Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: XP or 2k

  1. June 7th, 2006, 08:56 PM #1
    adamantius7877
    adamantius7877 is offline
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4

    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.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  2. June 7th, 2006, 09:12 PM #2
    nihil
    nihil is offline
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,188
    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?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  3. June 7th, 2006, 09:17 PM #3
    adamantius7877
    adamantius7877 is offline
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4
    For programming and security, would one rise above the other? or is it just personal preference??
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  4. June 7th, 2006, 09:20 PM #4
    morganlefay
    morganlefay is offline
    AOs Resident Troll
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,152
    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

    MLF
    How people treat you is their karma- how you react is yours-Wayne Dyer
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  5. June 7th, 2006, 09:21 PM #5
    RoadClosed
    RoadClosed is offline
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    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.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  6. June 7th, 2006, 10:03 PM #6
    adamantius7877
    adamantius7877 is offline
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4
    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.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  7. June 8th, 2006, 02:51 AM #7
    xmaddness
    xmaddness is offline
    Webius Designerous Indiginous
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    1,123
    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.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  8. June 8th, 2006, 09:21 PM #8
    matousec
    matousec is offline
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3
    Hi,

    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.
    David Matousek, founder of Matousec - Transparent security
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  9. June 8th, 2006, 10:20 PM #9
    unhappy
    unhappy is offline
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    534
    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?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  10. June 8th, 2006, 10:24 PM #10
    Nokia
    Nokia is offline
    Right turn Clyde Nokia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Button Moon
    Posts
    1,696
    It will look pretty?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Forum Rules