Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

[olin]

Does win 2000 require the same WPA activation that XP requires and does it have the same basic software/hardware compatibility issues that XP has. Right now, it order to install XP, I'll have to spend some 575.00 and that just doesn't seem right to have to do that, especially since some of the stuff I would be replacing is hardly a year old.
Thanks for your time.
Best wishes,
olin

 

[Maleficus]

Win2k has no WPA activation and i consider it better then XP although most consider it equal to XP or inferior too. i dont like dealing with the bloat of XP.

 

[Theslowone]

I understand your point, but where does 575 come from?

For me they run about the same, xp just looks and feels nicer, after you get all the bs out the way.

 

[ojai00]

<< For me they run about the same, xp just looks and feels nicer, after you get all the bs out the way. >>



Windows 2000 is generally more stable, but you should definitely upgrade to XP once a service pack is out to fix all the bugs. Most of your hardware from a year ago should be compatible...you just have to download the new drivers from your manufacturer's website. Hope this helps.

 

[Richard98]

<< .... but where does 575 come from? >>


I assume he was referring to the incompatible hardware he would need to replace. It would cost me $300-$400 to replace my incompatible hardware.



<< Most of your hardware from a year ago should be compatible... >>



All of my hardware is compatible with W2k now, including a six year old scanner. If you're currently using win98, you'll be very pleased with the power and stability of W2K; and, as others have pointed out, there's no activation to worry with.

 

[TheMagician]

I prefer win2k to xp, mainly because of the gui. Really can't get adjusted to it. Really a matter of preference, but like Richard said. If you're coming from win98 you'll feel a lot more at home in win2k.

 

[nightowl]

After installing XP and using it, I still like 2000 better. In XP eveything is hidden or moved and I cannot find the advanced settings that are easily found in 2000. IMO XP is over simplified by Microsoft and at least for me it is harder to do what I want to do.

 

[Nighthawk69]

I went back to 2k Pro as well from XP Pro this weekend. It was having problems with my router and wireless network, plus it had a few stability issues and for some reason it just decided not to allow me to install anything that used the Windows Installer after a few hours of setting my stuff back up after putting XP on this puter--never had that issue, or any other "issues" for that matter with Windows 2000, ever. 2000 also seems faster to me, probably because of the new XP GUI.

I prefer Windows 2000.

 

[Mr. Burns]

Here's another vote for win2k over winxp. I just spent the day installing xp pro on my girlfriend's computer and I found it to be quite annoying at times. And my god the interface is terrible -- even after turning everything back to "classic" windows, microsoft has hidden many advanced settings and adjusting them can be very counter-intuitive. I found trying to adjust NTFS file security settings to be quite confusing, for example--unlike the very intuitive win2k interface. And I couldn't believe it--after setting up two users during the install, winxp made them administrators but didn't assign them passwords or ask to set up a password! What a totally dumb default setting and a huge security hole for corporate settings (this is winxp pro after all....) I have dozens of other minor (and not so minor) complaints about xp as well but they have all been discussed here at length. I get the feeling that xp could have been a much better product than it is, but that some very bad decisions were forced on the development team for some weird reason(s). As it stands, I suspect that more technically minded users who have used win2k in the past will prefer it to winxp. The only good things I could see about xp was the amazingly fast boot time (about 30 seconds by my count) and of course the stability offered by the NT kernal. But I'll stick with win2k for my microsoft computing for quite some time, thanks very much.
Oh, and product activation and .net nag screens are at best really annoying and at worst demonstrate a total disrespect for MS customers IMO, but I won't even get into that here...

 

[krackato]

Windows 2000. Windows XP is one of the most annoying operating systems since Microsoft Bob. God, I hated Bob. He always thought he was the cat's meow... but he wasn't! (It's late.)

 

[Stang289]

The GUI in XP can be changed to look and feel just like 2000.

 

[Thor86]

WinXP boots up and shuts down faster than Win2k. But, that's about all the good things I can say about it.

 

[AG73]

another vote for win2k. I have both, and have a dual boot setup, but preferentially boot into win2k. Just seems leaner and faster. Also, it's been out longer, and seems to have fewer bugs. I have a feeling I will be staying with win2k for a long, long time.
AG

 

[bsobel]

Two comments:

1) "I prefer win2k to xp, mainly because of the gui". I never understood these comments, it's really just one checkbox to make the GUI look just like W2K

2) Moving forward, you'll see the best driver support and newer features on the XP and future XP releases. Now that MS has finally consolidated the OS's into one architecture, you'll see that used as the base moving forward.

Bill

 

[Passions]

I prefer winXP over win2k because it boots up amazingly fast and shutdown quicker too.

I dont understand the complaints about the GUI because you can choose classic mode. Or use styleXP to change the GUI to hundreds of different GUI's with no hit on sys resources.

Driver support is much better too. My pioneer dvd was seriously crap in win2k, but it behaves awesome in winXP.

Saying things like win2K is more stable than winxp doesn't make any sense, neither does, "I don't like it because I can't find any of the advanced settings" Everything changes with time, just gotta get used to it.

 

[grrl]

Driver support is much better too. My pioneer dvd was seriously crap in win2k, but it behaves awesome in winXP.

This may be an ignorant question, but if they both use the same kernel why do the drivers need to be different?

 

[chaswood]

I have 3 systems, 1 with XP and 2 with Win2k. My primary machine is XP and it works great, stable, etc. They all play together and network well, and after a few months I've found where everything is in XP, but I can honestly say that I prefer the look and feel of 2k.

Save your money for now, like some of the others are saying, and stay with 2k. After a Service Pack upgrade, XP will probably start to become the default OS. Maybe it will be worth the extra bucks to upgrade then.

Maybe Microsoft will even show some reason soon and come up with a licensing scheme for home users that doesn't charge full list for 2nd and 3rd copies.

 

[Yoshi]

IMO XP is the OS of choice at this point. XP is really just the latest version of NT. XP has the same stability as 2K, better hardware/software compatibility, and can look like 2K if you don't like the XP GUI.