Which OS in your opinoin is better, and why, Win XP or Win 2000?
Printable View
Which OS in your opinoin is better, and why, Win XP or Win 2000?
Depends on what you want to use it for.
Win2k seems to be a bit more reliable for server use, for home use you'd maybe better use XP, it does more stuff for you, less configuration, easier/better UI.
Yeah I'd agree. Win2K is brilliant in the server environment.
Windows.NET looks good too though.
I personally used to use Windows2000 on my laptop for development.
I'm now using WindowsXP.
Its a little slower, because its basically just Win2k with bells and whistles, but I'm happy with it.
I would never go back to a 9x kernel
Win2K all the way
I agree too , for home use , go for XP . I like that tool which gets back last good condition if your system messed up ! another thing is (as MS claim) it's built with integrated firewall besides the cute look ;) . and and ...
I USED to use Win XP, but decided to go back to 2K for stability reasons.
I have nothing against XP Home or Pro, I just prefer Win2K's stability and ease of use!
Regards,
Paul.
I've been using XP since pre-RC1 (a long, long time ago my friends), and I find that it simply does not crash.
If my stupid Dell laptop didn't have BIOS problems (nothing to do with XP), I'd probably have like 200+ days of uptime...(25 days at the moment)
Never seen a BSOD since 2K though...
They're both good, but I find XP is better for some interface enhancements (not Luna, which I find disgusting, but general usability things that Win2K lacks AFAIK), and of course ClearType!
(BTW, I don't use System Restore, Windows Firewall, Luna, Folder Tasks, WMP, or any of that BS...)
The integrated firewall is missing security points . It's not that effetive as Mcafee or norton security . I remember last months , I had more than 30 virus all at once hit my machine when I was sleeping .But I was lucky because I had that great tool Norton Antivirus . It deleted them and my machine is still up :p .
Go for 2000. If you want a bit better looking, go for XP but only on laptops.
The reason I say this is because Microsoft's so-called Cleartype "technology" on XP (which is actually just font hinting) allows for sub-pixel antialiasing which improves display quality on laptop screens.
XP just crashes my computer like a week after i install it...
some C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\SYSTEM is missing or corrupted....
or other stuff like that.. pissed me off!:mad:
but 2k is great for home use.. games runs good, internet is sweet, rendering of digital videos, capturing, programming.. :D
Im a solid 2k user... I have had no problems with it, since I started with RC1. In fact, the only problems it has ever had have been me using up all the memory.
XP has a nasty habit of crashing on me, though you have to look very closely to see the BSOD... it resets immediately (like a Mac :D). The UI is also crap. The subtle differences between "Classic Mode", and a real Windows UI bother the hell out of me.
In fact, when I was forced to use an XP system for a month or so, I installed 2k on a virtual machine, and used that instead.
Z.
Well , here my XP is still running since three months but ofcourse with Norton and these jazz ;) .
thats harsh man...Quote:
Originally posted by Pirate
The integrated firewall is missing security points . It's not that effetive as Mcafee or norton security . I remember last months , I had more than 30 virus all at once hit my machine when I was sleeping .But I was lucky because I had that great tool Norton Antivirus . It deleted them and my machine is still up :p .
personally, i don't run a firewall, or AV, and i don't ever have trouble...
i guess i'm just thorough.
I have a dual boot, 2K Pro Sp3 and XP Pro CE Sp1. I'm still tweaking XP and trying to find drivers that work for my hardware. XP blue screens on me occasionally, and freezes sometimes too. I have no complaints with 2k. It runs rock solid on my box, runs all my software, and plays all but some of my very old dos games. XP looks nice and has some nice features but all that glitters is not gold. All that bloatware slows it down. After you turn off all the eye candy it looks just like 2k, but it's still not as stable. I plan to wait for another service pack or two before I switch.
Never seen that blue screen on XP . I used to have it on Win98 , Me.
If you're happy with what you have, then why switch? I'm not going to.Quote:
Originally posted by alphanumeric
I plan to wait for another service pack or two before I switch.
You arent turning it off, you are just changin what it looks like (and it still doesnt look quite right).Quote:
Originally posted by alphanumeric
After you turn off all the eye candy it looks just like 2k, but it's still not as stable.
Just as an update, I crashed my friend's XP laptop last night. He has made no system changes since he got the laptop, and I when I simply typed too fast, it locked up. So much for stability :D
Z.
Exactly, I couldn't have said it better. I have both so I can use what I like. I don't use XP very much. Probably what I should have said is that once the bugs are out I will have another look at XP to see if it's worth changing to. I'm not going to let Bill decide for me either. I have all the service packs and IE6 Sp1 (full download) burned to CD. Hell I've got all the patches for 95 and 98 burned to CD too. I have an old Dell 486 that my daughter uses. LOL I have windows 3.1 and 3.11 too.:DQuote:
Originally posted by Sastraxi
If you're happy with what you have, then why switch? I'm not going to.
The way I see it is if you have a new fast PC with lots of ram XP works fine. If you an older PC and or older hardware XP barfs and you end up with a sick PC. Win 2k seems to support a lot more hardware and be a lot more stable. In all fairness 2K has three Sp's with a fourth in the works, XP has one and rumors of a second. Which one is better is a tough question to answer, there are a lot of variables. I am biased towards 2k because XP won't always run stable on my older PC. If I was going out to by a new PC today I would get one with XP preinstalled. I am lucky in that I already have 2K and XP here to use. So if I build my own PC and XP doesn't work I have 2k to fall back on. My only problem is I don't have the money to do either of the above.:(
Any one say Windows before 3.1x?? like, Windows 2.0? Did it exists?
I have XP Pro running on an Athlon 800, 448MB SDRAM, GF2 Ti, 40GB total. Rock solid.Quote:
Originally posted by alphanumeric
The way I see it is if you have a new fast PC with lots of ram XP works fine. If you an older PC and or older hardware XP barfs and you end up with a sick PC. Win 2k seems to support a lot more hardware and be a lot more stable. In all fairness 2K has three Sp's with a fourth in the works, XP has one and rumors of a second. Which one is better is a tough question to answer, there are a lot of variables. I am biased towards 2k because XP won't always run stable on my older PC. If I was going out to by a new PC today I would get one with XP preinstalled. I am lucky in that I already have 2K and XP here to use. So if I build my own PC and XP doesn't work I have 2k to fall back on. My only problem is I don't have the money to do either of the above.:(
I guess I just don't see where the "XP is unstable" argument comes from :confused: its always worked perfectly for me and better than 2K.
You don't know until you try, that's why I dual booted. Glad it worked out for you, enjoy. It was just my 2 cents worth based on the PC's I have worked on for family and friends. It's just my opinion.:)Quote:
Originally posted by siyan
I have XP Pro running on an Athlon 800, 448MB SDRAM, GF2 Ti, 40GB total. Rock solid.
I guess I just don't see where the "XP is unstable" argument comes from :confused: its always worked perfectly for me and better than 2K.
Athlon 1100, 768 PC-133, Hercules 3D Prophet 4000XT, Quantum 40GB, 2K Pro rock solid, XP Pro crash and burn at random intervals.
siyan: what makes you say "more stable" than 2k?
i wouldn't know because i haven't said it.Quote:
Originally posted by Sastraxi
siyan: what makes you say "more stable" than 2k?
Quote:
I guess I just don't see where the "XP is unstable" argument comes from :confused: its always worked perfectly for me and better than 2K.
There was a Windows 3.0, not sure if there was anything lower.Quote:
Originally posted by mastermind94
Any one say Windows before 3.1x?? like, Windows 2.0? Did it exists?
by better than 2k i meant it runs more stuff. on the stability front i'd say they're equal. I never meant that XP was noticeably more stable than 2k, although i can see how you may have taken that as implied. still, be careful with the quotation marks...i never explicitly said what you quoted.Quote:
Originally posted by Sastraxi
i think there was, but it was never released. heheQuote:
Originally posted by alphanumeric
There was a Windows 3.0, not sure if there was anything lower.
On the MSDN Universal Substription site, the lowest version of Windows is 3.0, and like DOS 5.0
I think you are right. There were earlier versions but they were not suitable for human consumption.:DQuote:
Originally posted by siyan
i think there was, but it was never released. hehe
I never talk about those outdated OSs!:o . It's wasting of time guys !
Windows 1.0 was similar to Midnight Commander (Unix), and gwdos (hehe remember that). Windows 2.0 had something to do with Disney, I think, I can't remember.
WINDOWS XP PRO ALL THE WAY!
I've used Win2000 and Its a good OS but I prefer XP because I've notice some performance enhancements. Win2000 ran slow on my comp where as winXP runs well.
Also I have my own webserver (P1-200MHZ, 96MB RAM) which runs XP Pro. You probably think Im nuts putting XP on a slow machine like that, but the main reason I did was for security and stability. And that I had win2000 on a 233 and it ran liek ****. My webserver runs pretty fast considering the requirements XP needs and I am happy with it.
SO, XP PRO ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get your outdated M$ OS here , collect them all and trade with friends.:D
Several friends of mine are using XP, and seem to be happy with it.
I have been avoiding it because I have two systems and do not want to but two licenses.
My friends are computer illiterates who got their system with XP already installed. Helping them is painful due to minor changes in the interface. I had trouble finding Windows Explorer the first time I looked for it.
While it seems stable and an excellent system, I hate MicroSoft for making changes in the interface from Windows 98 for no apparent reason. XP seems like Windows for Dummies, but some more knowledgable friends tell me that you can get around the silliness.
For example, you cannot drag and drop Icons to the Task bar unless you first Unlock it. When you use Windows Explorer, it does not directly display the C:/Windows Folder, giving you a message that warns about messing up files in that folder. You can access by one more mouse click, and I am told that there is a way to avoid the message which warns dummies.
Windows 98 SE for gaming.
Windows 2000 Pro all the way for development purpose...much more stable.
Windows XP Pro for all the other needs. I am using XP Pro and gives me all the choices except I can't some of my favourite games even when I use compatibility thingy.
Cheers...
I use Windows 2000 for productivity (actual work), Linux for everyday use (and those games I can run on it), and those games that are Windows-only I run on Windows 2000 as well...