck with xp.

 

[zrider]

Many thanks for all the input, looks like i can't lose either way. I got a pretty good deal on win2k and all the service packs so i think i'll go that way for now, can maybe try XP later. Everything shipped yesterday, so with any luck i should be able to fire this puppy up this weekend.

 

[Deskstar]

I have win2k on most machines and winXP on one for games. The Win XP is just too filled with misdirection to suit me. The photo management is nice in XP, however. Overall, I will stay with Win2k indefinitely.

 

[Rottie]

I just upgraded from Win98SE to W2K and had so many problems even with clean install until last March the problems go away I guess that the W2K is the most stable OS I ever had.

Go with Windows 2000.

 

[ShortFuze]

My Box = Win2k (most stable OS)
Family Box = XP (easy for my parents to understand)

 

[kingsrook7]

another vote for W2k

 

[Jace]

XP all the way. I just upgraded a 4th machine to XP and have to say, like the others, it is much faster than 2k and a lot more stable (if you download all the necessary updates to-date)

 

[Wellcky]

W2K baby!!!!!

 

[RVN]

Heard many horror stories about XP so leaning toward Win2k.

There were horror stories about Windows 2000 on this very forum when it was new. XP shares the same kernel as Windows 2000, but is further refined. It has greater support for newer hardware than Windows 2000. It has some welcome features in regard to the file management, naming convention and grouping. The GUI is a fabulous change over the "corporate look", it just feels "cooler" to use. I don't use the built in firewall but it's nice that it's included. Some people will use it. The feature whereby you can "rollback" drivers is nice. There is alot of new "stuff" added compared to the somewhat "basic" Windows 2000.

I've used Windows 2000 for two years now (and still do), but XP has finally won my heart over on my primary computer. I'll switch a couple of the older machines over to XP gradually.

XP uses more RAM than does Windows 2000 which can be an issue for some. And then there's product activation, which isn't as bad as everyone feared. I've changed out two hard drives completely and sometimes swap those around with no consequences.

I am very reluctant to change but glad I finally did. I was reluctant to change to Windows 2000 once. I was never reluctant to change ME!