Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 8:54 pm Posted by db_one (108 messages posted) Stick with Win 2000 there is NOT much difference between the two other than graphical and a few other programa that Microsoft has incorporated into XP...cd burning, video editing. they also added a few programs that involve networks but for the average user you would not need them anyhow... Plus, win 2000 does not require that darn code registration... On Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 7:01 pm, Ed wrote: >I have a question about win xp vs. win 2000. I just installed w2k and I was wondering >if I made a mistake? I just built my computer and I am trying to decide which operating >system to go with, wxp or w2k? As I get deeper (more commited) into my new computer >I am wondering if I should just go with wxp? >Any help is appreciated. > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 6:34 am Posted by Me (166 messages posted) What type of usage do you want it for. If you want more than very basic game support then use XP if you want a system that is 100% rock solid use XP Pro (I have never been able to crash it) if you want something that is 90%stable but is cheaper than xp use win2k. WinXP is better for the basic user and really makes win2k obselete but win2k is a lot cheaper. Look at what you want it for then decide. I personaly would use XP instead of win2k no matter what my use. But it really depends on what you want out of your system. One thing winXP will be the standard for the next 2 or so years so you might have some hardware and compatability issues with some programs with 2k. But it is a simelar case with XP some older programs and hardware wont work with XP. Hope this is readable...Me On Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 7:01 pm, Ed wrote: >I have a question about win xp vs. win 2000. I just installed w2k and I was wondering >if I made a mistake? I just built my computer and I am trying to decide which operating >system to go with, wxp or w2k? As I get deeper (more commited) into my new computer >I am wondering if I should just go with wxp? >Any help is appreciated. > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 7:11 am Posted by Robert (1 messages posted) Compatibility issues with 2000 because XP will be the standard? If that happens, everything before XP will become obsolete for all versions of Windows and I don't think that's about to happen. Every software and hardware in the world compatible with Windows is for 95, 98, ME, NT, and 2000. I don't know of any specifically and only for XP. In my opinion, XP is just an incompatible NT. At least 2000 is a much more compatible NT, by far. I think it's insane of Microsoft to advance an OS incompatible with the establishment of the industry created by people. On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 6:34 am, Me wrote: >What type of usage do you want it for. If you want more than very basic game support >then use XP if you want a system that is 100% rock solid use XP Pro (I have never >been able to crash it) if you want something that is 90%stable but is cheaper than >xp use win2k. WinXP is better for the basic user and really makes win2k obselete >but win2k is a lot cheaper. Look at what you want it for then decide. I personaly >would use XP instead of win2k no matter what my use. But it really depends on what >you want out of your system. One thing winXP will be the standard for the next 2 >or so years so you might have some hardware and compatability issues with some programs >with 2k. But it is a simelar case with XP some older programs and hardware wont work >with XP. Hope this is readable...Me > > >On Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 7:01 pm, Ed wrote: >I have a question about win xp vs. win 2000. I just installed w2k and I was wondering >if I made a mistake? I just built my computer and I am trying to decide which operating >system to go with, wxp or w2k? As I get deeper (more commited) into my new computer >I am wondering if I should just go with wxp? >Any help is appreciated. > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Monday, February 25, 2002 at 7:03 am Posted by james (384 messages posted) One thing I do not like about XP is "activation" the required process of registering yourself as a user of XP. Microsoft is well on its way of developing technologies that look like quasi per use/fee-based software that will have us paying more and more for our OS use and software use. *Kerching*. Load XP with no programs and you use around 84 mb of ram. Win2K around 64 mb. Lack of crashing? As a admin on a 250+ network and helping many others with issues outside of work I also have seen XP display far more crash dumps related to hardware installation. True not that many, but far more than Win2K. Also if you build your own boxes XP limits the number of hardware component swaps before you have to re-register the product. What a pain. There's my 2 cents. On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 6:34 am, Me wrote: >What type of usage do you want it for. If you want more than very basic game support >then use XP if you want a system that is 100% rock solid use XP Pro (I have never >been able to crash it) if you want something that is 90%stable but is cheaper than >xp use win2k. WinXP is better for the basic user and really makes win2k obselete >but win2k is a lot cheaper. Look at what you want it for then decide. I personaly >would use XP instead of win2k no matter what my use. But it really depends on what >you want out of your system. One thing winXP will be the standard for the next 2 >or so years so you might have some hardware and compatability issues with some programs >with 2k. But it is a simelar case with XP some older programs and hardware wont work >with XP. Hope this is readable...Me > > >On Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 7:01 pm, Ed wrote: >I have a question about win xp vs. win 2000. I just installed w2k and I was wondering >if I made a mistake? I just built my computer and I am trying to decide which operating >system to go with, wxp or w2k? As I get deeper (more commited) into my new computer >I am wondering if I should just go with wxp? >Any help is appreciated. > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Saturday, July 20, 2002 at 8:20 am Posted by Allan (2 messages posted) My advice - stick to Win2000. Don't touch WinXP. I bought a new computer preloaded with WinXP, and it was buggy. Very. Without getting into gorry details, my opinion is that you chose well - Win2000 is nice. I've been using it for 2 years now and will NOT switch to WinXP. Allan allansplaceca@yahoo.ca On Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 7:01 pm, Ed wrote: >I have a question about win xp vs. win 2000. I just installed w2k and I was wondering >if I made a mistake? I just built my computer and I am trying to decide which operating >system to go with, wxp or w2k? As I get deeper (more commited) into my new computer >I am wondering if I should just go with wxp? >Any help is appreciated. > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Friday, October 4, 2002 at 8:45 am Posted by Tedd Powell (1 messages posted) Microsoft has, again, gone over the top in abusing its escrow for motivating users toward "new & improved." "New?" - Not very. And definitely NOT improved!!! On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 7:11 am, Robert wrote: >Compatibility issues with 2000 because XP will be the standard? If that happens, >everything before XP will become obsolete for all versions of Windows and I don't >think that's about to happen. Every software and hardware in the world compatible >with Windows is for 95, 98, ME, NT, and 2000. I don't know of any specifically and >only for XP. In my opinion, XP is just an incompatible NT. At least 2000 is a much >more compatible NT, by far. I think it's insane of Microsoft to advance an OS incompatible >with the establishment of the industry created by people. > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Thursday, January 23, 2003 at 10:32 pm Posted by BSlapshot (35 messages posted) Ya I'd say Xp but the problem with Xp and microsoft in genral is security. Windows xp support raw ports which are suppost to allow hackers to enter your computer with little effort. Microsoft thoery: Hackers can hack into computer whether or not we have raw ports open or not so there is no point in stalling them... That is not exactly what they said... Hey if you have a car and there is a lock on it could a theif still break in sure. But you wouldnt leave it unlocked right even if it makes it easier for u to open. On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 6:34 am, Me wrote: >What type of usage do you want it for. If you want more than very basic game support >then use XP if you want a system that is 100% rock solid use XP Pro (I have never >been able to crash it) if you want something that is 90%stable but is cheaper than >xp use win2k. WinXP is better for the basic user and really makes win2k obselete >but win2k is a lot cheaper. Look at what you want it for then decide. I personaly >would use XP instead of win2k no matter what my use. But it really depends on what >you want out of your system. One thing winXP will be the standard for the next 2 >or so years so you might have some hardware and compatability issues with some programs >with 2k. But it is a simelar case with XP some older programs and hardware wont work >with XP. Hope this is readable...Me > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Thursday, February 6, 2003 at 11:13 am Posted by Mike (1 messages posted) Raw socket access allows hackers in? How? I think someone's been sniffing Steve Gibson's crack fumes a little too much. Yes, XP and 2K allow raw socket access for users; but this doesn't mean anything in terms of "worse security" It just means that if the box gets hijacked somehow it's more prone to being used as a machine for denial of service attacks.; of course by that point iit really doesn't matter anyways. Overall, 9X machines are easier to attack than NT/2000/XP machines, although it all depends on what services you are running, etc... If you have Microsoft IIS running for instance, you can expect to get owned by a skript kiddy in a few days or hours after turning it on, especially if its unpatched. On Thursday, January 23, 2003 at 10:32 pm, BSlapshot wrote: > >Ya I'd say Xp but the problem with Xp and microsoft in genral is security. Windows >xp support raw ports which are suppost to allow hackers to enter your computer with >little effort. Microsoft thoery: Hackers can hack into computer whether or not we >have raw ports open or not so there is no point in stalling them... That is not exactly >what they said... Hey if you have a car and there is a lock on it could a theif >still break in sure. But you wouldnt leave it unlocked right even if it makes it >easier for u to open. > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Monday, April 21, 2003 at 9:08 pm Posted by A simple minded fellow (1 messages posted) It all depends on your system I'd say. XP uses on average twice the amount of system resources when it does "anything", so I wouldn't use it for my Duron 700 with 392 Mg's of RAM I’d stick with Win2K. But if I were to upgrade my machine I would migrate to WinXP Pro with out a doubt. I have heard mostly good reports from the guys at work, they have been using it since one of them stumbled on some very early releases (or non releases :-} ). The only thing that they say bugs them is that it try’s to do a little bit to much for you, It should only do what it is told :-) On Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 7:01 pm, Ed wrote: >I have a question about win xp vs. win 2000. I just installed w2k and I was wondering >if I made a mistake? I just built my computer and I am trying to decide which operating >system to go with, wxp or w2k? As I get deeper (more commited) into my new computer >I am wondering if I should just go with wxp? >Any help is appreciated. > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Sunday, February 22, 2004 at 1:40 pm Posted by Louis (1 messages posted) Just finished resolving the lack of compatibility between w9x applications and wxp installed on my new computer. Finally decided to use freeware System Commander to split up my HD into three sections, all FAT32. Now have wxp on C(C:), w98 on C(D:) and keep My Documents tucked away in a "safe zone" on section C(E:). This appears safe route to take and requires at least 40G of HD. Louis On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 7:11 am, Robert wrote: >Compatibility issues with 2000 because XP will be the standard? If that happens, >everything before XP will become obsolete for all versions of Windows and I don't >think that's about to happen. Every software and hardware in the world compatible >with Windows is for 95, 98, ME, NT, and 2000. I don't know of any specifically and >only for XP. In my opinion, XP is just an incompatible NT. At least 2000 is a much >more compatible NT, by far. I think it's insane of Microsoft to advance an OS incompatible >with the establishment of the industry created by people. > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?' Tuesday, May 9, 2006 at 8:38 am Posted by Traderhut (1 messages posted) Microsoft claims that XP is faster, and until I read the base post here, I'd not heard anyone else say that. I had a Gateway computer (PIII/700) preloaded with Win 2000 Pro. I "upgraded" to XP, and lost the ability to read DV (Digital Video) from a firewire cam corder to the disk without dropped frames after 1-2 seconds. The I/O system could no longer keep up... Then I tried to play a DVD.. Not able to initialize something.... I moaned and used it that way for a year or so.. But when giving the machine to my brother, I reformatted it back to Windows 2000 - Now everything worked again! Granted, I *only* had a little less than 500 MB of Ram - good grief! That's enough to do just about everything you could possibly want to do in.. or *should* be... My new machine, a 1.7 Ghz Pent 4M - RUNNING XP seems slow compared to the 700Mz PIII... Ok, well, they seem about the same speed... The PIII boots faster (of course, the faster a machine is, the slower it boots... As people find things that the machine can do while it's booting....) Granted, I only have 1.5GB of RAM in the P4 machine :-) With that much RAM, XP *should* be able to cache everything I've ever read from the disk and the disk should power down from non use... Just my two cents worth... Oh, does anyone have a test site that shows speed tests between the two OSs? -Chert http://www.traderhut.com [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