Windows 2000 or XP? hmmm

[Sumadin]

I am running Win 98 right now.
I want to upgrade, but am not sure which way to go.
Not crazy about activation crap with XP.
XP is just a prettied up version of 2000 anyways. Isnt it?
I do alot of web surfing, some office work and alot of gaming.
I will be networking a computer for my kids and want absolute control over, well EVERYTHING!
Will my XP1800+ cpu and WinXP perform better than with Win2000?
Also, the Win98 Im using now is lets say, not store bought. <looks around nervously>
Would that be an issue with using an upgrade version? The registration thing

Thanks in advance for any input.

 

[FOBSIDE]

<< XP is just a prettied up version of 2000 anyways. Isnt it? >>



the prettiness is a pain in the @$$ imho. it makes the OS look bloated and the fact that everything slides around is not my idea of good UI. i like to know where things are and if they keep sliding around, its not as easy. i like win2k and i stick with it.

 

[imported_vr6]

 

[imported_vr6]

I have both running on my current computer.

The thing with XP is if u have older hardware, alot of it isn't supported. At lease for me that is. i have an voodoo5 5500. Although Xp reconizes it, it doesn't provide me with the best drivers, so my i can't game on my XP. If i was you, i would get w2k cause i like my w2k more than xp right now.

 

[ojai00]

Like I've been telling most of the other guys who've asked this question, Windows 2000 has been a proven stable OS. Windows XP still has some bugs to work out, mainly drivers (in Kwan1's case), hardware compatibility, and software compatibility. XP looks nice and everything, but there's really no point in installing it if you don't have the most up-to-date software to install and have older hardware. Since you do a lot of gaming, Windows 2000 might be for you, or it might not be. Some games work in Windows 2000, while others will not. In that case, Windows XP is the way to go because it will support more games than the corporate-oriented Windows 2000. Hope this helps.

As with your copy of Windows 98, upgrading to XP shouldn't be a problem. As long as you have a full version of a previous OS, Windows XP will allow you to do a full install with an Upgrade version. You have registration confused with activation. Registration is optional, but activation is required. Hope your copy of XP is legit.

 

[nightowl]

Currently, I am sticking with 2000. It runs eventhing I have and very well I might say. Also, I can't ever find anything in XP. The have gone and changed things from 2000 and it really annoys me. Microsoft went and made everthing easy to do (since this is now their home OS too) and made the advanced configuration options harder to get to IMO. I like 2000 for the simple reason that everything is easy to find for a power user like myself.

 

[Medea]

I'm running Win2k and am staying put. I bought this OS last summer, and I'm not paying the money they're asking for an upgrade when I see no real benefits. Win2k is stable as hell which is the primary point for me. People say that XP starts quicker - 30 to 60 seconds - but I'm not that impatient where I have to go out and pay $200 or $300 (upgrade price/complete version) to save a minute on boot-up.

FWIW and for those of you who remember DOS, the rule of thumb back then was to never get the X.0 version because Microsoft *always* had to issue an updated version with the patches so it was prudent to wait for the X.1 version to be released and then buy it. IMO, it's the same thing with XP. If you're leaning towards it, wait 'til they release an SP1.

Regarding the activation, I agree with you 100%. I can understand trying to stop bootlegging, but what agout legit uses? I've got 3 desktops and a laptop but, with activation, I'd have to pay for extra licenses -- I think not!

 

[cleverhandle]

Okay, I'll be disagreeable and say that, if you're upgrading from 98, you should go for XP.

Hardware support: Yes, this sometimes presents a problem. Big surprise, the OS was released all of, what, 4 months ago? The hardware situation with 2000 was *much* worse 4 months after release. In a couple more months, drivers will have matured. If you have a piece of hardware you just can't bear to part with, do some research ahead of time to make sure it'll work. And future hardware, especially consumer-oriented stuff, will certainly be easier to use with XP than with 2000.

Stability: I've heard of very few stability issues with XP after initial hardware configuration that didn't involve user ignorance. Personally, I've yet to crash out XP after two months of extensive use. This shouldn't be too surprising, given that 2000 and XP are not all that different on the inside.

Ease of Use: Seems like some people would hate to admit that what they're used to is not necessarily the best. I, too, disliked the layout at first, but after about a week of forcing myself to use it, it became very natural. I wouldn't go back to 98 or 2000's layout now. And if you really dislike a feature, everything is easily configurable to get working the way you like it.

Licensing: Sorry, I have no sympathy for you. It's Microsoft's right to set rules for how their software is used - I'm glad to see activation is here. If you don't think the OS is worth the money, then use Linux - don't propagate Microsoft dominance by spreading their product over more machines. Play by the MS rules or leave the MS game. In any event, activation *is* the way of future, you're going to have to deal with it eventually.


Overall, it seems like most of the people responding had 2000 and didn't want to upgrade. I would agree with them. XP is not that much better than 2000 to justify the cost. But it beats the heck out of 98 and leaves you in a better position for future developments.

 

[Mitzi]

I've currently got Windows 2000 at home, I am happy with it because it is proven technology - its had a couple of service packs which resolve many problems with the release. I built a machine last weekend for a friend and installed Windows XP on it - it does have some nice features and it certainly is easier to use and administer for beginners BUT at present I bet its got a fair few problems and bugs with it.

I will be upgrading to XP in the next couple of months (perhaps when the first service pack is released) and hardware support is a little maturer.

 

[Mem]

I`ve had Win98 since well 98 ,and I went & installed XP in my 2nd PC few months back and must say I like it alot,stability wise it is great and I actually use it more now then my old 98 PC which was my gaming PC.I only go back to it if I`ve any old games that won`t run in my new XP rig.

The bottom line is I think it`s a decent upgrade from 98 ,I`m happy I waited and did not bother going 98 to Win2000 route earlier.

 

[thevillageinn]

I'm running a mish-mosh of 2k and XP and 2k gets my vote, especially because you say you have others that will be using the system.

Here's why I mention that. On my desktop system, I set it up for a few users, sister-in-law, wife, and myself. Switching between users has resulted in more problems than I care to count. My main issue is that Local Machine services can't "interact with the desktop" and local user services lock the registry and corrupt it...

both of those instances are just great...especially if you like to use your system at all...or better yet...need to use your system.

As far as hardware compatibility...suck it up guys...I have installed XP on an old 233MMX laptop and it's doing just fine. No hardware issues, of course I don't game with it either (it is a laptop after all) but there are no issues with devices or drivers. I also haven't had any problems with that system and user switching or registry corruption because I'm the only user

sorry to bump this thread, but the issues I have been having are causing a lot of trouble, and it's not worth it...not after coming from 2k. I would run for a month easy between re-boots and hardly ever crashed the system, now the system crashes with winamp, wmp (hate that program), IE6, games, screen savers you name it...sometimes I get errors that the video card fouled up, just a little while ago I got this stop error "process_has_locked_pages" what's that about?

 

[VicLavigne]

I have Win2k on one machine, and WinXP on 2 others.
My recommendation: if you're limiting your apps to office apps and internet browsing, go with Win2k. It's simple, fairly easy, and has generally better support for software/utilities than XP does at this point.
If you like gaming, go for WinXP. Gaming support for XP I think is better, mostly because of their compatibility modes and compatibility wizard.


<< I will be networking a computer for my kids and want absolute control over, well EVERYTHING! >>


Security is good on both systems, but IMO Win2k is much harder to configure.

Eventually (probably by the end of this year), WinXP will have the better overall support of drivers and software compatibility than Win2k. Yes, techies and power-users will still be using Win2k, but the software industry is going to be focusing on WinXP. It doesn't take a psychic to see which way the wind is blowing on this one.