1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2k or XP?

Discussion in 'Desktop & Laptop Computers Forum' started by Underscore, Mar 11, 2003.

  1. Underscore

    Underscore
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Win98SE has been getting progressively less stable so I think it is time to go for a more robust OS. My preference is for the look of win2k, and the lack of product activation adds appeal, but is there a good reason why I should go for XP? Currently it is a general home PC but I may be upgrading it as a HTPC in the near future.

    TIA,

    _
     
  2. Sgt.Colon

    Sgt.Colon
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Personally I would got down the Win2K route. It's a lot more stable. I think XP is best suited to novice home user. :)
     
  3. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,053
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,130
    I use W2K just fine on my HTPC. It was an easy decision for me as I use W2K on my serious PC as certain apps I use will only run under W2K (NT)...or linux but no thanks!
     
  4. nathan_silly

    nathan_silly
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Win 2000 Pro seems more stable than XP. Make sure you install Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 though.

    I use XP on my laptop cos it starts up and shuts down quicker (Windows 2000 seems to just sit there for a minute or so)

    Plus win2k requires less disc space.
     
  5. bh

    bh
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    397
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Lost (no GPS here)!
    Ratings:
    +1
    Another vote for Windows 2000 here, having just upgraded in the last few weeks. Ultra stable :clap:


    P.S. If you do go down the Win2K route and add service pack three, make sure that you deactivate the automatic updates (via the control panel) as this will slow down your dial up surfing (if applicable).
     
  6. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,053
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,130
    Disabling any unused IDE channels should speed up the boot.
    I'm still running on SP2 on my HTPC.
    Its stable so why mess with it.
     
  7. Jonesthegas

    Jonesthegas
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2002
    Messages:
    628
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Ratings:
    +18
    I have used both. I was happy with 2K but I upgraded for hardware/driver considerations (exactly what escapes me now). 2K is more stable in my experience. Both are heaps better than Win98SE!

    Martin
     
  8. JohnS

    JohnS
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,580
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Herne Bay, Kent
    Ratings:
    +33
    I'll give a vote for xp with sp1, I have no stability issues at all but although I tried W2K I only used it for a few months a long while ago.

    If you try XP, percevere with the new interface which although some knock it, it has a lot of useful extras which aren't shown in the Classic interface, eg if you click on a network connection it will show your ip address, subnet and gateway.

    Either way stay away from 98 and me.
     
  9. nathan_silly

    nathan_silly
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    You can make XP look exactly like Windows 2000 in the various settings (performance and task bar panels) Speeds XP up alot, and I hate the new XP menus- hard to use.
     
  10. JohnS

    JohnS
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,580
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Herne Bay, Kent
    Ratings:
    +33
    Everyone that I know thats swopped from 98/W2K to XP always wants to use the classic interface and thinks its better, but if you take the time for a week or two, to put up with the unfamiliarity of the new stuff, you find lots of hidden usability features.

    I agree it may well be more resource hungary but thats what upgrades are for.:D
     
  11. MartinImber

    MartinImber
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,851
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Worcester
    Ratings:
    +21
    With both 2000 and XP there are issues.

    1) You can turn off the personalised menus it is just like 98 ie nice
    2) Put the panic button back (show desktop)
    3) Turn off ALL animation and transition effects

    XP looks nicer, 2000 is slightly more stable

    4) Networking - if you need IPX use Netware client 4.83 with patches

    5) CA-Clipper Win2000 link with Blinker 6 minimum XP Blinker 7

    XP is nicer for home use - I'm using XP Pro
     
  12. HMHB

    HMHB
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2001
    Messages:
    25,517
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Nottinghamshire
    Ratings:
    +3,852
    I've got used to XP and have it installed at work & 3 computers at home - it's the best Microsoft O/S I've had so far for all round general use (including games). This is from someone who was probably the last in England to switch from Multi-User DOS to Windows :D
     
  13. Squirrel God

    Squirrel God
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I was a Win2K user for about 18-24 months. Loved it. The first decent operating system Microsoft have produced (and I've used them all at work and home, right from MS-DOS days).

    I now use WinXP. Love it too. Almost as stable as Win2K, but there really is not much in it here so it's not even worth considering (unless you are using it with some older peripherals, in which case Win2K would give you greater stability for the time being).

    XP is faster than Win2K (not just with boot/shutdown times, but with everything), it looks nicer, it's better with media, it has better support for the newer standards, and its design is such that many tasks are quicker to perform. If you have no need for the Pro features (e.g. encryption), just go with XP Home. Anyone, like me, who has struggled to get data off a HDD that had a copy of Win2K Pro on it but wouldn't boot will hate the Pro versions anyway.
     
  14. MartinImber

    MartinImber
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,851
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Worcester
    Ratings:
    +21
    M/U DOS:thumbsdow

    Pah!:(

    Real/32:smashin:

    32 bit M/U Dos!!!:clap:
     
  15. HMHB

    HMHB
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2001
    Messages:
    25,517
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Nottinghamshire
    Ratings:
    +3,852
    It was Real32 actually - but I didn't think anyone would know it. IMS Real32 to be precise
     
  16. MartinImber

    MartinImber
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,851
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Worcester
    Ratings:
    +21
    IMS been there - saw the launch of Real/32 - got the T shirt (literally)

    Time to get Real

    Ran BCPL and some Clipper on it - then the march of Windows started, Clipper went GUI with Lightlib and 5.3, and for servers the old favourite Netware 3.12 (then 4.11 then 4.2) later sysems are WIn 98 against Netware 5 or 5.1

    Some prats want NT or Win2000 server - so far though.

    1 NT server replaced by a RAID NW5.1 server about 100x faster (NOT EXAGERATING)

    1 thought they wanted NT both us and the accounts people recommended NW - they now have 2 on a WAN in Northern Ireland Root in Belfast, branch in L/Derry (their common term for the place - they also use both other terms hand in hand)

    Currently recommending a customer with Win2000 to upgrade to Netware 6 - again due to poor performance!
     
  17. MartinImber

    MartinImber
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,851
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Worcester
    Ratings:
    +21
    Oh Jessops still use Real/32
     
  18. MartinImber

    MartinImber
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,851
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Worcester
    Ratings:
    +21
  19. HMHB

    HMHB
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2001
    Messages:
    25,517
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Nottinghamshire
    Ratings:
    +3,852
    Some of our customers are still using Real32 as well.
     

Share This Page

Loading...