|
|
|
Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?'
Showing all messages in thread #1061861180
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
The following are all of the messages in this thread (5 in all), shown in chronological order. Click any message subject to view that message by itself or to view the thread hierarchy.
|
Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?'
Monday, August 25, 2003 at 6:26 pm
Posted by Paul Rudoff
(9 messages posted)
As a new Windows 2000 user, I just wanted to share my opinion about this article.
The "benefits" they list for Windows XP aren't really beneficial at all. Let me
explain.
# The new Windows XP interface is more cheerful and colorful than earlier versions,
although the less-cartoony "Classic" interface can still be used if desired.
Who wants "cheerful and colorful"?!? I've seen the interface. It looks like a Looney
Tunes cartoon threw up on your computer ... and not in a good way. To get it to
look and act like traditional Windows, you have to do a lot of tweaking, which is
more work than you should have to do.
Making the computer interface look "pretty" usually causes it to slow down as it
has to waste resources on all the unnecessary graphics and junk. That's why I no
longer use wallpaper, system sounds, or even a screen saver.
# Windows XP has more bells and whistles, such as the Windows Movie Maker, built-in
CD writer support, the Internet Connection Firewall, and Remote Desktop Connection.
"Bells and whistles," by definition, is unnecessary eye and ear candy. Or, in other
words, stuff that distracts you from the products shortcummings.
Built-in CD writer support sounds like a good thing, assuming it's done correctly.
However, it's not necessary to have it built in as you can easily add "support"
to earlier versions of Windows (as I have already done). So, this isn't exactly
a "must have" reason to buy XP.
The Windows Movie Maker is something that I *could* have a use for it, assuming it
was made correctly (and this *IS* Microsoft we're talking about here).
I wouldn't trust the built-in Internet Connection Firewall as far as I could throw
it. I'll stick with good old ZomeAlarm thank you very much.
And Remote Desktop Connection sounds like a hacker's dream. I wonder how easy it
is to exploit this.
# Windows XP has better support for games and comes with more games than Windows
2000.
Yes and no. Windows 2000 is known internally as Windows NT 5.0 and Windows XP is
Windows NT 5.1. In other words, XP isn't even a FULL version above 2000. Which
means that they are essentially the same thing. I think the only difference might
be the added "bells and whistles" noted above.
I have not had a single problem running ANY of my games on Windows 2000, including
ones that were made for the Windows 95/98 line, before 2000 and XP existed.
# Windows XP is the latest OS - if you don't upgrade now, you'll probably end up
migrating to XP eventually anyway, and we mere mortals can only take so many OS upgrades.
[cough]bullshit[cough]. I know one person, and I'm sure they're are MANY more, who
are still using Windows 98. You know why? Because it's still useable. The latest
is not always the greatest, and in most cases, there's usually no need to upgrade
to the latest.
Hell, if Windows 95 had USB support, it would still be quite useable, too. (Yes,
I know that the very last release of 95 had USB support, but I think the support
in 98 is better ... and it's definitely more supported in the industry.)
The only reason I upgraded to 2000 is just to be on the NT architecture since DOS
is going the way of the Dodo. I think that 2000 will have a much longer lifespan
than 95/98/ME.
# Manufacturers of existing hardware and software products are more likely to add
Windows XP compatibility now than Windows 2000 compatibility.
This is a redundant statement because a lot of existing hardware and software products
are ALREADY compatible with Windows 2000 seeing as how it has already been out for
a while. The new scanner I bought this past June supports Windows 98, ME, 2000,
and XP. Almost all of my old hardware was compatible with 2000. I had to download
new drivers and stuff for my video card and modem, but that's not a problem. The
only piece of hardware that wasn't compatible with 2000 was my old scanner. But
you know what? It isn't compatible with XP either!
Also I should point out that most manufacturers are NOT more likely to add XP compatibility
now than 2000 compatibility. If they're not going to support 2000, chances are they
won't support XP. They'll just tell you that your product is too old and to buy
a new one (which means more money for them). Umax, the makers of my old scanner,
is a good example of this.
For further reading, I suggest you check out this site:
Boycott Microsoft! Why You Must NOT Upgrade To Windows XP
http://www.arachnoid.com/boycott/
Thanks for taking the time to read what I had to say.
--
Yours Truly,
Paul Rudoff
* MY WEBSITES:
* Merchandise For Sale -- http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/spookcentral/
* Spook Central -- http://spookcentral.cjb.net
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
| |
re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?'
Tuesday, August 26, 2003 at 5:20 am
Posted by Kevin
(2497 messages posted)
I run a small network of about 80 PC's. NT is a pain in the ass, 2000 is better,
but XP makes my life a breeze. As I currently run all three of these operating systems,
I can say that, without a doubt, XP is far superior in all respects.
On Monday, August 25, 2003 at 6:26 pm, Paul Rudoff wrote:
>As a new Windows 2000 user, I just wanted to share my opinion about this article.
>
>The "benefits" they list for Windows XP aren't really beneficial at all. Let me
>explain.
>
># The new Windows XP interface is more cheerful and colorful than earlier versions,
>although the less-cartoony "Classic" interface can still be used if desired.
>
>Who wants "cheerful and colorful"?!? I've seen the interface. It looks like a
Looney
>Tunes cartoon threw up on your computer ... and not in a good way. To get it to
>look and act like traditional Windows, you have to do a lot of tweaking, which is
>more work than you should have to do.
>
>Making the computer interface look "pretty" usually causes it to slow down as it
>has to waste resources on all the unnecessary graphics and junk. That's why I no
>longer use wallpaper, system sounds, or even a screen saver.
>
># Windows XP has more bells and whistles, such as the Windows Movie Maker, built-in
>CD writer support, the Internet Connection Firewall, and Remote Desktop Connection.
>
>"Bells and whistles," by definition, is unnecessary eye and ear candy. Or, in other
>words, stuff that distracts you from the products shortcummings.
>
>Built-in CD writer support sounds like a good thing, assuming it's done correctly.
> However, it's not necessary to have it built in as you can easily add "support"
>to earlier versions of Windows (as I have already done). So, this isn't exactly
>a "must have" reason to buy XP.
>
>The Windows Movie Maker is something that I *could* have a use for it, assuming
it
>was made correctly (and this *IS* Microsoft we're talking about here).
>
>I wouldn't trust the built-in Internet Connection Firewall as far as I could throw
>it. I'll stick with good old ZomeAlarm thank you very much.
>
>And Remote Desktop Connection sounds like a hacker's dream. I wonder how easy it
>is to exploit this.
>
># Windows XP has better support for games and comes with more games than Windows
>2000.
>
>Yes and no. Windows 2000 is known internally as Windows NT 5.0 and Windows XP is
>Windows NT 5.1. In other words, XP isn't even a FULL version above 2000. Which
>means that they are essentially the same thing. I think the only difference might
>be the added "bells and whistles" noted above.
>
>I have not had a single problem running ANY of my games on Windows 2000, including
>ones that were made for the Windows 95/98 line, before 2000 and XP existed.
>
># Windows XP is the latest OS - if you don't upgrade now, you'll probably end up
>migrating to XP eventually anyway, and we mere mortals can only take so many OS
upgrades.
>
>[cough]bullshit[cough]. I know one person, and I'm sure they're are MANY more,
who
>are still using Windows 98. You know why? Because it's still useable. The latest
>is not always the greatest, and in most cases, there's usually no need to upgrade
>to the latest.
>
>Hell, if Windows 95 had USB support, it would still be quite useable, too. (Yes,
>I know that the very last release of 95 had USB support, but I think the support
>in 98 is better ... and it's definitely more supported in the industry.)
>
>The only reason I upgraded to 2000 is just to be on the NT architecture since DOS
>is going the way of the Dodo. I think that 2000 will have a much longer lifespan
>than 95/98/ME.
>
># Manufacturers of existing hardware and software products are more likely to add
>Windows XP compatibility now than Windows 2000 compatibility.
>
>This is a redundant statement because a lot of existing hardware and software products
>are ALREADY compatible with Windows 2000 seeing as how it has already been out for
>a while. The new scanner I bought this past June supports Windows 98, ME, 2000,
>and XP. Almost all of my old hardware was compatible with 2000. I had to download
>new drivers and stuff for my video card and modem, but that's not a problem. The
>only piece of hardware that wasn't compatible with 2000 was my old scanner. But
>you know what? It isn't compatible with XP either!
>
>Also I should point out that most manufacturers are NOT more likely to add XP compatibility
>now than 2000 compatibility. If they're not going to support 2000, chances are
they
>won't support XP. They'll just tell you that your product is too old and to buy
>a new one (which means more money for them). Umax, the makers of my old scanner,
>is a good example of this.
>
>For further reading, I suggest you check out this site:
>
>Boycott Microsoft! Why You Must NOT Upgrade To Windows XP
>http://www.arachnoid.com/boycott/
>
>Thanks for taking the time to read what I had to say.
>--
>Yours Truly,
>Paul Rudoff
>
>* MY WEBSITES:
>* Merchandise For Sale -- TARGET="_blank">http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/spookcentral/
>* Spook Central -- http://spookcentral.cjb.net
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?'
Tuesday, August 26, 2003 at 11:06 am
Posted by anu
(440 messages posted)
There is Macintosh.
On Monday, August 25, 2003 at 6:26 pm, Paul Rudoff wrote:
>As a new Windows 2000 user, I just wanted to share my opinion about this article.
>
>The "benefits" they list for Windows XP aren't really beneficial at all. Let me
>explain.
>
># The new Windows XP interface is more cheerful and colorful than earlier versions,
>although the less-cartoony "Classic" interface can still be used if desired.
>
>Who wants "cheerful and colorful"?!? I've seen the interface. It looks like a
Looney
>Tunes cartoon threw up on your computer ... and not in a good way. To get it to
>look and act like traditional Windows, you have to do a lot of tweaking, which is
>more work than you should have to do.
>
>Making the computer interface look "pretty" usually causes it to slow down as it
>has to waste resources on all the unnecessary graphics and junk. That's why I no
>longer use wallpaper, system sounds, or even a screen saver.
>
># Windows XP has more bells and whistles, such as the Windows Movie Maker, built-in
>CD writer support, the Internet Connection Firewall, and Remote Desktop Connection.
>
>"Bells and whistles," by definition, is unnecessary eye and ear candy. Or, in other
>words, stuff that distracts you from the products shortcummings.
>
>Built-in CD writer support sounds like a good thing, assuming it's done correctly.
> However, it's not necessary to have it built in as you can easily add "support"
>to earlier versions of Windows (as I have already done). So, this isn't exactly
>a "must have" reason to buy XP.
>
>The Windows Movie Maker is something that I *could* have a use for it, assuming
it
>was made correctly (and this *IS* Microsoft we're talking about here).
>
>I wouldn't trust the built-in Internet Connection Firewall as far as I could throw
>it. I'll stick with good old ZomeAlarm thank you very much.
>
>And Remote Desktop Connection sounds like a hacker's dream. I wonder how easy it
>is to exploit this.
>
># Windows XP has better support for games and comes with more games than Windows
>2000.
>
>Yes and no. Windows 2000 is known internally as Windows NT 5.0 and Windows XP is
>Windows NT 5.1. In other words, XP isn't even a FULL version above 2000. Which
>means that they are essentially the same thing. I think the only difference might
>be the added "bells and whistles" noted above.
>
>I have not had a single problem running ANY of my games on Windows 2000, including
>ones that were made for the Windows 95/98 line, before 2000 and XP existed.
>
># Windows XP is the latest OS - if you don't upgrade now, you'll probably end up
>migrating to XP eventually anyway, and we mere mortals can only take so many OS
upgrades.
>
>[cough]bullshit[cough]. I know one person, and I'm sure they're are MANY more,
who
>are still using Windows 98. You know why? Because it's still useable. The latest
>is not always the greatest, and in most cases, there's usually no need to upgrade
>to the latest.
>
>Hell, if Windows 95 had USB support, it would still be quite useable, too. (Yes,
>I know that the very last release of 95 had USB support, but I think the support
>in 98 is better ... and it's definitely more supported in the industry.)
>
>The only reason I upgraded to 2000 is just to be on the NT architecture since DOS
>is going the way of the Dodo. I think that 2000 will have a much longer lifespan
>than 95/98/ME.
>
># Manufacturers of existing hardware and software products are more likely to add
>Windows XP compatibility now than Windows 2000 compatibility.
>
>This is a redundant statement because a lot of existing hardware and software products
>are ALREADY compatible with Windows 2000 seeing as how it has already been out for
>a while. The new scanner I bought this past June supports Windows 98, ME, 2000,
>and XP. Almost all of my old hardware was compatible with 2000. I had to download
>new drivers and stuff for my video card and modem, but that's not a problem. The
>only piece of hardware that wasn't compatible with 2000 was my old scanner. But
>you know what? It isn't compatible with XP either!
>
>Also I should point out that most manufacturers are NOT more likely to add XP compatibility
>now than 2000 compatibility. If they're not going to support 2000, chances are
they
>won't support XP. They'll just tell you that your product is too old and to buy
>a new one (which means more money for them). Umax, the makers of my old scanner,
>is a good example of this.
>
>For further reading, I suggest you check out this site:
>
>Boycott Microsoft! Why You Must NOT Upgrade To Windows XP
>http://www.arachnoid.com/boycott/
>
>Thanks for taking the time to read what I had to say.
>--
>Yours Truly,
>Paul Rudoff
>
>* MY WEBSITES:
>* Merchandise For Sale -- TARGET="_blank">http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/spookcentral/
>* Spook Central -- http://spookcentral.cjb.net
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?'
Friday, October 10, 2003 at 2:47 am
Posted by Sondre
(1 messages posted)
I think Windows XP is a great new version. My comments is in Paul Ruoff's text...
On Monday, August 25, 2003 at 6:26 pm, Paul Rudoff wrote:
-snip-
# The new Windows XP interface is more cheerful and colorful than earlier versions,
>although the less-cartoony "Classic" interface can still be used if desired.
>
>Who wants "cheerful and colorful"?!? I've seen the interface. It looks like a
Looney
>Tunes cartoon threw up on your computer ... and not in a good way. To get it to
>look and act like traditional Windows, you have to do a lot of tweaking, which is
>more work than you should have to do.
A lot of people want their computer to look pretty, just as they want their other
enviroment look pretty(i.e. their house).People use their computer for fun and to
have a good time. Not like you that only focus on the things you think is "bad"...
The new design looks and is easy to use. This makes more people able to operate their
computer at daily basis. If you had worked with computer-support you would have known
this! The number of questions is much less for people using XP than i.e. 2000.
And if you really want the old fashion windows look back it is a really simple operation
that'll take you no more than 1minute!
>Making the computer interface look "pretty" usually causes it to slow down as it
>has to waste resources on all the unnecessary graphics and junk. That's why I no
>longer use wallpaper, system sounds, or even a screen saver.
If it is a non-graphical "GUI" you want, why don't you use Linux/unix?
># Windows XP has more bells and whistles, such as the Windows Movie Maker, built-in
>CD writer support, the Internet Connection Firewall, and Remote Desktop Connection.
>
>"Bells and whistles," by definition, is unnecessary eye and ear candy. Or, in other
>words, stuff that distracts you from the products shortcummings.
>
>Built-in CD writer support sounds like a good thing, assuming it's done correctly.
> However, it's not necessary to have it built in as you can easily add "support"
>to earlier versions of Windows (as I have already done). So, this isn't exactly
>a "must have" reason to buy XP.
>
>The Windows Movie Maker is something that I *could* have a use for it, assuming
it
>was made correctly (and this *IS* Microsoft we're talking about here).
>
>I wouldn't trust the built-in Internet Connection Firewall as far as I could throw
>it. I'll stick with good old ZomeAlarm thank you very much.
>
>And Remote Desktop Connection sounds like a hacker's dream. I wonder how easy it
>is to exploit this.
The built-in Cd writer support works fine on my computer. What do you mean that is
not made correctly?
The Windows Movie Maker is a good program that you get for free when you use XP.
The firewall is ment for home users and small businesses, and it works fine for them.
Remote Desktop Connection is a option that you can enable/disable manually. It means
the port is not open 24/7. If you have a home computer and you want to reach that
from your PC at work, you'll probably set up a firewall that only allows your work
IP to connect anyways.
People that have used computer for a while has many habbits and ways things have
to be. Every time Microsoft releases a new Windows version, it's these people that
complains the most, and this is going to happend every time a new version of Microsoft
Windows is released.
Regarding the built-in cd write support and movie maker I refer to users thats new
to Windows. This is making things much easier for them.
># Windows XP has better support for games and comes with more games than Windows
>2000.
>
>Yes and no. Windows 2000 is known internally as Windows NT 5.0 and Windows XP is
>Windows NT 5.1. In other words, XP isn't even a FULL version above 2000. Which
>means that they are essentially the same thing. I think the only difference might
>be the added "bells and whistles" noted above.
>
>I have not had a single problem running ANY of my games on Windows 2000, including
>ones that were made for the Windows 95/98 line, before 2000 and XP existed.
Me and a lot of my friends have been using 2000 for quite a while before XP came.
We like to game and we often attend to LAN gaterings to game among other tings. I
have never had so MUCH trouble with gaming as I had with Windows 2000...
># Windows XP is the latest OS - if you don't upgrade now, you'll probably end up
>migrating to XP eventually anyway, and we mere mortals can only take so many OS
upgrades.
>
>[cough]bullshit[cough]. I know one person, and I'm sure they're are MANY more,
who
>are still using Windows 98. You know why? Because it's still useable. The latest
>is not always the greatest, and in most cases, there's usually no need to upgrade
>to the latest.
>
>Hell, if Windows 95 had USB support, it would still be quite useable, too. (Yes,
>I know that the very last release of 95 had USB support, but I think the support
>in 98 is better ... and it's definitely more supported in the industry.)
>
>The only reason I upgraded to 2000 is just to be on the NT architecture since DOS
>is going the way of the Dodo. I think that 2000 will have a much longer lifespan
>than 95/98/ME.
Of course people is going to upgrade to XP. It's the easiest OS to use in the Windows
series and it's the most reliable.
Windows 98 SE is OK, but it lacks a lot of features coming with the NT architecture.
Especially the Memory handling!
The Windows 9x series supported USB, but the support isn't as good as on XP. What
is missing is the updated driverdatabase, stability and support for USB2.0.
># Manufacturers of existing hardware and software products are more likely to add
>Windows XP compatibility now than Windows 2000 compatibility.
>
>This is a redundant statement because a lot of existing hardware and software products
>are ALREADY compatible with Windows 2000 seeing as how it has already been out for
>a while. The new scanner I bought this past June supports Windows 98, ME, 2000,
>and XP. Almost all of my old hardware was compatible with 2000. I had to download
>new drivers and stuff for my video card and modem, but that's not a problem. The
>only piece of hardware that wasn't compatible with 2000 was my old scanner. But
>you know what? It isn't compatible with XP either!
>
>Also I should point out that most manufacturers are NOT more likely to add XP compatibility
>now than 2000 compatibility. If they're not going to support 2000, chances are
they
>won't support XP. They'll just tell you that your product is too old and to buy
>a new one (which means more money for them). Umax, the makers of my old scanner,
>is a good example of this.
In this matter I agree with you to some point.
The manufactorers will not stop making 2000 drivers. It is after all a lot of people
still using it.
But as said earlier it's _likely_ that they add XP comp. than 2000 comp. in the future.
That's it!
Regards,
Sondre Rabbe
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Question about 'What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?'
Friday, July 7, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Posted by Roger
(1 messages posted)
Ok, yall, but all of this aside - we come back to the basic question which might
be "Why upgrade" or even "What would I get IF I do upgrade?". This question is the
one I had coming into this thread - and I must say that I find precious little -
if any - reason to upgrade my IWILL/AMD1800/512Meg from 2000 to XP. Knowing that
an OS might have one or two items of note might be neat to some twerp in an arcane
location, but I want
---> Faster boot times
---> Better security
---> Decent handling of older apps (Legacy modes?)
---> Improved updates / rollbacks.
---> More intuitive interface design.
I do not need....
--->Bloat
--->Steep learning curve for basic operation. (It's an OS fer gosh sakes!)
--->Utilities that I do not need.
--->Stuff I normally do not use. However...
...do NOT turn off stuff just because you think I might not use it - GIVE me the
chance to review the selections...
Which boils down to: yes or no. Do or die. And now, for lack of a clear reason to
part with 85~125 USD, I see that - no Virginia, there is NO compelling reason to
upgrade. Really, if it were not for games - I would be running Linux at home too...(Red
Hat, SUSE, heck - who cares!)
[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
| |
Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
