View Full Version : W2K OS VS. XP. What do you guys think is the best?

08-16-2002, 11:30 PM
Which os do you guys like better, I have still not tried xp, I am running W2K pro and like it allot, I hear so much bad crap about xp and just wan the real scoop and opinion from people that have used both.

08-17-2002, 03:27 AM
XP is an angel to me. Never needing to get drivers is SOOO nice. als0, as far as my experience, stability is unmatched (windows xp pro)

08-17-2002, 03:33 AM
How about the registration..?? I have heard mixed reviews about that crap, I rebuild my systems all the time so do you have to re-register everytime you rebuild..?? That is what a buddy told me, but he may or may not know what he is talking about. Anything odd about the install of it..??

08-17-2002, 12:22 PM
well the only OS ive worked with is 98, and i gotta say its serving its time well. Im sure vee_ess will have a word in this, because both OS have their many advantages and disadvantages. Its all a matter of opinion really, but yeah ive heard some stuff on XP. I like it though, same with win2000pro

08-17-2002, 02:04 PM
The last 2 and a half years, I have done my best to keep my hands clean of th DOS-based OS'es. So, basically, I have around 2 and a half years of daily experience with Win 2k, and about 1 and a half years of daily experience with Win XP.

Windows 2000 is slightly, but noticeably faster in office apps, and less noticeably faster in gaming. Neither one has ever truly crashed for me. Windows 2000, isn't very compatible with many things, and hardware support isn't really very good for much of the gaming hardware. Windows XP has much better compatibility though. Because after all, Win XP has an enhanced Win 2k kernel, and the most important change is the compatibility. The registration is optional, but the activation isn't, and if you get the OEM version, you can reinstall it any amount of times in any period of time, and if you activate it online it takes about 2-3 seconds. I think that hassle is worth the extra compatibility. The performance is virtually identical, and both are far superior to the DOS-based OS'es. One thing I don't like about 2000, besides the lack of compatibility, is it takes about twice as long to boot - upwards of 30 seconds for me. Win XP takes about 15 seconds. MS optimized the boot up because many people didn't like the time it took, and it was supposed to be really in-efficient.

Tell me if you want more info.

08-17-2002, 03:05 PM
So if I buy say xp pro locally every time I install it I have to activate it..? Also say I wanted to be el sneako and install it on two machines..?? Would that be a problem..?? I see that if I buy the oem version I just need to activate it once correct..?? so if I activate it once then I can use it just like WINK and put it on as many machines as I want or..?? Let me know, see I have 4 computers at this location, and I would love to be able to just buy 1 copy, I know it is wrong and illegal but I would rather keep every dime out of that greedy guys company as possible. ALso I heard a rumor for another computer guy that everytime you change hardware, or a processor or a video card ect... you have to re register it or install it, somthing like that. Let me know what ya think!

08-17-2002, 05:19 PM
I got a copy from a buddy of mine and all seems well so far. I'm just waitng to see if it locks me out 9 months from now. I like it. Very stable now that they have finished the beta testing, paid for by consumers. Actually all MS operating systems are like a life long beta test that we pay for. Well, some of us.

08-20-2002, 01:14 AM
Well, I haven't read all the posts in here, but I'll leave a brief synopsis of my stance on the issue. I believe I've already gone into this in another post somewhere, but I'm too lazy to find it right now.

Windows 2000 Professional is more "professional," in my opinion. It's a more aged and widely-utilized platform than XP is. XP is a more modern OS, and has better native driver support than Windows 2000. I personally haven't ever had application compatability problems with Windows XP, but haven't had any with 2000 either. I use modern applications almost exclusively. Windows XP networking is somewhat slower than that of 2000, in my experience. Windows XP has some features that I like a lot, including the network activity monitor in task manager, showing date in system tray, win+L to lock, AIM away message when computer locked, remote desktop. Windows 2000, on the other hand also has some features that are somewhat lost in XP, including good user management, efficient networking, three SP's of support/fixes.

For my purposes, I've gone with Windows XP on my main computer at home. Registration isn't necessary ever, and all that is necessary is "Product Activation." You can either do this online in ~30 seconds, or over the phone with a few automated prompts in a minute or two. If you reformat and reinstall on same machine, same hardware, I think you're alright to go. If something's changed, or a new computer when you reinstall, you just do the same thing again.

Bear in mind that Windows 2000 is 2-3 years old, which has its advantages and disadvantages, whereas Windows XP is 0-1 years old.

My personal opinion is that performance differences are going to be mostly negligable. Stability is probably nearly the same, but possibly somewhat better with Windows 2000 still. The main factor that will influence that, regardless of what OS you run, is how you (ab)use your computer.

Oh yeah, Windows XP has system restore, if that's a big thing for you. Personally? I turn it off.

10-09-2002, 12:30 AM
Like many said, winxp and win2000 are not fundumentaly different, the difference is that win2000 has less fancy gizmos than winxp (which means less memory usage).

i use win2000 and the main factor is because I change hardware a lot and I do abuse my machine so formats are common to me, Iused win xp for 6 months and didnt like the activation thing.

10-09-2002, 12:39 AM
i personaly prefers the win2k pro
been using it since it came out

Yo Momma
10-09-2002, 12:47 AM
I use the corperate final version of XP. No activiation.

10-09-2002, 10:45 AM
I use XP Pro--like the native support for lots of hardware. This is supposed to be a more stable system than 2000. I've managed to crash it doing weird stuff, but I think it would actually recover by itself if left alone for a while.

2000 is designed more for corporate use--where security and large networking capability are considerations, IMHO


10-09-2002, 02:30 PM
I've been using XP Pro at home and at work for over a year. I've had far fewer software issues at work with XP than I did with 2K. I've had NO hardware or software issues at home and that includes running some older games such as the first Heroes of Might & Magic, Blade Runner, Lands of Lore 2, Wing Commander: Prophecy, and Ultima VI, VII, and VIII. I haven't attached an add-in card or a peripheral yet that XP didn't run properly from the word go.

10-09-2002, 06:20 PM
win2k for sure especially for more of the power users. its a solid server and workstation. XP's driver compatability is nice, but chock full of annoying "wizards" i find xp to be kind of wussy compaired to 2k in that respect. they dummy down a ton of things.. especially in XP home.

I like XP for a workstation, pretty,and simple. I enjoy the kernel based driver system for devices in xp ..its much nicer, but you get some things you don't really want or have a choice in deciding sometimes as far as drivers go. I love its camera file transfer utility thing.. its much easier to use then the third party ones that came with my camera that i have to use in 2k.

2k seems to be more rock solid as both server and workstation. You have to specify the drivers and it doesn't find nearly as much as xp, but once you do there is hardly any issue with them, i've only had a few probs with my camera drivers in 2k...(partly because the manufacturer stopped making drivers >: ( )

10-10-2002, 05:33 AM
I use the corperate final version of XP. No activiation.
Yes, I use this too. Very good indeed.

10-11-2002, 07:50 PM
I personally use Windows XP because it at least ostensibly has better compatability with games. However, Microsoft definitely could have done a better job with this, as compatability mode is not even close to a full solution (case in point: Homeworld Catacylsm, which I have to run in compatability mode for NT 4.0?!?).

Windows XP is greatly overpriced on the retail level, and being the law-abiding citizen I am, I had to take all of 5 minutes to find a much cheaper copy on pricewatch. The built-in drivers are REALLY nice, except they should give you an option of updating the default drivers for certain peripherals, as the Radeon drivers = BSOD.

10-27-2002, 11:22 PM
I use XP professional at home and 2000 at school. I am probably biased but i like XP much more because of "tinkerability" looks, among other things. I have heard that XP home is a joke.. so Between XP pro and 2k.. its pro but XP home and 2k.. go with 2k

10-28-2002, 12:58 AM
I use XP professional at home and 2000 at school. I am probably biased but i like XP much more because of "tinkerability" looks, among other things. I have heard that XP home is a joke.. so Between XP pro and 2k.. its pro but XP home and 2k.. go with 2k

i dont think that works.. i'd take 2k pro over xp anything.

u do realize there is xp pro, 2k pro, 2k home, 2k server, 2k advanced server also right? :)

no 2k home, my bad my bad :)

10-28-2002, 01:02 AM
there is no win2k home

10-29-2002, 04:20 AM
ive used win xp since february, never had any problems, the system is basically used for web (browsing, email), gaming (on and (sometimes) offline), doing homework, music

apart from the gaming nothing paticularly intensive, ive got a 1.53ghz, 256ddr system, ill probs get more ram for xmas

never used win2k so i can't really comment on it, but XP is fine for drivers, great for stability, only had a couple of BSoDs and they were from unusual applications (SETI@Home doesn't like it, the program which comes with my mobo to OC it, xp unsupported, and another i can't remember)

10-29-2002, 08:11 AM
This topic came just in time for me. I am debating whether to get XP or 2k. Right now im on Windows 98 and I am getting sick of it. I have win2k( not installed ), win98. Should I overwrite 98 or just put 2k on another partition.

06-03-2003, 06:30 AM
win2k is blatantly better

06-03-2003, 01:11 PM
You should overwrite. Especially for gaming, running apps in 2k isnt a hassle as it once was with incompatabilities. I am just sick of the "kiddy" appearance of XP(though i know u can change it) and it takes a lot of my resources. I first had 2k installed, then overwritten to XP, but now I am going back, because I dont see any major reason(s) to stay with XP.

06-03-2003, 01:14 PM
I am just sick of the "kiddy" appearance of XP

...amen to that.