Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Windows 2000 vs. XP Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 12:30 pm Posted by Michael (2800 messages posted) Microsoft would probably advise you to use XP, but then again, they recommend ME on client machines, which is like saying 'brush your teeth with a broken bottle...' I would say that Windows 2000 would be a better bet, as it has a proven track record, and I haven't seen a great deal of uptake of XP in any of the companies that I work for. XP does have some problems with hardware, so I think 2000 would be the best bet. If you wanted to find out about hardware, you could get one CD of each and use the utility to do a 'dry run' of the hardware installation part of setup. On Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 12:21 pm, Scott Wilson wrote: >I am managing an office of 35 users. Most of us are still using Win95/98. >It's time to upgrade. We are planning upgrade to W2k or XP. We will most likely >be using Office XP (as we get non-profit pricing). Our Domain server is NT 6 (sp6a). > > >Does anyone have any thoughts on which OS would better suit us? My experience with >W2K is that it is pretty stable. I am already overworked as it is and want the least >amount of problems to work with. How is XP with older hardware 3,4,5 years old hardware? > >TIA > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Windows 2000 vs. XP Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 12:56 pm Posted by Curt R (1315 messages posted) I haven't played with XP yet, but I can recommend 2000. I've found it to be a very stable OS. I'm sure XP is as well and from what I've heard from friends that are now using it, it's a good OS. I think you may have some serious trouble getting either 2000 or XP to run on such old hardware. You can go to microsofts web site and read the spec's on system requirements for both operating systems and peruse their HCL (hardware compatibility list) to see if your present equipment is capable of running either OS. I highly recommend you check the HCL and minimum system requirements before you purchase anything, you will likely find you can't run either OS without upgrading hardware first. I wanted to ask, have you given any thought to upgrading your server? 2000 server is far superior to NT 4.0 On Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 12:21 pm, Scott Wilson wrote: >I am managing an office of 35 users. Most of us are still using Win95/98. >It's time to upgrade. We are planning upgrade to W2k or XP. We will most likely >be using Office XP (as we get non-profit pricing). Our Domain server is NT 6 (sp6a). > > >Does anyone have any thoughts on which OS would better suit us? My experience with >W2K is that it is pretty stable. I am already overworked as it is and want the least >amount of problems to work with. How is XP with older hardware 3,4,5 years old hardware? > >TIA > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Windows 2000 vs. XP Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 1:08 pm Posted by Scott Wilson (3 messages posted) Thanks for the food for thought. I would love to do Windows 2000 server, but we are a non-profit and have very limited funds. On Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 12:56 pm, Curt R wrote: > I haven't played with XP yet, but I can recommend 2000. I've found it to be a >very stable OS. I'm sure XP is as well and from what I've heard from friends that >are now using it, it's a good OS. I think you may have some serious trouble getting >either 2000 or XP to run on such old hardware. You can go to microsofts web site >and read the spec's on system requirements for both operating systems and peruse >their HCL (hardware compatibility list) to see if your present equipment is capable >of running either OS. I highly recommend you check the HCL and minimum system requirements >before you purchase anything, you will likely find you can't run either OS without >upgrading hardware first. I wanted to ask, have you given any thought to upgrading >your server? 2000 server is far superior to NT 4.0 > > >On Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 12:21 pm, Scott Wilson wrote: >I am managing an office of 35 users. Most of us are still using Win95/98. >It's time to upgrade. We are planning upgrade to W2k or XP. We will most likely >be using Office XP (as we get non-profit pricing). Our Domain server is NT 6 (sp6a). > > >Does anyone have any thoughts on which OS would better suit us? My experience with >W2K is that it is pretty stable. I am already overworked as it is and want the >least >amount of problems to work with. How is XP with older hardware 3,4,5 years old >hardware? > >TIA > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Windows 2000 vs. XP Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 6:19 pm Posted by BrandonMartensen (7 messages posted) I recommend using Windows 2000 because of Windows XP's strict hardware requirements and product activation scheme. On Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 12:21 pm, Scott Wilson wrote: >I am managing an office of 35 users. Most of us are still using Win95/98. >It's time to upgrade. We are planning upgrade to W2k or XP. We will most likely >be using Office XP (as we get non-profit pricing). Our Domain server is NT 6 (sp6a). > > >Does anyone have any thoughts on which OS would better suit us? My experience with >W2K is that it is pretty stable. I am already overworked as it is and want the least >amount of problems to work with. How is XP with older hardware 3,4,5 years old hardware? > >TIA > [Reply or follow-up to this message] Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum