WIndows XP vs 2000

[HondaF1]

Which is better in terms of reliability? Disregarding all the nice looking things in XP and whatever the differences are, which would you rather prefer, again, disregarding all the video editing stuff XP gives you, basically, disregarding all the stuff XP gives for average and below average users?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Do a search. This turns into a flame war abotu monthly.

 

[yezhou]

I prefer Windows ME...



j/k...both are great...I used Win2K for around 4 years and it served me nicely, but I'm using WinXP SP2 now...just 'cause...ummm...yeah.

 

[Terabyte]

Does windows 2k have any incompatability issues? And it uses less resources right?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: sil3nt t0rnado
Does windows 2k have any incompatability issues? And it uses less resources right?

XP utilizes SMT (hyperthreading) more efficiently. I haven't noticed much difference between 2k and XP as far as speed goes. I have had a lot more trouble with 2k on some hardware than XP derivatives.

 

[The Green Bean]

R*200000

 

[spherrod]

XP

 

[Somniferum]

I use 2000 at work (company policy) and XP at home. I prefer XP. Boots faster, among other things.

 

[vegetation]

Originally posted by: sil3nt t0rnado
Does windows 2k have any incompatability issues? And it uses less resources right?

2K will install and run decently with very old systems; I have a P166 with 64mb running 2k for a weather station and small web server. Works great.

 

[Shawn]

Only reason I switched to XP was because of hyperthreading. Otherwise, I'd use win2k indefinitely.

 

[tooltime]

i would choose xp. current hardware and sw makers could add compatibility to xp before 2000. i know there is more reliability in gaming on xp. i also have 2000 on a machine.

 

[DaFinn]

Originally posted by: Supercharged
Only reason I switched to XP was because of hyperthreading. Otherwise, I'd use win2k indefinitely.

Ummm, what? W2K has no issues with hyperthreading.

 

[Schadenfroh]

XP2000

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: DaFinn

Originally posted by: Supercharged
Only reason I switched to XP was because of hyperthreading. Otherwise, I'd use win2k indefinitely.

Ummm, what? W2K has no issues with hyperthreading.

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
XP utilizes SMT (hyperthreading) more efficiently. I haven't noticed much difference between 2k and XP as far as speed goes. I have had a lot more trouble with 2k on some hardware than XP derivatives.

 

[fanboi]

XP Pro is practically a remodelled 2K. They added a few things, took away a few things, but you can't go wrong with either.

Some people complain about XP because they're "used" to doing things a certain way in 2K, and then it isn't the same in XP.

My roommate does that all the time. Whenever something goes wrong with my system, he always blames it on XP. I'm then quick to point out that XP and 2K are practically the same, and that the problem probably resides in some new software I just installed. I'm always right. It's just plain discrimination.

People are just reluctant to change habits. XP can do pretty much everything 2K can and more.

 

[TGHI]

Not to spark a humungous debate, but I do believe that in general Windows 2000 is faster. Now, in terms of boot time, XP does take the cake. To me, XP just seems like a n00bed-out version of W2K.

 

[bsobel]

Ummm, what? W2K has no issues with hyperthreading.

W2K does not support hyperthreading. The scheduler does not support it correctly and W2K does not provide the additional API's that XP does for license compliance (for apps licensed to physical cpu's). Do a search if you want to see the zillions of threads already covering this.

Bill

 

[KJI]

I think they're about equal.

I've used Windows 2K for the last few years, and just started using Windows XP last week on my new system. There's some new stuff and some old stuff, but it's practically the same.

Though, I also believe the choice depends on your system. With really kick ass or new systems, I would go for Windows XP just because you can do things like test out WMP10, and because there might be better driver support for newer things.

 

[FIFO]

I agree with KJI

Here is my experience with it all...

W2K seems to play better with older SCSI hardware and a few other more niche type hardware products.

I have installed WXP on a fairly broad spectrum of PCs and after tuning the OS a bit, I can get it to run not too bad on a K6-2 450 with 256 MB RAM.

Personally, my inclinations are that XP is best for home or digital media rich office work and 2K is better suited for general office PC use.

Jason.

 

[dguy6789]

XP with all windows updates is a good deal more stable then 2000. Not only that, 2000 has a huge amount of compatibility problems still even at its current age.

XP is more stable, better support, faster on faster machines(slower on slower ones)

 

[D1gger]

Originally posted by: HondaF1
Which is better in terms of reliability? Disregarding all the nice looking things in XP and whatever the differences are, which would you rather prefer, again, disregarding all the video editing stuff XP gives you, basically, disregarding all the stuff XP gives for average and below average users?

XP if faster, has better device support and better security than 2k. If you don't like the XP eye candy, turn it off.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
XP with all windows updates is a good deal more stable then 2000. Not only that, 2000 has a huge amount of compatibility problems still even at its current age.

XP is more stable, better support, faster on faster machines(slower on slower ones)

What an absolute load of bull. :disgust:

 

[FIFO]

Can't agree with that highly educated response Canterwood.

I am slow as hell to adopt the latest greatest from the Vole and I can tell you I have been very pleased with the performance and stability of XP SP1 on my systems at home. (Note I waited to use XP until SP1 was out) I have also yet to find a stability problem from SP2. Of course I turn off Security center and the other goofball toys that were added in SP2.

As far as performance is concerned, the default config of XP (Home or Pro) has so much useless eye candy turned on that even an awesome system will seem a tad slow responding. Things like fade in menus and font smoothing to name just a few. Go to properties of my computer and then advanced, then performance settings. There are more than a dozen stupid little eye candy settings in there that usually just slow a system down.

Again, W2K for business use is fine, but media rich work (Including gaming) is much better off on WXP.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: FIFO
Can't agree with that highly educated response Canterwood.

I am slow as hell to adopt the latest greatest from the Vole and I can tell you I have been very pleased with the performance and stability of XP SP1 on my systems at home. (Note I waited to use XP until SP1 was out) I have also yet to find a stability problem from SP2. Of course I turn off Security center and the other goofball toys that were added in SP2.

Again, W2K for business use is fine, but media rich work (Including gaming) is much better off on WXP.

The response was as educated as dguy's post.
What he said was bull.
XP is not a good deal more stable than 2000, and doesn't suffer huge compatibility problems.
You can even enable compatibility mode (aka XP) if you really need it.
I'm not saying that 2000 is as compatible as XP, but it does a pretty good job.

I agree that XP is stable, I never said it wasn't, but its no more stable than 2K. Thats a fact.
I also agree that XP is more geared towards media and gaming, however I have done both on a 2K box with great success and without any problems whatsoever, either in speed or compatibility.
I'm not flaming XP or starting a flameware (That can wait for next months 2000 v XP thread), but sometimes statements like dguy's just annoy me.
Anyway, enough said.

 

[fanboi]

Basically, the OP was asking which is better in terms of stability.

Answer: They're both pretty much the same

In terms of compatiblity: I think XP is slightly better.

You can't really go wrong with either.

If you're about to change OS, and you can't decide between XP and 2K, I'd probably suggest XP. If you're already running 2K, there really isn't much reason to upgrade unless you simply want to.