Advice: WinXP or Win2k ?

B

borogovio

1
Need your advice pals, TIA:

I currently using Win2K workstation. Should I change to WinXP ?

Info: Standalone PC: no networking, LAN, etc.
Pentium III - 500 MHz, 256 RAM. ADSL.
My priority is that it be STABLE (lol)
Usually no games, multimedia processing, but sometimes I use IBM's ViaVoice, that eats all memory and is very CPU-intensive.
 
cdorders

cdorders

1
hmmmm, good position for a WinXP disc. I will promote mine as well, since I have to install it for a long long time :D
 
S

shadoe_phantom

1
in this case I would say don't knock it until you try it.
winXP pro works fine (no hitches) on my system (& many others I have installed it in). Saying that though, if win2K is working for you, then no need to change. WinXP might have slightly better luck with terms of compatibility with some software (cause some from win98/95 can work with it, where not in win2K), but more often than not people just get headaches.
Still, I would encourage you to put it on a different machine or partition a space on your HDD & test it out & see how you like it.
90% of the time you will just format that end of your HDD lol, but if you are like the 10% of others, you might convert or keep it around.
Choice is yours. Good luck (you might need it lol)
 
cdorders

cdorders

1
Ok, I agree with you shadow, but since he is satisfied with Win2k, what's the reason of going for WinXP??? I do not see any positive points there, even in testing the new OS, as he is satisfied with the present OS he has...
 
T

the Wop

1
W2K ABSOLUTELY!!!

I admin a W2K server network, small but challenging, and I have found no more stable and solid an OS as W2K If you don't need all the bells and whistles and clutter and overhead of XP by all means stay with W2K. I personally triple boot at home, 98SE, W2K Pro and XP Pro. I catch myself administering my home network (5 computers, peer2peer) from W2K but I lean towards surfing and Internet from XP, gaming I do mostly from 98SE some from W2K none from XP. I use older games like Unreal Tournament and Quake][ and they play better in 98SE. Hope this helps!!!
 
K

KNeptune

1
This is a major NO Brainer!

Spoken like a true professional - bells and whistles and clutter and overhead of XP ... AMEN!

That is XP in a nutshell ...

Those that said -

"Im using XP with no troubles..." ... fall into one of a few groups ....

1) I Check email, Surf for Porn, Play Solitaire, Skin everything - And have never had a problem ...

2) Im just so L33t, I r a PWrUzr (btw - where is the "Any Key")

3) MY MACHINE ROCKS! (ah gee mommy/daddy - this dual Zeon 2+Giger is too slow, it's time to upgrade...)


Just do some searches on this forum for things like "winXP vs Win2k" or the words "winXP sucks" etc ... It will become clearly obvious why we say all that ...

I've yet to find anyone that can match my frame rates in QIII or the pure crunching ability of something like TextPad with a 1 GIG server log file when you do a search and replace, etc while Im using win2k and they use XP.

Besides ... There isnt anything XP can do that if you really have just GOT to have it in win2k that cant be done, at the very least with a little software. But then again, WHY?

The overhead of all the fluffy pink bells and gay ass whistles of XP is just uncalled for ... You would have thought M$ would have learned their lesson with their biggest embarrasement - WinME!

And they wonder why their sales are hurting in the WinXP department vs Win2k!?!?

Moving from a happy and working install of Win2k to WinXPee is NOT an UPGRADE ... it's simply falling prey to M$'s garbage marketing.
 
cdorders

cdorders

1
I agree with both of you... XP is a marketing trick from Micrsoft and all these colours and sounds and pathetic functions are used to make WinXP appeal to people... Win98 are really good for most of the people that DO want DOS compatibility, playing games, software compatibility and so on, BUT they are really unstable. On the other hand, Win2k offer software and hardware compatibility combined with stabolity but it may be difficult to be used by the vast majority of people as they can be difficult in many functions for most of them. So, Microsoft tried to build WinMe that as they claimed they could combine all of the above... The result was a total FAILURE!!! After that, came the XP. It sometimes is stable, BUT there are many hardware and especially software issues that tend to prove the opposite. XP may be good enough for an average user that wants to do his work without any demands or without pushing it to the limits. And WinXP tend to be more user friendly than Win2k. The funniest thing is that the so called XPs, are produced in Home and Professional edition. These also means how Microsoft wants to trick the market. What does it mean that? Home is for kids and Professional is for Companies? Haha, come on, be serious... They are both the same... Same kernel, same colours....... So, if you are in Win2k, then do not go for XP, because it's a DOWNGRADE, not an update ;)
 
Last edited:
B

beautifuljesus

1
For starters, i agree that if it aint broken don't fix it. But i also disagree about XP being a pile of shite. I use it for professional audio work and i've never been more happy with such a stable operating system.

It takes about 40 minutes for me to cut all the "bells and whistles" out, like the stupid graphics shit etc but i think for the purpose i need its a nice OS and boots a lot faster then Win 2K.

Still WIN2K is a fine and proven OS too, but i am mighty happy with XP.
 
B

beautifuljesus

1
sorry , i didn't read that properly. i would maybe agree with that, although i did return to a sleek win 98 for some time after my ME experience. The fact there is no easy way to shut down to DOS is a bit of a limitation too, but i think were i to try again with the 9x family, i would go with ME.
 
cdorders

cdorders

1
Well, personally I would go for 98 rather than ME. But it is just an opinion. I prefer them most and they are more compatible with software. I don't know which is more stable, 98 or ME because I haven't tested ME thoroughly... Anyway, depends on lot ;)
 
B

borogovio

1
Thanks for all the comments - I think I'll stick to W2K, though I have a couple of problems with it (can't manage to burn CD with Nero & can't use some other programs I have, but I can endure them.)
 
B

beautifuljesus

1
yeah, XP rocks, agreed, but i have had trouble with a handfull of games and there seems to be no updates on the official sites either.

FAKK2 won't run in XP, so a second partition with 98/ME is the only solution, unless you use virtual pc. heh.
 
S

shadoe_phantom

1
I am able to run FAKK2 off my XP (right click on exe or shortcut for it after installation & choose properties, then compatibility *run as win98).
Ofcourse the game won't run as nicely as it did on win98SE, but it was still buggy on win98SE (even after a couple of patches).
 
M

Maxamus

1
The company i work for refuses to upgrade to XP. We currently have 650 PC's using Win2k Pro. Also the university i goto part-time still uses win2k (over 1500 PC's). Most company's who have good IT managers know that win2k is the best deal.
The company i work for did a test project with XP for compatibilty and other issues and the results that our technical team provided were pretty shocking.
They summed up that win2k was faster than XP when using office based packages such as Excel etc...
Even desktop publishing packages like photoshop were faster on win2k.
Also they noted that win2k was more friendly and low maintenance.

This is just a summary of what some organisations think of XP.
If you want to use XP then i wish you look, SP1 corrected some 1800 bugs, i wonder how many more there are undiscovered as yet and also wonder how many new bugs the Sp1 has created.

if you want stability and core performance then Win2k is the best OS.

From a personal point, Win2k is the best OS as yet!
 
S

shadoe_phantom

1
Maxamus,
win2k was reported to have 500+ bugs but in truth the asian technologies & advancement showing had some groups that found over 2000 bugs (but I wouldn't doubt if XP has more) & winME reported to have 16,000 plus bugs. Am sure we can't forget how many bugs win98 had (some 36,000+ bugs if not more by now).Most of these bugs are harmless, but little things can get in the way.
At a few offices here there are some 2000+ winXP pro installed units & 1000+ win2K pro units.
All seem to be working quite well. They both seem to be working on par with same speeds for office types of applications (as they use the same kernels for such & ntfs or fat32), but at the same time, the hardest working units here are the win2k pro units ('cause they have been around longer & have most of their issues solved).
I believe it has more to do with how your system is setup & what software/applications you use with your machine.
At home I have 1 machine with winXP, 2 with win98SE & 1 with win2K pro (linux machine moved to one office). No problems with any. Some have issues with certain things (win2k picky with DVD-ROM drives, while winXP picky with some older & new software, win98SE just picky lol), but after a little time spent on each, you get to work things out.
I prefer my winXP machine over the others (but could also be 'cause it has the newest hardware lol).
I still think people should just try them all out & see which they prefer. Nobody can say any OS by msn is bug free (not even unix is), just have to do your own tweaking & wait for fixes to come out.
Many just like the look & feel of one OS (especially gamers).
Still in the end, you can't go too wrong with win2K or winXP, 'cause I really think they are both better than any of their older brothers (though I know joripe likes his winME). =)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top