Win2000 vs. WinXP 2

[LANmass]

Could someone please explain why Win2000 would be preferable to WinXP? I'm experienced with WinXP (primarily on home PC's), but not Win2000, and I'm curious as to why anyone would choose the eldest of the two.
My assumption is that there are very few differences between the two.

 

[Daire]

Well ive used w2kpro for a long time now and have had no problems. I also have a disk with xppro that i switch in every now and then to check it out.

XP seems to be aimed at novices to make it easy to get around but I think its just 2000 with a new face. You can set xp to use clasic appearance that makes it look very much like 2000.
Im sure there are big differences somewhere but ive never bothered looking too deep into XP.

like you id also like to know from anyone the diff between them.

 

[cdogg]

Some have claimed that XP has bugs in its network abilities, actually slower in a domain than Win2K. Personally, I haven't seen it and I'm not sure if the complaints stopped after the release of SP1.

IMHO, the dumbed-down, kid-like interface of XP causes some to get sick to their stomachs!
LOL

It's hard to tell people that they can change it to the classic menu at their heart's content.


~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[franklin97355]

XP wants more memory than 2000 to run smoothly.

 

[IRstuff]

XP has two features not found on 2K.

> Self-repair - XP includes the entire installation disk on the HD, which is why it's so HD hungry. This allows it to check to health of drivers and devices and will fix them on the fly, regardless of your desires ;-)

> System restore - you can set check points at which the system configuration is retained and stored. This allows you roll back the OS to a previous version that was working correctly. While it appears to still retain the 4 previous boot configurations like NT, the system restore is much more powerful

TTFN

 

[evildoughboi]

i have heard that microsoft spent more time on 2000 and it is much more stable than windows xp, which i agree on. i had no problems with 2000 besides minor stuff here and there. but w/ xp, it was alot more frequent. however, win xp does boot up faster, which what most people want. besides the stability of 2000, i cant really tell the difference myself, besides the color schemes.

 

[CitrixEngineer]

Windows XP is simply Windows 2000 next gen.

Type ver at the cmd prompt; Windows 2000 is Windows NT version 5.0, and Windows XP is NT version 5.2 - it's just an increment, not a new version.

Having said that, there are many noticable improvements in XP, such as startup speed, Remote Control (on pro), better application compatibility - especially for games, and other features that have been mentioned.

The guady colour schemes are easily switched off, and you can make XP look and feel like Windows 2000 if you prefer.

I have noticed no issues in networking, but many others have, so there clearly are some issues here in a large, mixed environment.

On my home network, comprising a W2k AD Domain with 1xDC, 2xTerminal Servers, 1xLinux Server, 1xADSL Router, 2xWin98 Laptop clients and 2xWinXP Pro desktops, I have absolutely no network issues.

There is no reason I can think of to choose Win2k over XP if you're buying a new Operating System - especially since Win 2000 will have a shorter life expectancy.

Hope this helps

CitrixEngineer@yahoo.co.uk

 

[Scotsdude]

At the moment we have a right pigs ear of a network, with Servers running W2K Server, Advanced Server, NT 4 and 3.51, Linux and I think a couple of UNIX servers somewhere. The desktops are worse, win 95 and upwards from there, and with Novell Netware sitting on top of that.

We're doing a major upgrade and shifting everything up to Win 2K across the board, and dropping Novell, but there's a couple of XP machines floating around just now, including mine.

We've had no problems whatsoever. Being honest, I don't even mind the color schemes, although I did have to get rid of that godawful desktop background.....

I find, if anything, that for certain apps, XP Pro is faster over a network. For example, we use 4th Dimension databases quite extensively, and I've noticed an increase in speed when using XP over 2K.

It also runs counterstrike absolotuely fine over the corporate network.....

Yes, it needs a little bit more memory, but then most of the applications being run these days require more themselves.

I'm running XP on an PIII 1Ghz, with 256 Mb of ram, and 16Mb of that is nicked by the onboard graphics anyway....but it ran fine when I only had 128Mb in it.

Anyway, that's my opinion....

Scotsdude
Help us help you - let us know when our insane scribblings help!!

 

[LANmass]

Thanks for replying.
I like the tip from CitrixEngineer about checking the version. I didn't know that one (mine, XPpro, shows 5.1.2600).
My conclusion is that there are just minor differences (outside the GUI), and none that would justify my switching to 2000.

 

[edfair]

Limited experience supporting it, 10 machines I think, but was forced to go back to 2K on 2 laptops for severe networking problems. One never networked, the other finally networked until the patch blew it out of the water. Both failing machines were for wireless.
The other 7 or 8 were for eventual dialup use but temporarily setup for e-net. Was a bit of a problem to undo the e-net and get the dialup working. Ed Fair
unixstuff@juno.com
Any advice I give is my best judgement based on my interpretation of the facts you supply. Help increase my knowledge by providing some feedback, good or bad, on any advice I have given.

 

[CitrixEngineer]

Oops! I'm currently in my work lab testing Windows 2003 Server RC2 (the new name for .NET, for anyone who hasn't heard yet), and that is version 5.2.3718. XP is, of course, an increment lower at 5.1.xxxx

Just to clear up any confusion CitrixEngineer@yahoo.co.uk

 

[Maruis]

Hi
Have tested both W2k Pro and XP pro at home and on a corporate Network.

In both instances I had no problems and found them very stable. Running very resource intensive apps and games.

On XP the main advantage is that it will run Dos apps a lot easier than W2K pro. (Already mentioned)

The only thing that I could see was the memory hungry gui in XP that you can switch off. Just a lot of fancy stuff.

Other than that I think it is a matter of personal preference and what you want to do with your machine.

As a side note do not go for less than 256 Meg memory on either OS.



Hope this Helps

Maruis
"I sleep at home not on my Job!"