Question for people who own both W2K and Win XP

[sean2002]

Which do you prefer and why ?

 

[zigCorsair]

I like XP Pro the best, but that's not the question... . 2k = serving environment, but I have only been able to do *more* in XP than I could in 2k. Note - I am just one person. I assume there are other people with the opposite experience, but I don't know much about those.

 

[tennesota]

My jury is still out, so the decision hasn't been made yet. I'm still using Win2K as my main OS on my primary machine, but I'm playing around with XP on a couple of other machines and I like a lot of what I've seen.

 

[SHADMW]

I normally use W2K Pro, but just installed Win XP Pro tonight on test machine. So far I like the new look of XP Pro, but there are some OS issues that I don't like at the moment. Might just need time to figure out how it works.

 

[Noriaki]

Win XP Home < Win2k Pro or WinXP Pro.

Between Win2k Pro and WinXP pro it's pretty much a toss up.

Might as well go with XP since it's newer...

Personally I don't feel it offers me much over WIn2000 and since I alreayd have a nice working Win2000 I dont' feel the need to shell out more $$$ for WinXP.

But if I had XP I'd probably use it.

 

[tomrizzo]

If I was building a server I would Win2k AS, but since I love to play games as much as I work, I have to use XP. But I was wondering has anyhere used Win2k DataCenter, a friend of mine gave me a legit copy, and I am thinking about using it, for a database server.

 

[Carbo]

I recently made the switch from W2K Pro to XP Pro. I admit to being a skeptic going into this move but, within a day, I was sold. XP does more and does it better. And I'm running it on an older box, too: an almost 3 year old Gateway with a P3 500 and 384MB RAM.
Overall, for me, XP Pro has been smoother and, much to my surprise, faster.

 

[AngelOfDeath]

Hmm I'm not sure. I had some problems in XP with my promise controller. And without having hard evidence I think the bad driver support for WinXP crashed my HD .

The interface looks great in XP pro, but I personally think that Win2k offers a more easy way to adjust settings. WinXP (Pro) has so much n00b-security that I sometimes could go nut.

AoD

 

[RalfHutter]

I use both Win2000 and XP Pro and for me it's a wash.

I was VERY happy with Win2000, but I started messing with XP when it was in beta because I figured it would be good to know it since it was obviously going to be the consumer OS of the near-future.

Wasn't thrilled with the Teletubbies GUI and all the extra multimedia bundled crap (like M$ does so very well), and let's not even talk about "Product Activation"

So I've been using XP for nearly a year now and i've lost some of my negative feelings about it. Used some low-key themes to get rid of the Teletubbies sh*t, found out how to hack out a lot of the unneeded crap, got the corpfiles to get rid of WPA.

I find myself using XP more than Win2000 nowadays. Can't really put my finger on why. There's still driver (unavailability) issues but otherwise it seems pretty useable. This may sound funny, but one of the things I like best about XP over 2000 is the faster boot/reboot times. I do A LOT of messing around with stuff and I'm always rebooting. XP saves me about 30-40 secs total over my highly optimized Win2000 install. Doesn't sound like much but it adds up over time, plus I'm kinda "Type-A' anyway and hate to wait!

PS - didn't vote in the poll becuse I don't have real strong feelings either way.

 

[ThaGrandCow]

Of those two I chose win2k Pro. But here I use winxp pro. It's awesome, I use remote desktop every day.

 

[GrumpyMan]

I now use XP Pro. I still like 2000 better but until MS comes out with the first service pack it's not really fair to compare because when 2000 first came out it was uncompatible with many periferals and older hardware. Anyway if you turn off the eye candy XP Pro or Home is not too bad if you have enough ram.

 

[bullion416]

I am still undecided. I am currently running XP Pro and have been ever since it came out. It definately runs the fastest, except if you are playing a lot of games. I have had a ton of problem when running 3D games, it just runs poorly. I am told Win2k is probaby better for games than XP. Is this ture? I have a question too. Is there any way to get the options that win xp offers in win2k? By this I mean, things in XP seem easier to use and understand. For example, they have the "regedit" and "msconfig" commands again. I don't think those were available with 2K.

 

[LongCoolMother]

i used both, and i stuck with win2k pro. thats what im using right now. xp had some conflicts with my hardware. and i dont know if its just me or what, but i thnk it gets kinda bggy sometimes. i like the normal windows more, thats what i used on xp.

 

[Blayze]

Im using XP right now, but I prefer 2000 over XP.

XP isn't really much different from 2000, and I don't use any of the new XP features.

 

[PeeluckyDuckee]

Tried both, rather stick to 2000 myself 'cause I simply don't fancy XP's colourful desktop or any of its new/advanced features, no thanks. XP is not administerable in a 2000 Environment, at least not through group policies in Server that I know of (tried it).

Its not a matter of whether its a new or old operating system, its a matter whether it works. I don't go fixing things that's not broken.

 

[TrajanDacicus]

Win2K and Xp are in my opinion two good OS. I have them both on my computer, but i love Xp "touch". More seriously, compatibility mode on Xp is very nice.

 

[Athlon4all]

I've got 2 PC's. One running XP Pro, and the other running the 2000 that was on the XP machine previously. Both are great OS'es, but I have found that on the 2nd PC running 2000, that me (and the rest of my siblings) are wishing for the XP GUI on the 2000, and especially Fast User Switching. I prolly will end up shelling out $100 for a 2nd copy of XP Home for the 2nd PC (damn Product Activation!!!!).

I really, have not found any difference in stability or speed between the 2, and really, as far as I'm concerned, XP does nothing but build on 2000 SP2, this may be a bit biased because I (unlike most) like having the Limited Burning capabilities of XP, I like Zip Folders, I like the new Start Menu and GUI, and I love Fast User Switching and the quick boot times. Really, it's like I say. XP does nothing but build on 2000. The only 2 things I dislike about it are Product Activation and all the newbie Security settings, but you can for the most part disable all that, it's just difficult to find where you turn them off.

I think that I'd have to give the nod to XP Pro/Home. I voted for XP Home, but I will caution though that XP Pro or 2000 Pro will be prefferable in Server enviornments because Home can't log into a Windows 2000, or NT Sever.

 

[HalfCrazy]

I been running XP for about a week now and what I had seen of it. I'm starting to like XP alot since it's like win2k. Right now I got XP on my laptop which is running it nice which is kinda shocking to me. Because of the speed of the processor and it even found all the hardware in it. The laptop now boot's up faster then when I was using win2k on it. Don't get me wrong I like win2k alot and will never get rid of the CD. I'm just going to use XP because I will be able to play the game NFS again. Plus some other older game's which I got in a box. Just waiting for me to bring those old memory's out again.

 

[JohnnyPC]

<< I think that I'd have to give the nod to XP Pro/Home. I voted for XP Home, but I will caution though that XP Pro or 2000 Pro will be prefferable in Server enviornments because Home can't log into a Windows 2000, or NT Sever. >>



Those of you that have XP Pro, how many of you actually use the features that make pro different than home? Home is often more suited to the casual user and will save you $75-100...

 

[MedicBob]

Undecided. 2 desktops with 2000 and 1 laptop with XP Pro. XP does offer more useability IMO, but 2000 is rock stable. I am new at XP so we shall see.

My vote is both, for now.

 

[Sunner]

I went back from WinXP Pro to Win2K Pro just like a week ago.

Got sick of XP, aside from 15 seconds faster booting it offers nothing new to me, but there are millions of little annoyances that eventually add up to drive me crazy.
Besides, Win2K has been more stable for me.

So now Im back with Win2K Sp2, and it's chugging along nicely, though not as nicely as Debian does of course(sorry just had to).

 

[Thor86]

There is nothing new in WinXP that I can't do with 3rd party stuff in Win2k.

 

[Hector13]

<< Which do you prefer and why ? >>



I think the more interesting question is: how many of you actually "own" copies of both?

 

[SmirnoffIsTasty]

XP starts faster, and is sexier.

 

[RPB]

I like XP for everthing except the way it looks and even that is easy to change.
main rig XP pro (oem)
2nd rig W2k pro (upgrade)