Win 2k better than XP ?

[Mark Flynn]

Do you think that Windows 2000 Professional is better than XP Professional ?
I've had fewer problems with 2K than XP, and it seems that everything you
can do with XP, you can do with 2K.
An associate is considering upgrading from '98SE and asked me if he should
go with 2K or XP.
What do you think ?

[Torgeir Bakken (MVP)]

Mark Flynn wrote:

Hi

This is my view on that matter:

For a home user:

Windows XP

For a corporate user:

Desktop: Windows 2000
Laptop: Windows XP

--
torgeir
Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of the 1328 page
Scripting Guide: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter

[Steven Umbach]

I much prefer XP Pro - built in ICF firewall, better multimedia, system restore
points, Remote Desktop, driver rollback, Software Restriction Policies, more
Group/Security policy options, better EFS encryption implementation, etc.
Possibly none of those would be important to either of you but I find them major
enhancements and use Remote Desktop a lot. Either will be a major improvement
over W98. Just be sure to write down your administrator password somewhere
afe. --- Steve

"Mark Flynn" <fl...@NoSpam.uci.net> wrote in message
news:ekr$UM93DH...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

[Rick]

"Mark Flynn" <fl...@NoSpam.uci.net> wrote in message news:ekr$UM93DH...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

Except for ClearType (and hyperthreading, which for a Win98
upgrade probably doesn't apply anyway) there's no reason to go
with XP. Win2K is leaner, meaner and doesn't have silly WPA
(product activation) that will force him to get MS's permission to
change or upgrade his own system hardware.

Rick

[Rick]

"Steven Umbach" <n9z...@nscomcast.com> wrote in message news:P5nPb.110063$8H.246800@attbi_s03...

> I much prefer XP Pro - built in ICF firewall

Third-party firewalls are better.

> better multimedia

Often claimed, never proven.

> system restore points

True.

> Remote Desktop, driver rollback, Software Restriction Policies, more
> Group/Security policy options, better EFS encryption implementation, etc.

All true, but still doesn't make XP worth the price of admission IMO.

> Possibly none of those would be important to either of you but I find them major
> enhancements and use Remote Desktop a lot. Either will be a major improvement
> over W98. Just be sure to write down your administrator password somewhere
> afe. --- Steve

I reverted to Win2K because of WPA. I'm against it in principle
and will switch to Linux/BSD/etc before I'm forced to get MS's
permission to change or upgrade my own hardware.

Rick

[Mark Flynn]

Thanks to all for your feed back.
I greatly appreciate your advice.
Best regards, Mark Flynn

"Mark Flynn" <fl...@NoSpam.uci.net> wrote in message
news:ekr$UM93DH...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

[Steven O.]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:26:51 -0800, "Rick" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>I reverted to Win2K because of WPA. I'm against it in principle
>and will switch to Linux/BSD/etc before I'm forced to get MS's
>permission to change or upgrade my own hardware.
>
>Rick
>

Ditto, a hundred times, ditto.

Steve O.

Standard Antiflame Disclaimer: Please don't flame me. I may actually *be* an idiot, but even idiots have feelings.

[Phred]

I prefer 2K to any Win OS. It seems to be the most stable.

Phred

>.
>

[Alias]

"Rick" <m...@privacy.net> wrote

> I reverted to Win2K because of WPA. I'm against it in principle
> and will switch to Linux/BSD/etc before I'm forced to get MS's
> permission to change or upgrade my own hardware.
>
> Rick

I feel the same way.

Alias

[Steve Nielsen]

I definitely prefer W2K.

At work I *have* to use and support XP and it is *THE* most problematic
MS OS I have *EVER* had to deal with. It is bloated beyond belief with a
whole slew of bells and whistles and useless crap nobody needs or wants,
finding simple controls and systems settings are being buried several
menu levels deep, and contrary to what the XP proponents claim, in my
experience it is actually much LESS stable than W2K. It also by default
installs just about every network component it can whether you actually
will ever use any of them or not, making configuring XP for specific
network use (as I must) a royal pain.

I know of nothing that can be done in XP that can't in 2K.

Steve

[Steve Nielsen]

In additon...

Read a while in the microsoft.public.windowsxp.general forum. Compare
how many posts are screaming and moaning about what a lousey OS XP is to
how many do the same here about Win2K. You'll get the idea.

Steve

[Torgeir Bakken (MVP)]

Steve Nielsen wrote:

> In additon...
>
> Read a while in the microsoft.public.windowsxp.general forum. Compare
> how many posts are screaming and moaning about what a lousey OS XP is to
> how many do the same here about Win2K. You'll get the idea.

Hi

That is not completely fair to WinXP. Most users posting in the WindowsXP groups
are often home users, 1st time computer users or users migrated from Windows 9x,
or users that have no idea but still runs registry cleaners and other dodgy
"tuning" tools or messes with the access rights settings of the system.

In the Win2K user group, there is much more corporate users with more knowledge
and resources available, and home users using Win2k are often computer
enthusiasts that usually know how to fix problems themselves.

[Steve Nielsen]

Valid point, however so far the opinions here (where there are more
"pro's" involved) are:

WinXP - 2
Win2K - 6

Why do supppose that is?

Steve

[Torgeir Bakken (MVP)]

Steve Nielsen wrote:

> Valid point, however so far the opinions here (where there are more
> "pro's" involved) are:
>
> WinXP - 2
> Win2K - 6
>
> Why do supppose that is?

Because we are on Win2K's home turf, a newsgroup for Win2K? Ask the question in the
windowsxp.general newsgroup, and you will most likely get a very different answer
(maybe WinXP - 5, Win2K - 3).

[Steve Nielsen]

Torgeir Bakken (MVP) wrote:

> Steve Nielsen wrote:
>
>
>>Valid point, however so far the opinions here (where there are more
>>"pro's" involved) are:
>>
>>WinXP - 2
>>Win2K - 6
>>
>>Why do supppose that is?
>
>
> Because we are on Win2K's home turf, a newsgroup for Win2K? Ask the question in the
> windowsxp.general newsgroup, and you will most likely get a very different answer
> (maybe WinXP - 5, Win2K - 3).
>
> --
> torgeir

Understood.

The point I am trying to make is that it seems to be the more
professional opinion that Win2K is the better of the two OSes.

Steve

[Torgeir Bakken (MVP)]

Steve Nielsen wrote:

> Torgeir Bakken (MVP) wrote:
> > Steve Nielsen wrote:
> >
> >>Valid point, however so far the opinions here (where there are more
> >>"pro's" involved) are:
> >>
> >>WinXP - 2
> >>Win2K - 6
> >>
> >>Why do supppose that is?
> >
> > Because we are on Win2K's home turf, a newsgroup for Win2K? Ask the
> > question in the windowsxp.general newsgroup, and you will most likely
> > get a very different answer (maybe WinXP - 5, Win2K - 3).
>

> Understood.
>
> The point I am trying to make is that it seems to be the more
> professional opinion that Win2K is the better of the two OSes.

Yes, it can look like it, but I think the statistical foundation is
a bit week with just 8 participants ;-)

But as I stated previously, in a corporate setting, I prefer Win2K for desktops...

[Steve Cervera]

I am just joining this discussion. I have been working with both WIndows 2K and XP in the NYC Department of Ed schools. I originally was a strong advocate for Win2K over XP early on. XP is a memory HOG! Although the minimum req. for XP are 128MB of RAM, my experience has shown that you will have a VERY slow experience unless you use at least 256 MB. My P4 1.6Mhz laptop with XP Pro has 384MB RAM and it runs much better than when I only had 128MB. As I am preparing to upgrade my MCSE from 2000 to 2003, I am discovering all of the other nice bells and whistles available in XP and WIndows Server 2003 in the enterprise environment that make the dicision to go with Windows XP Pro compelling (There are too many to list here).

If you are not working in a medium to large enterprise, the decision to upgrade from Win2K to XP may not be so compelling. ALso, upgrading your memory to the minimum recommended of 256MB, might not be cost effective.

WIndows XP also boasts a compatibility mode capability that lets you run software in an emulated down level OS (down to Windows 95). I have done little testing with this. What I have found is that it doesn't really work well. But I need to do a LOT more testing to make any valuable judgement on this.

Got to run. I am interested in hearing about what people are doing to make legacy software run on WIn2K computers.

----- Torgeir Bakken (MVP) wrote: -----

[XS11E]

"Rick" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
news:OxYLQb93...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:

> "Steven Umbach" <n9z...@nscomcast.com> wrote in message
> news:P5nPb.110063$8H.246800@attbi_s03...
>> I much prefer XP Pro - built in ICF firewall
>
> Third-party firewalls are better.
>
>> better multimedia
>
> Often claimed, never proven.
>
>> system restore points
>
> True.

But Roxio Go-Back (now Norton GoBack but they haven't messed it
up... yet!) works MUCH better....

>> Remote Desktop, driver rollback, Software Restriction Policies,
>> more Group/Security policy options, better EFS encryption
>> implementation, etc.
>
> All true, but still doesn't make XP worth the price of admission
> IMO.
>
>> Possibly none of those would be important to either of you but I
>> find them major enhancements and use Remote Desktop a lot. Either
>> will be a major improvement over W98. Just be sure to write down
>> your administrator password somewhere afe. --- Steve
>
> I reverted to Win2K because of WPA. I'm against it in principle
> and will switch to Linux/BSD/etc before I'm forced to get MS's
> permission to change or upgrade my own hardware.

One more ditto. I now own both XP Pro and XP home, won't run either.

[Torgeir Bakken (MVP)]

Steve Cervera wrote:

> WIndows XP also boasts a compatibility mode capability that lets you run software in an emulated down level OS (down to Windows 95). I have done little testing with this. What I have found is that it doesn't really work well. But I need to do a LOT more testing to make any valuable judgement on this.
>
> Got to run. I am interested in hearing about what people are doing to make legacy software run on WIn2K computers.

Hi

I would think this one is relevant for Win2k SP4 as well:

HOW TO: Enable Application Compatibility-Mode Technology in Windows 2000 SP2
and SP3
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;279792

In Start/Run, type
regsvr32 %windir%\AppPatch\Slayerui.dll

press enter

the Compatibility tab should now be on all *shortcuts*.

If that doesn't make your app run:

Download the latest Windows Application Compatibility Toolkit
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=9513&clcid=0x409

The Application Compatibility Toolkit (ACT) is a collection of useful tools
and documents that enable both application developers and IT professionals to
resolve application compatibility issues. The ACT runs on Windows 2000 SP3
or later, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.

[MelK]

OK. I resell these puppies, and have told my staff to tell customers we PREFER w2k, rather than XP/Pro, but WONT sell XP/Home.

W2k over XP for MPA reasons (
Btw, did you know W2003Svr has MPA across the board? yecch.

I've always said w2k and XP are pretty much identical twins genetically separated at birth and one given stupid hormones (remember the move with danny devito and Gov Arnold (Twins I think it was?)
Now I'd actually say the stupid hormones were on XP.... but there are some features there.
Can someone point me to a good list of XP pro vs W2k and XP/Pro vs XP/Home?

BTW, as an interesting aside did you know that:

* W2k and XP/Pro are priced within $3.00 of each other in quantity under30?
* The price for both are OVER $125.00 Wholesale..
* The Price for XP/HOME is WAY UNDER $50.00 each

?? Brings new meaning to the phrase ... You get what you pay for???!!!!

[DotNetEsq]

I'm a little biased because I'm a .Net developer. I use Win2000 Advanced Server and Win2003 Enterprise, so my situation is analagous to the 2000/XP desktop situation. The stability of 2003 is by by far better. 2000 crashed alot. Reboots were common. But now, I'm up for weeks with no problems (it could be longer, but I usually have to reboot for reasons other than the os).

On the Windows Activiation issue, I admit it peeved me at first, but I have yet to be denied activation after numerous installs and reconfigurations on several machines (I have an MSDN Universal account so I'm not sure if I'm treated differently that other activators). I don't see free activation as the problem. The real issue is that Microsoft has built in a subscription based feature under the guise of activation. Activation can be used to force users to upgrade to Longhorn. Will Microsoft eventually discontinue activating XP/2003? If so, what you've really bought is a software subcription, not a perpetual license.