Windows 2000 vs XP

T

Toonces

Is there a clear winner between these platforms? There were some discussions a while back, but it's been a few years, so I wonder if anything has changed.

I remember that Baron had something on this site a while back showing that 2000 was the best platform, but I believe that was before the release of XP.
 
I was and am a fan of 2000 pro but xp pro has not had one single problem since I got it. I have xp home on my surfing computer and have been pleasantly suprised that I have had no problems with it either.
 
XP has a greater plug-n-play library and its support [at least for Pro] will extend well beyond when support ends for Win2K.

Anyone starting a new system or upgrading today should use XP Pro.
 
The major differences as I see it:


- Support for XP will be around longer for XP than for Win2000

- "out of the box" XP is more resource hungry than Win2000

- Once you know how to turn off all the "bloat" and unessential crap in XP it will just as fast as Win2000, not much between them.

- I like the default MS support of XP for multiple monitors, it is not in Win2000 but can be done with add-on software etc. (most laptops can support two monitors without any extra hardware, big plus)

- XP is more geared to connectivity with the internet - Win2000 is more of a "stand alone" environment, in particular XP is a lot easier for wireless connectivity.

The last two reasons were essential for me to switch from Win2000 to XP. (using laptops and travelling a lot)

Hope this helps
Maria
 
Go with XP Pro if your spec will support it

W2K was where alll the effort was directed at stability. W
ith XP the focus seems to have been on making the now stable platform user friendly. As noted, you can turn a lot of the bloat off. I delayed upgrading W2K as I assumed XP was all bloat and aesthetics, but with hindsight wish i had upgraded sooner. XP is stable and is a nice OS to use.
 
Quote from nononsense:

Would Windows2000 support wireless networking?
More...

The IBM laptops did with add-on software. But when you start talking WEP etc then it is not keeping up with the latest developments.

On the Toshiba's that we had we were never able to get it stable, it would keep loosing the connections when we used IE.

Maria
 
Quote from bali_survivor:



- "out of the box" XP is more resource hungry than Win2000

- Once you know how to turn off all the "bloat" and unessential crap in XP it will just as fast as Win2000, not much between them.

-Maria
More...

One thing I did notice when I bought this computer was that when I checked the task manager there was not much ram available and I had not added any programs at all. It only came with 512 but I was still suprised that it was using that much ram out of the box. I quickly added a gig of ram but am curious what this "bloat" you are talking about is.
 
Quote from easyrider:

One thing I did notice when I bought this computer was that when I checked the task manager there was not much ram available and I had not added any programs at all. It only came with 512 but I was still suprised that it was using that much ram out of the box. I quickly added a gig of ram but am curious what this "bloat" you are talking about is.
More...

Overhead can be reduced by not starting unnecessary services, devices, drivers, etc. My trading rig with 4 monitors boots with 110MB usage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top