Win XP Pro - any good?

R

Roscoe

I'm debating upgrading from Win2000Pro to WinXP Pro. (athalon 1800 system, 512RAM, used for a lot of testing plus net & email use)

Are there any actual benefits in doing this, or is the change really only a cosmetic thing? I've heard that XP Pro is a very strong OS, but then again Win2000 has been reliable to date. Also read somewhere that XP Pro has a lot of overheads, such as checking to see if it is registered every six seconds - is this for real, or just a rumor?

If there are benefits, would anyone care to offer tips, advice, etc before I leap into this?

I am running the Doucor XactCopy system, so if it all goes really bad I can restore from the backup drive.

Thanks in advance!
 
WinXP (and Windows 2k) are based on the NT kernel (essentially the core of the OS). I run XP Pro, and it works well for me. Got W2K Server with 5 client licenses still in shinkwrap.
 
I used 2k for a while and it was great. Now I have xp pro and even though I have all the fancy xp stuff stripped out as best I can it just does not seem the same just sluggish in some areas. One example is when I click start, programs.... the programs list sort of scrolls into view.

Stability wise they are equal
 
I have alot of experience in this matter. If I were you, I would not upgrade to XP Pro because it is so similar to 2000 that there is little reason to upgrade.

However, XP does offer some quality enhancements, mainly in regards to graphics.

As far as stability, they are pretty much the same. So, there is not a noticeable difference there. Unless you are doing high-end computer programming!! I have crashed XP Pro several times this week because of my programming adventures.

Basically, I think you are fine with 2000.
 
Quote from jlcarey1:

I have alot of experience in this matter. If I were you, I would not upgrade to XP Pro because it is so similar to 2000 that there is little reason to upgrade.

However, XP does offer some quality enhancements, mainly in regards to graphics.

As far as stability, they are pretty much the same. So, there is not a noticeable difference there. Unless you are doing high-end computer programming!! I have crashed XP Pro several times this week because of my programming adventures.

Basically, I think you are fine with 2000.
More...

jlcarey raises some good points. Basically, XP will be a little more stable and get fixes a little faster (including security fixes) than W2K. You also may find hardware that only has drivers for XP (and you also may have some older stuff that only has drivers for W2K). I'm running XP mostly because I got it so cheap (and yes, I have 100% legal USA licenses for 5 copies). To be honest, I'm pretty sure I would not upgrade to XP unless there was a compelling reason (drivers, security, multiple monitors, etc.). You could make some argument about UI and stuff, and maybe even speed (theoretically XP is faster, but I never noticed any serious difference in speed) but if you really don't have anything to gain, why go through the hassle of an upgrade, or (the way I upgrade) a rebuild? And especially, why pay for the hassle?
 
But if you're getting a new machine, there really is no reason to not go with XP. It will be around longer than W2K, so why not go with the platform that will be supported, written for and around longer. This will put off as long as possible that inevitable OS upgrade that we all hate to even think about.
 
Quote from TGregg:

WinXP (and Windows 2k) are based on the NT kernel (essentially the core of the OS). I run XP Pro, and it works well for me. Got W2K Server with 5 client licenses still in shinkwrap.
More...

Uh, care to ship it over?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top