June 7th, 2006, 08:56 PM
XP or 2k
Ok, after the great response to my thread Your thoughts on Windows Vista, I began to be curious about other versions of Windows. After reading through a couple of different threads and tutorials, I have gathered that the average Windows tech suggests Windows 2000 to any other Windows. Why would this be?? I know I'm going to get responses like "google it" but why not ask here in the OS forum where people can give me exact reasons to questions that might come up. If you know of any websites that have explanations, please give me the link so I can read them.
June 7th, 2006, 09:12 PM
Well, Windows 2000 is actually NT 5 and a natural progression from NT 4. Some techs might prefer it for that reason, as it is more familiar to them.
XP is a perfectly good Windows OS, and is more modern.
If you are having to work with old hardware you might prefer Windows 2000 as it is less demanding on resources than XP.
Some businesses may be aiming to go straight to Vista, leaving out XP altogether?
June 7th, 2006, 09:17 PM
For programming and security, would one rise above the other? or is it just personal preference??
June 7th, 2006, 09:20 PM
As already suggested...if you have the hardware I would go XP....
I find it fast and stable
XP loves RAM.....and harddrive space....
If the hardware is older...2k is fine....although it boots slower and requires more restarts with configuration changes
How people treat you is their karma- how you react is yours-Wayne Dyer
June 7th, 2006, 09:21 PM
I did the oposite. Went to XP from NT skipping 2k on workstations. I believe in my limited wisdom, that was an excellent choice. XP was released in the fall of 2001 and is an improvement over 2k. It took a while to upgrade NT servers to Active directory capable server 2000 and XP was ready.
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.
June 7th, 2006, 10:03 PM
Well I guess I will just stick with my Windows XP/RHEL config until the 64 bit Vista comes out (unless Vista turns to be a disapointment). Thanks for all the responses and please continue to speak your minds.
June 8th, 2006, 02:51 AM
I upgraded all our 2k machines to XP. As others have stated, XP is a perfectly good OS if you have the hardware to handle it. In the beginning it was a bit shaky though. Be sure to immediately update to SP2 offline before going onto an insecure network.
Having the remote desktop is a nice feature also.
June 8th, 2006, 09:21 PM
I am currently running Windows 2000 SP4 and also Windows Server 2003 on my laptop.
Why not XP? XP is not a bad OS. XP has NT 5 kernel like 2000 and 2003. XP kernel is little improved compared to 2000 (in fact its version is 5.1, 2000 is 5.0 and 2003 is 5.2 - again little improved). However, the user part of XP was always somehow "ugly" for me. And since Service Pack 2 there is something I don't like either - Security center.
As a low level programmer I have to say that having 2000 is better because you are forced to create programs "using old API". This cause that your programs work on all 2000, XP, 2003. If I run only XP or 2003 I will tend to use new API that are not available on older OS.
However, I have also tried XPSP1 as well as XPSP2. From all these I rate 2003 the best because it has all the kernel improvements from XPSP2 (and more) and is not as "ugly" as XP. It needs little more configuration to be a good workstation (because it is server OS), but tutorials can be googled on this and after a while playing with the settings it is very nice and reliable desktop OS.
June 8th, 2006, 10:20 PM
i just got a xp pro cd for the first time today...
should i go home and install it over my 2k installation...
the real question is ... WHAT WILL I GAIN BY INSTALLING XP PRO?
June 8th, 2006, 10:24 PM