At first, I used windows xp. Then I switched to 2k for a few months, and now I'm back on xp. I don't understand why people prefer win2k, personally.

The main reason I changed back to xp was the lack of firewire networking support in 2k. I tried firenet, but it's not compatible with xp's firewire, which made it useless to me.

Also, windows xp is more customizable (there's a couple warnings on 2k I could never turn off), it boots almost twice as fast, it is easier to un-screw it up (I had a bad driver on 2k, had to boot into safe and delete it manually. Xp would probably take care of that automatically), and all the annoying crayola-style themes can be turned off (like easy file sharing, pretty themes, etc).

In the end, I don't really see any point to using 2k rather than xp. Please, feel free to convince me I'm wrong :)

I won't convince you. What I don't like about XP is mostly activation and the defaults. It can be setup to work nicely.

if you dont like xp because of the activation, just do what i did, get the corp version :P

ever since i beta tested xp way back before it came out, i knew it was a winner. it has its annoyances here and there, but they are all easily fixed, and the customizing is by far my favorite.

I have never tried out 2k but I got some problems already with Windows XP. Well my comp will be completely booted up and then I will have to wait like 5 minutes before it lets me connect to the internet. Stupid if yeah as me. But on the other hand it has a nice layout, Windows 98 I have never had problems with though.

Windows 98 has little in common with Windows 2000 on the implementation level. Win2k is an NT-based OS. Win98 is not.

My own view is that XP has some functionality I don't need. Aside from the absolutely horrible default "crayola scheme" as Iago puts it, I cannot stand the way it tries to hide everything and do so many things for you. I prefer having to do most things manually - XP requires too much work to configure to my satisfaction.

[quote author=Zakath link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=0#msg39187 date=1073771054]
Windows 98 has little in common with Windows 2000 on the implementation level. Win2k is an NT-based OS. Win98 is not.

My own view is that XP has some functionality I don't need. Aside from the absolutely horrible default "crayola scheme" as Iago puts it, I cannot stand the way it tries to hide everything and do so many things for you. I prefer having to do most things manually - XP requires too much work to configure to my satisfaction.
[/quote]

I found that 2k is just as bad for trying to hide stuff. Unless you count the file sharing, but that can be disabled in xp. Plus, Simple File Sharing is great if you don't know what you're doing :)

Don't get XP Home though.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=0#msg39257 date=1073836219]
Don't get XP Home though.
[/quote]

I've never touched it :)

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=0#msg39257 date=1073836219]
Don't get XP Home though.
[/quote]

Damn thats what I got! I have been having quite the amount of problems with it though.

[quote author=Mitosis link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=0#msg39269 date=1073841021]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=0#msg39257 date=1073836219]
Don't get XP Home though.
[/quote]

Damn thats what I got! I have been having quite the amount of problems with it though.
[/quote]

P.I.C.N.I.C.

whats the difference between win xp home and professional

[quote author=Probe link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=0#msg39286 date=1073843873]
whats the difference between win xp home and professional
[/quote]

XP Home is artifically limited - some things aren't included, some are just blocked.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=0#msg39283 date=1073843331]
[quote author=Mitosis link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=0#msg39269 date=1073841021]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=0#msg39257 date=1073836219]
Don't get XP Home though.
[/quote]

Damn thats what I got! I have been having quite the amount of problems with it though.
[/quote]

P.I.C.N.I.C.
[/quote]

What's that mean, Iago?

I'm glad you asked!

http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?String=exact&Acronym=picnic

h4r~

I'll have to use that more often.

I don't like Windows 2k because I don't have it :P
I like Windows XP, but rather have something else because it doesn't have IIS (or whatever for servers, which i think 2k has) :-\

[quote author=UserLoser. link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=15#msg39336 date=1073869755]
I don't like Windows 2k because I don't have it :P
I like Windows XP, but rather have something else because it doesn't have IIS (or whatever for servers, which i think 2k has) :-\
[/quote]
Windows XP Professional has IIS...

I prefer XP over 2k because I've found that it's less of a hassle to install things. There's more support for wireless networking stuff as well, I didn't even have to install any drivers when I used wireless lan cards on my PC's. I got rid of that annoying default scheme when I installed, so that wasn't much of an issue. The only complaint I have is the fact that it needs a lot more RAM than other systems to run nicely (384 or more.. IMOP). So I'm forced to install 2k in my older machines, or ones with not too much RAM.

[quote author=Skywing link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=15#msg39344 date=1073874524]
[quote author=UserLoser. link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=15#msg39336 date=1073869755]
I don't like Windows 2k because I don't have it :P
I like Windows XP, but rather have something else because it doesn't have IIS (or whatever for servers, which i think 2k has) :-\
[/quote]
Windows XP Professional has IIS...
[/quote]

Yeah you told me that once, but i have HOME! >:(

[quote author=UserLoser. link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=15#msg39349 date=1073875394]

Yeah you told me that once, but i have HOME! >:(
[/quote]

Don't get XP Home.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=15#msg39354 date=1073876375]
[quote author=UserLoser. link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=15#msg39349 date=1073875394]

Yeah you told me that once, but i have HOME! >:(
[/quote]

Don't get XP Home.
[/quote]

It's $90 cheaper. :P

It's also only half-complete. My university has an official policy of not allowing XP Home on student's machines, incidentally.

Haha, I just remembered something.. When I first got my newest computer, it came with XP Home. I had a bunch of files on a disc zipped up from my old machine. When I attempted to unzip the files with the XP zip thing, it crashed.. each time! I of course put XP Pro on there shortly after. :P

[Quote]I don't see why you'd prefer WinXP Pro over Win2k Pro.[/Quote] (Quote from Yoni)

Why do you think this?

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=0#msg39204 date=1073782249]
[quote author=Zakath link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=0#msg39187 date=1073771054]
Windows 98 has little in common with Windows 2000 on the implementation level. Win2k is an NT-based OS. Win98 is not.

My own view is that XP has some functionality I don't need. Aside from the absolutely horrible default "crayola scheme" as Iago puts it, I cannot stand the way it tries to hide everything and do so many things for you. I prefer having to do most things manually - XP requires too much work to configure to my satisfaction.
[/quote]

I found that 2k is just as bad for trying to hide stuff. Unless you count the file sharing, but that can be disabled in xp. Plus, Simple File Sharing is great if you don't know what you're doing :)
[/quote]

I want to just say I personnally am a Much bigger fan of Win2K comparred to WinXP but before I get to that I want to point out a few corrections. XP Home and XP Pro are EXACTLY the same in the respect that the kernal and base OS are the same the DIFFERENCES are very noticable if you accually use XP pro for it's true function as an OS at an Office, Pro has the "Administrator" account and so does Home but on home even if you set yourself to a Computer Admin you dont always get all the Admin features which really bugs me, the networking tools in XP pro are much more advanced and it has other random things here and there I just want to stress that XP Home and XP Pro run EXACTLY THE SAME if you test them on the EXACT SAME COMPUTER TESTING THE EXACT SAME PROGRAMS the only way they will be different is network and security mainly.

Ok now to why I like Win2K better i like Win2k better because It's tested to run faster than XP oh and BTW the on the Windows 98 Thing Win2k has an NT kernal but a Win98 based OS, when you compare Windows NT4 Workstation and Windows 98 to Windows 2000 Professional the Similarities relly balance out in Win2k is it's own breed of microsoft OSes. WinXP and Win2k are accually the SAME os with updates and themes if you look at the base OS and kernal they are the same one's jut slightly newer, but if you look it up even after Windows XP being out for 2 years Win2K is still sealing better ok well i'm done i'm not sure how articulate this is soo sory

Win2K doesn't use the Win98 code base (at all).

Why do i get the feeling that fullmoonclan is Mephisto?

I KNOW! cause he types absolute bullshit!

[quote author=fullmoonclan link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=15#msg40420 date=1074650016]the networking tools in XP pro are much more advanced and it has other random things here and there[/quote]

I'm sure glad Win2003 doesn't have random features.

XP Pro is better then 2k Pro in almost every aspect. Its well worth the 90$ more if youre unfortunate enough to have to pay retail price. XP Pro has more plug and play features then any other OS and has enough server capabilities for most uses. Also anouther reminder XP Home sucks every bit as much as people keep saying it does.

My gripe with XP is that if you modify any hardware, you usually end up having to repair the installation. It's happened to me three times I think - when I changed the MoBo, HD and even new DDR ram.

I'm sure it's Microsofts way of pi**ing me off for having a Mac too.

Damn it why couldn't you have discussed this in the fall? I got XP home, all I've ever used, and heard about people complaining but I never understood the differences. Now I discovered what IIS is and I need Pro. Is it at all possible just to upgrade to XP Pro from Home?

I've never had any problems though, and when I connected my cable modem for the first time it connected me instantly without me doing ANYTHING.

Is Windows ME NT-based? Out of anything Microsoft has EVER sold, I found Windows ME to be [u]THE WORST[/u] -- Fromage Du Millenia.

Windows ME is based on 98 and not nt, I think. I agree, it was their biggest mistake ever.

Yes, you can upgrade from Home to Pro.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=30#msg40480 date=1074694062]
Windows ME is based on 98 and not nt, I think. I agree, it was their biggest mistake ever.
[/quote]

As I like to say, ME is Microsoft's bastard child. It's simply the most useless pile of junk ever assembled under the Windows name.

(If you want to know the difference between XP and 2k, read through this thread)

did, and after the first few posts it seemed to get into an argument of xp vs home :-p

i still don't have a solid decision of win2k or xp.. and also, i have no interest in *nix right (linux), and i am working on windows development, thanks for the suggestion though

You meant Pro vs Home I'm assuming :P

Flat out, just get XP.

i would.. but i've read some articles, and gotten some advice from people, and what not, and i get good arguments on both sides, 2k and xp, as to which one to get.. and to me, i don't see that xp puts enough on the table to really say that "xp is so much better than 2k, you should upgrade immediately!" as where win95 to win2k would be a "drastic" upgrade with much more to offer in which you should definietly upgrade.. i don't see that between win2k and xp.. i'm still deciding :-\

If you already have windows 2k, paid for and sitting at home, then no, don't upgrade to xp. But if they are both available and you have neither, then you'd might as well go for xp.

i've used xp pro before, but never 2k.. i really hated win xp because it hogged so many damn system resources and did so many things for me without even telling me.. i usually ended up having to reboot every 1-2 days on my 450MHz 128mb ram machine.. it also ended up crashing every 2weeks or so.. but i'm pretty sure it was moreover to do with my video card..

are there any key features to xp that make it worth getting over 2k, or features that 2k doesn't have?

[quote author=DVX link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=30#msg41574 date=1075335301]
are there any key features to xp that make it worth getting over 2k, or features that 2k doesn't have?
[/quote]

Faster booting, more stability are the main things.

I should go check the uptime on my desktop - it's been turned on for at least 2 weeks without rebooting, running xp.

[quote author=Trance link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=30#msg40487 date=1074701480]
Yes, you can upgrade from Home to Pro.
[/quote]

Although that's really retarded; you shouldn't have gotten Home in the first place if Pro was going to be in your migration path. Based on the fact that a new computer could be upgraded to Pro for (IIRC) $79 at purchase, or a non-XP machine could be upgraded to Pro for an additional $99 from the price of Home, when you take the idea of upgrading Home to Pro for $199, it's just stupid.

This is called "planning." You may want to utilize it one day.

that's odd.. that's one of the main things i hear why 2k is better preferred is that it is less buggy, more stable, and smoother than xp..

[quote author=Myndfyre link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=30#msg41586 date=1075336994]
[quote author=Trance link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=30#msg40487 date=1074701480]
Yes, you can upgrade from Home to Pro.
[/quote]

Although that's really retarded; you shouldn't have gotten Home in the first place if Pro was going to be in your migration path. Based on the fact that a new computer could be upgraded to Pro for (IIRC) $79 at purchase, or a non-XP machine could be upgraded to Pro for an additional $99 from the price of Home, when you take the idea of upgrading Home to Pro for $199, it's just stupid.

This is called "planning." You may want to utilize it one day.
[/quote]
When I purchased the computer during the summer, I had little information on what the difference was and it was of no concern to me, I just wanted to play games and not share with my sisters. However now I'm beginning to do more programming(in PHP) and IIS would be nice to have because it is made by Microsoft.I don't know the difference, people just usually ask if I have IIS(not apache) and I'm curious as to what it is and what I can do. (I currently use apache)

i still am not very sure on what i am going to get.. it would be helpful to know some main, and maybe miscellaneous features of xp that 2k doesn't have and vice versa if any..

also some statistics and benchmarks would be cool to help me make my decision.. :-p

As has been stated before, there is really not that much of a difference between Windows XP Professional and Windows 2000 Professional once you get them setup (though you'll waste significantly more time configuring Windows XP Professional than Windows 2000 Professional if you don't like all the new settings).

Windows XP has a few new things, like fast user switching and support for kernel debugging over firewire, but other than that and the new GUI stuff there isn't much else different.

[quote author=DVX link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=30#msg41574 date=1075335301]i usually ended up having to reboot every 1-2 days on my 450MHz 128mb ram machine..[/quote]

It was probably your lack of RAM. Either get more RAM, or get a copy of Windows 2000. One of my boxes used to have 128mb's with XP Pro, and it got very sluggish after a few days. Then I added more RAM and everything was significantly better.[quote][/quote]

[quote author=Trance link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=45#msg41668 date=1075393364]
[quote author=DVX link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=30#msg41574 date=1075335301]i usually ended up having to reboot every 1-2 days on my 450MHz 128mb ram machine..[/quote]

It was probably your lack of RAM. Either get more RAM, or get a copy of Windows 2000. One of my boxes used to have 128mb's with XP Pro, and it got very sluggish after a few days. Then I added more RAM and everything was significantly better.[/quote]

Me too, actually.

Sky - I wouldn't say significantly more time, just a little bit more. I'd say it's worth it. Mainly, though, because I DO use firewire networking.

well, i have no need for silly dummy-user settings, so i
don't really care for the little additions that xp adds.. and this new box i am using is 1.3ghz/384mb ram.. but it came with win98, which is why i am deciding win2k or xp.. does win2k support multiple user accounts like xp? i found that to be very convinient since some people may be using my computer now and then, but mostly the old one since i got this one.. and does win2k not have a lot of support for networking or firewire related stuff or something?

and sky, would you recomend win2k or win xp?

Of course Win2k supports multiple user accounts. And I have never had problems with Win2k networking support.

iago, you need to admit you have a problem :)

I've set up both - it does take significantly less time to get Win2k configured to my satisfaction. And on the subject of stability...

[18:45:40] System uptime: 14 days, 2 hours, 24 minutes, and 27 seconds.

awsome; do you know any good places to purches win2k pro for significantly less than retail ($187.00)... i guess by that price comparing to win xp pro microsoft doesn't think very highly of win xp to bring it up, or still thinks highly of win2k enough to keep it up there :P

[quote author=Zakath link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=45#msg41740 date=1075420227]
Of course Win2k supports multiple user accounts. And I have never had problems with Win2k networking support.[/quote]
Win2k supports multiple accounts, but not fast-user-switching, which I would definately be lost without on my main computer.

[quote]iago, you need to admit you have a problem :)[/quote]
huh?

[quote]I've set up both - it does take significantly less time to get Win2k configured to my satisfaction.[/quote]
It also boots significantly slower. I noticed a huge difference when I had 2k on my laptop (1.3ghz, 512 ram) it would take a LONG time to boot, but when I have xp it is much, much faster.

i've decided to go with win2k. looking at retail it's basically the same price of $200 as win xp pro. does anyone know any good places to purchase win2k pro for significantly lower than retail? you mentioned zakath once if you're "unfortuanate enough to have to pay retail" does this mean you know where to buy microsoft os's for cheaper?

No, I own Windows 2000 OEM. It's quite a bit cheaper as a bundled OS. As far as where to buy it, maybe someone else can help you there.

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=37-102-138&catalog=368&depa=0

Newegg has it for $140.00, free shipping, with "hardware purchase" -- things like $3 IDE cables satisfy this requirement, so you should be in good shape.

Edit: Fixed URL

does win2k provide the switch user settings "switch user" and "log off" like xp? i want to beable to switch to another user account without closing my programs like i can in xp, is that so in 2k?

Yes.

[quote author=DVX link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=45#msg41908 date=1075511807]
does win2k provide the switch user settings "switch user" and "log off" like xp? i want to beable to switch to another user account without closing my programs like i can in xp, is that so in 2k?
[/quote]

It has log off, but not switch user. You have to close your programs on 2k.

that's gay.. >:(

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=45#msg41927 date=1075522088]
[quote author=DVX link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=45#msg41908 date=1075511807]
does win2k provide the switch user settings "switch user" and "log off" like xp? i want to beable to switch to another user account without closing my programs like i can in xp, is that so in 2k?
[/quote]

It has log off, but not switch user. You have to close your programs on 2k.
[/quote]

There isn't any service packs or anything that might add that?

[quote author=Tuberload link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=45#msg41938 date=1075527862]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=45#msg41927 date=1075522088]
[quote author=DVX link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=45#msg41908 date=1075511807]
does win2k provide the switch user settings "switch user" and "log off" like xp? i want to beable to switch to another user account without closing my programs like i can in xp, is that so in 2k?
[/quote]

It has log off, but not switch user. You have to close your programs on 2k.
[/quote]

There isn't any service packs or anything that might add that?
[/quote]

No, I was using Win2K with SP4, and it didn't.

However, you can create multiple desktops and switch among those. You can also create multiple window stations, which each contain their own set of desktops. I don't know that either of those would let you run in separate user contexts, but you could definitely get a significant degree of separation among running programs that way. (For instance, if you all have one user account and you just want to run different programs per person, this would be acceptable.)

I've never thought fast-user-switching was that great, really. It only encourages you to share your computer with other people, who ought not be messing with it! :)

[quote author=Kp link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=60#msg41982 date=1075568850]
I've never thought fast-user-switching was that great, really. It only encourages you to share your computer with other people, who ought not be messing with it! :)
[/quote]

I have a desktop and a laptop - the desktop uses fast user switching, so I stay logged on 24/7 downloading stuff or processing movies or whatever, while the rest of my family checks their email or whatever.

Ah...fast user-switching is utterly useless to me. I'm the sole user of both my desktop and my laptop, so I'm the only one with any accounts on either of them.

well, i suppose it doesn't really matter.. the one my family uses anyways allready has win xp pro on it.. and all they need is email, instant messaging, homework, and internet.. so who're they to complain about a low-end system.. since i'm going to be the sole user of this one, and later i am buying a new one, win2k will suit just fine for me.. :P

The drawback of win2k is that you may start seeing hardware incompatibility with it soon. New things you purchase for your computer might not run with win2k because of changes in the kernel making drivers incompatible between win2k and XP. Win2k should also be nearing the end of its life patch-wise, so purchasing win2k today might not be a good idea.

So do you just recomend getting Windows XP and just configuring it how I want it if infact hardware/patches will no longer come for win2k and be compatable...

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=60#msg42090 date=1075631884]
The drawback of win2k is that you may start seeing hardware incompatibility with it soon. New things you purchase for your computer might not run with win2k because of changes in the kernel making drivers incompatible between win2k and XP. Win2k should also be nearing the end of its life patch-wise, so purchasing win2k today might not be a good idea.
[/quote]

Am I mistaken that Microsoft has a 10-year product lifetime on most of their products? NT is an example of a product having reached end of life. I started using NT in 1994-95 and recently Microsoft stopped offering patches. They only offered an RPC patch because the Department of Homeland Security ordered them to do so, so I have heard.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=60#msg42393 date=1075773303]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=60#msg42090 date=1075631884]
The drawback of win2k is that you may start seeing hardware incompatibility with it soon. New things you purchase for your computer might not run with win2k because of changes in the kernel making drivers incompatible between win2k and XP. Win2k should also be nearing the end of its life patch-wise, so purchasing win2k today might not be a good idea.
[/quote]

Am I mistaken that Microsoft has a 10-year product lifetime on most of their products? NT is an example of a product having reached end of life. I started using NT in 1994-95 and recently Microsoft stopped offering patches. They only offered an RPC patch because the Department of Homeland Security ordered them to do so, so I have heard.
[/quote]

Microsoft has a 5-year mainstream support lifetime on most their products. You should expect to see support for 2000 start being reduced next year. Yes, you may see security patches for 2 more years, but you won't see fixes for bugs that appear when you try to run new software/hardware on it.

See for example http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/support/lifecycle/ or http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifecycle

On my 22nd birthday :)

i'm pretty much getting at now that windows 2000 is not something i should bother with, and just get windows xp pro?

also, this is kind of off subject of win2k and win xp.. but is windows longhorn based on what microsoft has shown us going to be big? or just another upgrade off of the nt kernel?

also, i was looking on the web, and i found out that microsoft has windows xp 64-bit version.. what's the buzz on that one? is it even worth getting? what does it provide that regular versions of windows xp doesn't.. and is the 64-bit one professional or home versions?

Although I may be wrong, I think that you need a 64-bit processor to use 64-bit windows.

yea, you do.. it only supports intel itanium processors.. as where longhorn will support intel's and amd's 64-bit processors in the 64-bit versions..

Currently getting Windows XP 64-bit edition has no practical purpose. There's very little software out there that supports 64-bit processors, meaning you'll probably just be running a 32-bit program on a 64-bit system. Also, it's expensive. So I'd give it some time. You should just stick with standard Windows XP Pro.

As for longhorn, I think they're building that from scratch.. but I'm not sure.

Longhorn is NT 6.0.

Where did you find that out at? Is it being built off the NT kernel?

[quote author=DVX link=board=2;threadid=4667;start=75#msg42715 date=1076034594]
Where did you find that out at? Is it being built off the NT kernel?
[/quote]
Microsoft has stated many times that they've finally killed off the win9x codebase.

If you follow the Microsoft kernel development newsgroups, it's fairly clear that Longhorn is like NT in kernel mode, rather than like win9x.

i wasn't thinking it was win9x code at all.. it wouldn't be a very good os IMO if it was.. but i thought it was being built from scratch with a brand new kernel because microsoft has also stated they plan to develop a new series of windows with longhorn technology (desktop os, server os, etc. in addition to software like internet explorer, microsoft office, etc.)