Windows2k vs XP

ToiletDuck · Jul 29, 2003

I know this has been beet to death but unlike most I'm not asking which is better. Obviously windows XP is more up-to-date or so I think. Which is why I am here. With all of the service packs that are available for windows 2kpro. Is there any real difference besides aestheticly(sp?) pleasing?
Duck

Graphic67 · Jul 29, 2003

Actually, windows XP Pro and 2000 Pro are almost equal in terms of being up-to-date. This may change when the XP SP2 is released, possibly later this year.

The major difference is with the crippled XP Home version which lacks the ability to log on to a network with a domain name, lacks file encryption, lacks multi-language support and lacks multi-processor support.

One notable difference is that windows 2000 has slightly better support for some legacy devices than XP Pro. As an example, my KT7A-raid system uses a highpoint 370 raid controller that is supported in Windows 2000, but is not supported in XP without an enthusiast modified controller/motherboard bios. Windows 2000 was designed to be an upgrade for machines that had been running NT since about '96, where XP was intended mostly for new machines built after its release (with some upgrades).

DEZMOND · Jul 29, 2003

Win 2k uses less memory also.

1-Man-Army · Jul 29, 2003

dont forget the gui, it looks better too on 2k but u can change it on xp too

ToiletDuck · Jul 30, 2003

To me XP seems more bloated. I liked win2k. I was wondering about compatability issues, along with the ability to assign processes to a certain processor as I do with XP. I must say however I tried wink3 and it is very very nice. I had to drop it though because of the lack of support for some things and plus I couldn't get it to let me onto certain websites, like the ones i bank on, even though I had enabled the internet.

ME-B chill · Jul 30, 2003

yeah, i am to the point where i don't know what to do... I have both w2k and xp pro and I am not sure which to run on my main pc. I am currently using w2k but I just got xp pro from my college for 5 bones so I am still debating the switch. I imagine I will put it on a machine sooner or later...mmm' probably later

allen337 · Jul 30, 2003

dual boot.

Oni · Jul 30, 2003

WinXP is more bloated, yes. But XP and Win2k are based on the same kernel.

Take XP, strip out everything you don't need or want, and you have Win2k. Why not just run that, and save yourself some time

rogerdugans · Jul 30, 2003

If you actually want any of the added features that WinXP has (slow cd burning, lousy firewall, Fisher Price gui, etc) than XP Pro is a better choice- avoid XP home at ALL costs!
Also if you have had trouble with a piece of software you NEED in Win2K, then go with XP.
If you don't want/need all the extra bloat then go with 2k

Basically they ARE the same.

ToiletDuck · Jul 31, 2003

what are the install sizes like once all the updates? Is win2k or XP bigger since 2k needs a lot of updates?

ME-B chill · Jul 31, 2003

i don't think i am a good dual boot candidate for a dual booting machine. it seems like i am reinstalling windows about every 6 months for one reason or another so it would just mean LOTS more work. i am going to stay with 2k pro for now...

ToiletDuck · Jul 31, 2003

every 6months. I about ever 2

Oni · Jul 31, 2003

I try to keep my installs as long as possible.

BoogieMan · Aug 1, 2003

Will keep my 2k, have used XP quite abit, but will keep 2k for my home duallie, stable as hell.

BoogieMan

ToiletDuck · Aug 2, 2003

does 2k allow you to set which processor does which task like on XP pro?

Windows2k vs XP

ToiletDuck

Member

Graphic67

Member

DEZMOND

Member

1-Man-Army

Member

ToiletDuck

Member

ME-B chill

Registered

allen337

Member

Oni

Oni-ni-Kanab;, Ninja Hippo eater Moderator

rogerdugans

Linux challenged Senior, not that it stops me...

ToiletDuck

Member

ME-B chill

Registered

ToiletDuck

Member

Oni

Oni-ni-Kanab;, Ninja Hippo eater Moderator

BoogieMan

Registered

ToiletDuck

Member

Similar threads