xp users: how many of you have gone back to win2k?

[cbqwinner]

I'm staying with XP. I find XP a lot quicker than 2000, especially the startup and shutdown.

 

[Sapilas]

hahahaahahahahahahahah

what difference does it make if it takes 10 or 40 minutes to boot.......or shutdown.


I almost reboot my pc three times a week. . . .Performance and stability is what matter for me most..not that crapy special effects and visual attractions...

I tried to force myself believe that winxp are better .....twice i failed..and now stick to Linux (suse8) and just in case ; my old win2k system is somewhere there in my hard drive waiting to be used. . .inthe near future..

 

[Mucho]

I went back anf forth three times I found 2k to be faster and Direct CD never worked in XP. Now I am sticking with 2K until I buy a new computer.

 

[Nothinman]

what difference does it make if it takes 10 or 40 minutes to boot.......or shutdown.

I hibernate and restore my laptop all the time, it makes a difference. Although XP is faster than 2K, I still use 2K because XP is annoying.

I almost reboot my pc three times a week. . . .Performance and stability is what matter for me most..not that crapy special effects and visual attractions...

3 times a week is a lot, I have PCs with months of uptime (running Linux though).

 

[mastertech01]

I went back to 2k PRO, then back to XP Pro, then to 2K Advanced Server, then back to XP Pro.... I just like XP Pro overall. Maybe its that money I forked over to get it that helps convince me I dont want to toss it on shelf..

 

[Sunner]

Me.

Tried XP, like Nothinman I found it rather annoying and went back to 2K, a bit happier now.

 

[Edman]

I currently have an dualboot (Win Me & XP), 'cause I think that Win Me does a better job for gaming and obviously I used it only for that Gaming.

Regards!

 

[Sapilas]

Edman:

I think you made the worst choise...

I had friends using winxp and had many problems with bluescreens, low network connection, crashes after openning napster and more stuff that drive them crazy..... until the day they decide to install win2k.

 

[Nothinman]

There is no game worth the hassle of running Win9X.

 

[m2kewl]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Me. Tried XP, like Nothinman I found it rather annoying and went back to 2K, a bit happier now.

Same here.

 

[Woodchuck2000]

XP is really just 2K with knobs on. As long as you have sufficient ram it's fine.
I'm running XP at the moment purely because I can't be bothered to change.
Next time I reformat my system, I'll probably flip a coin to decide between 2K and XP.

 

[Vampirrella]

on my older systems im still running 98se and its rock stable.. i dunno why some of these ppl say they cant get it to work right... i mean, its the most simplest OS to set up really, aside from linux mandrake (thats another issue alltogether) Im finding that win2kpro was getting kinda bloated and using quite a bit of drive space, and XP is even worse! Talk about a big fat bloated puppy!

I went back from XP to win2k on my main system again and my older systems still run 98se.. works like a charm

 

[Rivergater]

I have three systems. My current desktop that I use most of the time is running win2k and i doubt that i'll be running xp from this ever because i'm so satisfied with win2k stability.

i installed xp on my older system (pII 400 with 128mb ram) which had win2k on it previously. its definitely a lot slower so i'm thinking about reinstalling win2k back on there. how easy is this? do i just stick the win2k disk in and install or would i have to do a clean install?

my laptop started out with win ME. it was so unstable so i installed win2k on it. it was pretty good but internet explorer was having problems and i read on microsoft support pages that i would have to reinstall the os. so i said what the heck and installed xp. i did an upgrade and the problems with internet explorer didn't go away. i did a clean reinstall and now explorer works fine but it seems a little slower (pIII 650mhz with 320mb ram).

xp is really quick on bootup though.

 

[Vampirrella]

a format and full reinstall of win2k should take care of those nasty ME gliches. Never hurts to do a FFR anyway

 

[Nothinman]

a format and full reinstall of win2k should take care of those nasty ME gliches. Never hurts to do a FFR anyway

A 'FFR' always hurts, you should never have to do that to fix something. That's one of the reasons Win9X sucks so bad, inevitable bit-rot. And the fact that the memory management is terrible, the IRQ drivers and handling are sh!t, the filesystems it can use are terrible and more I can't think of right now.

I've had the same Linux install for ~4 years now, I'd like to meet someone who can say the same about a Win9X install.

 

[Apatewnas]

It is true that all the blips and blops in windows XP have made an impression, but speaking as professional i just can't tolerate the looks of an operating system designed for dummies with all the freaking wizard stuff popping up here and there.
My system worked fine in winXP for several months though can't complain about that. It is also true that I've seen tremendous speedup in games comparing to older win versions.
Alas microsoft OSes require at least a couple of service packs to straighten up and i can't just wait for'em to come (driver incompatibilities is NOT the issue on winXP if yor h/w doesn't work, upgrade it). I'm on win2k now perfectly happy with the pure windows look on it, have it connected to my win2k server running oracle enterprize better than ever.
Win2k will rule the world for many more years this is my opinion. The PIII i'm writing this on, is powerful enough to deal with games and other heavy duty applications (e.g. 3d studio max4).
I want my next pc to have real stability and power NOT ALL THE CRAPPY MARKETING H/W AND S/W TRICKS THEY SELL US!!!

 

[tennesota]

Maybe its that money I forked over to get it that helps convince me I dont want to toss it on shelf..

I resemble that remark.

 

[Thor86]

My Win98SE works just like new when I first installed it back 4 years ago. Even survived 3 motherboard transplants and ghosting from 3 different drives. Only use it for gaming/internet with no crashing or hiccups whatsoever.

 

[epsilon]

I tried XP pro and it ran like a pig on my 1Ghz Athlon (yes I did a fresh install). I turned off all the bells and whistles and it still ran much slower than Win2k did. I do not count start ups and shut downs.

Try copying or opening a large file (600meg +) in XP. It brings the system to a crawl.

Win2k has the speed and the stability I need. I'll stick to it until I am forced to upgrade by those MS goons.

 

[TheWart]

i guess i am lucky but on both my systems with extensive file opening/timing/running tests clean winxp pro is MUCH faster and more stable than clean win2k pro. maybe i luckily know the right tweaks.

 

[ntrights]

I got one box with 2k and one with xp I like both.

 

[handoverfist]

Yes I tried the fisher price OS, aka "windows xp" . My experience was that xp ran much slower than 2k pro. Startup was the only thing i noticed to be significantly faster. By the way, I have a 1.1 t-bird and 512 ram. I'll stick with 2k......

 

[Circlenaut]

I liked Win2k but the tweakabiliy of XP is much better. Oh and not to mention better support for games.

 

Win2k all the way

 

[BurnItDwn]

my brother ran winXP for a while .. hes running win2K again now,
I am content with win2k on my windoze boxes