A Question About Operating Systems

[MauerPower]

Hello! I have a question about operating systems. I want to know which Windows OS is the best to use? I have heard 2000 is the best. And I know of the problems that XP has in it, and right now I use Me. Any thoughts? What I consider the best to be is something that is stable, reliable, secure, and has good quality content and features. A second question: If I wanted to install another OS onto my computer, could I do it so that my files would not be lost? I have heard you could do this, but I am not sure. If yes, how would you do this? Thanks for any suggestions.

[d-koolest]

I'm no expert compared to some people here, but I would suggest backing up your files first, so even if you screw up you don't lose anything.:tilted

[nasrules]

for more info on dual-booting, wait for krell or someone, i dont have time to explain ;-) basically you just put the second os on another partition or hd and you will not lose your files (unless the partitioning get fuked up). as to which to use.............

first off: get rid of me!!! it totally sucks! i use xp and have had no problems (and mines *cough* totally legal *cough*). i wouldnt recommend anything other than xp or 2000 at the moment, unless you want to run linux (which i doubt). xp or 2000. no question.

and backing up on a regular basis is also a very good idea, you never know when things are going to go wrong!

[Koffee Bean]

Well, in basicly depends on what you want to do. If you like to game a lot then XP is for you, but if you only want to download music with a stable, reliable OS then you may want to go with Windows 2000 since Windows XP has numerous security holes that have had to be patched up. If you're running Windows Me then you're most likey compatible with Windows 2000, but to see if your compatible with Windows XP visit PC Pitstop (http://www.pcpitstop.com), that'll give you a pretty basic understanding if you'll run into any problems with XP, if you want a more extensive knowledge into your XP compatiablity you'll want to download Aida32 Personal Edition (http://www.aida32.hu/aida-download.php?bit=32). As for your second question, yes, you can upgrade to a new OS without losing any of your files, the only downside to it is that if you're going from Me to either Win2k or WinXP is that you'll still be running FAT32, and you may run into an unexpected problem so I would recommend that you do a clean install wiping your Me installation, but remember, even if you do chose an upgrade you should ALWAYS backup EVERYTHING on your computer. Hope that help ; )

[nasrules]

Originally posted by Koffee Bean
As for your second question, yes, you can upgrade to a new OS without losing any of your files, the only downside to it is that if you're going from Me to either Win2k or WinXP is that you'll still be running FAT32, and you may run into an unexpected problem so I would recommend that you do a clean install wiping your Me installation, but remember, even if you do chose an upgrade you should ALWAYS backup EVERYTHING on your computer. Hope that help ; )

oops, i didnt think upgrade was meant when 'second os' was mentioned! sorry!

i upgraded from me to xp (best thing ive ever done) and still running fat32, its worked fine. but yeh, ideally you would do a clean install.

[Koffee Bean]

Originally posted by nasrules
oops, i didnt think upgrade was meant when 'second os' was mentioned! sorry!

i upgraded from me to xp (best thing ive ever done) and still running fat32, its worked fine. but yeh, ideally you would do a clean install.

I wasn't really sure if he ment duel booting or upgrading and since you already talked about duel booting I just told them about upgrading so that way both areas were covered.

[PornMaster]

Originally posted by MauerPower
Hello! I have a question about operating systems. I want to know which Windows OS is the best to use? I have heard 2000 is the best. And I know of the problems that XP has in it, and right now I use Me. Any thoughts? What I consider the best to be is something that is stable, reliable, secure, and has good quality content and features. A second question: If I wanted to install another OS onto my computer, could I do it so that my files would not be lost? I have heard you could do this, but I am not sure. If yes, how would you do this? Thanks for any suggestions.
Run...Run far away from Windows ME, And get yourself XP.

[nasrules]

Originally posted by Koffee Bean
I wasn't really sure if he ment duel booting or upgrading and since you already talked about duel booting I just told them about upgrading so that way both areas were covered.

reliable as always Koffee Bean :-D

Originally posted by PornMaster
Run...Run far away from Windows ME, And get yourself XP.

lol surely one of the best pieces of advice anyone could ever receive!!!

[cpugeniusmv]

Originally posted by MauerPower
Hello! I have a question about operating systems. I want to know which Windows OS is the best to use? I have heard 2000 is the best. And I know of the problems that XP has in it, and right now I use Me. Any thoughts? What I consider the best to be is something that is stable, reliable, secure, and has good quality content and features. A second question: If I wanted to install another OS onto my computer, could I do it so that my files would not be lost? I have heard you could do this, but I am not sure. If yes, how would you do this? Thanks for any suggestions.
Which OS is best to use? Windows XP Home Edition

Problems in XP? All OS's have problems, I haven't had any problems with XP

As for having more than one OS on your computer, go here (http://www.google.com/search?q=dual+boot) and try to find an article about the specific OS's you would want to dual boot, or a generic article. If you have any specific questions about that, let me know and I would be happy to help.

[nasrules]

Originally posted by Saito
ANYTHING is more stable than ME. If u want to upgrade then u need to backup cuz u'll have to format the hard drive.

Also, u need more than 64MB memory to run Win2000 or more than 128MB to run WinXP.

wrong! twice! you dont need more than 128mb ram to run winxp, if u dont do a lot of multi-tasking its fine, i have it running on my other comp (a pentium2 400mhz with 64mb ram) and its fine.

and to upgrade you DO NOT have to format the drive, have done it myself from ME to XP, didnt format.

please dont post stuff unless you know what you're on about!

[PornMaster]

Originally posted by nasrules
and to upgrade you DO NOT have to format the drive, have done it myself from ME to XP, didnt format.
But, It would be better, Get all the WinMe crap outta there.

[The Hunter]

As I am soon going to install XP, I had figured that a clean install would be better than a upgrade of 98SE, as most OS get a bit buggy after time.

[Lamourlady]

Originally posted by PornMaster
But, It would be better, Get all the WinMe crap outta there.

k.....i upgraded from ME to XP Pro.
how do u get all the "WinME crap"...outta there????
cuz i'm pretty sure it's still there.
i didn't do a clean install.
i did lose some stuff.....thank goodness it wasn't any of my mp3's.
but i did lose pics and some text stuff.
nothing too drastic.
thanks! ;)

[nasrules]

Originally posted by Lamourlady
k.....i upgraded from ME to XP Pro.
how do u get all the "WinME crap"...outta there????
cuz i'm pretty sure it's still there.
i didn't do a clean install.
i did lose some stuff.....thank goodness it wasn't any of my mp3's.
but i did lose pics and some text stuff.
nothing too drastic.
thanks! ;)

i think the only way is to format and start again. but i did the same thing and havent had any problems so it probably isnt worth it.

[Lamourlady]

Originally posted by nasrules
i think the only way is to format and start again. but i did the same thing and havent had any problems so it probably isnt worth it.
k.
i haven't had any problems, so guess ur right.
thanks, nas.
u may be in the running to date my daughter, after all.
;)

[MauerPower]

Thanks for the info guys. I will not be doing dual OS, and I am thinking about upgrading. I knew about all of the security holes in XP, and I am not a big gamer. So I will probably try to go with 2000. Anyway, it can't hurt to wait a little bit and see how XP handles for the next year or so. What is so much better about XP for gaming issues though? If you did a lot of gaming, wouldn't you want more security? Just wondering.

[nasrules]

Originally posted by Lamourlady
k.
i haven't had any problems, so guess ur right.
thanks, nas.
u may be in the running to date my daughter, after all.
;)

wahey!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by MauerPower
Thanks for the info guys. I will not be doing dual OS, and I am thinking about upgrading. I knew about all of the security holes in XP, and I am not a big gamer. So I will probably try to go with 2000. Anyway, it can't hurt to wait a little bit and see how XP handles for the next year or so. What is so much better about XP for gaming issues though? If you did a lot of gaming, wouldn't you want more security? Just wondering.

i think its mainly because winxp is more compatible with graphics cards and games than win2000. but i could be wrong.

[Krell]

You guys should go to Microsofts site and double check your facts.

[Lamourlady]

Originally posted by Krell
You guys should go to Microsofts site and double check your facts.

about what in particular, Krell?

[nasrules]

Originally posted by Krell
You guys should go to Microsofts site and double check your facts.

not quite sure what you mean there krell, but its bound to be useful!

[Krell]

Originally posted by MauerPower
Hello! I have a question about operating systems. I want to know which Windows OS is the best to use? I have heard 2000 is the best. And I know of the problems that XP has in it, and right now I use Me. Any thoughts? What I consider the best to be is something that is stable, reliable, secure, and has good quality content and features. A second question: If I wanted to install another OS onto my computer, could I do it so that my files would not be lost? I have heard you could do this, but I am not sure. If yes, how would you do this? Thanks for any suggestions.


All this opinion, and no one even asked what his system specs are. There are two deciding factors,
1) what hardware environment you have to work with, and
2) what do you intend to do with your O/S, surf, game, porn, movies, etc . . .

MauerPower, I am going to use you as an example, and I want your cooperation.

I want 10 minutes of your time, to properly answer your question, and to teach others how to properly answer your question. There is a LOT of talent here, but how you "feel" about an O/S is bunk.

I want for you to get the Aida32 System Info tool. It's tiny, and you will be surprised at what you find out. When you install it, then I want you to go to REPORT, and SAVE AS a DHTML report. Then, I want for you to post the results here, (cut n paste) EXCEPT for your personal info, if your real name etc is on it. IF I see ANYTHING that I am not comfortable with, I will edit it out for you.

Once we see what you report says, then I can advise what to back up, what to get AHEAD of time, whether to upgrade or clean install, and all the questions that which the answer is "maybe". You do your 10 minutes, I will do my part. (not to mention this page)

Every week I set up not dozens, but hundreds of machine to use these operating systems, and I customize these images to accommodate what is being taught in that class. I am well versed in the performances of each O/S on nominal and sufficient systems. There are some intangibles that only come by experience, such as driver installation, or Direct X issues, but most of the time, basic research will help you to make an informed decision.

janett999 prefers XP over W2000, she installed them herself, and The Hunter is headed that direction soon. One resounding point of truth here so far is, that Windows ME, was pushed out of the Microsoft door, as a pacifier, and is truely crap. Seeing as you probably got WME with your Compaq or HP, post your info, and let's go from there.


Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional System Requirements
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/sysreqs/default.asp


Here are the top reasons why businesses are moving to Windows 2000 Professional
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/whyupgrade/


Windows 2000 Support Center
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;EN-US;win2000


Windows 2000 Professional How-Tos
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/itsolutions/howto/2prohow.asp


Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/default.asp


Compatibility Resources and Information
http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsXP/compatibility/default.asp


Windows XP Upgrade Advisor
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/upgrading/advisor.asp


Which Edition Is Right for You?
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/whichxp.asp


Windows XP Home Edition Features
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/evaluation/features.asp

Windows XP Home Edition System Requirements
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/evaluation/sysreqs.asp


Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.asp


Windows XP Professional How-Tos
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/itsolutions/howto/2prohow.asp


.

[CCSDUDE]

Originally posted by Saito
of course, if u r low on budget, then get the minimum memory and the upgrade version, and then u dont have to format.

Why are you guys even talking about this shit?

Minimum by todays standards is 128 if not 256 and I spotted some 256 DDR chips for 35 bucks and some classic PC133 256's for 20...

The stuff is so miserably cheap if you're not looking for HQ stuff....you can drastically improve the speed on an older system with a new HD and some new ram. CPU is mainly for real time 'stuff'.

Anyway, since the poster seems a bit newbish I'd suggest XP Home/Pro/Corp.

And...Nas...ME is stable if you know what you're doing... I've had it running for weeks and months at times...

Just lay down 95 then use the ME upgrade...and DON'T allow it to auto update itself....

XP Pro is decent though...I've had it running ever since I installed a bit back and it's been running since. Still have over 700 meg's of ram free (outta 1gb).

[MauerPower]

Okay, here you go:

Computer:
Operating System Microsoft Windows ME

Motherboard:
CPU Type Intel Pentium 4A, 2000 MHz (5 x 400)
Motherboard Name Biostar M7SXF (5 PCI, 1 AGP, 1 ACR, 1 CNR, , Audio)
Motherboard Chipset SiS 645
System Memory 256 MB (PC2100 DDR SDRAM)
BIOS Type Award Modular (12/06/01)
Communication Port Communications Port (COM1)
Communication Port Communications Port (COM2)
Communication Port Printer Port (LPT1)

Display:
Video Adapter NVIDIA GeForce2 MX/MX 400
3D Accelerator nVIDIA GeForce2 MX/MX 400
Monitor Default Monitor
Monitor Default Monitor

Multimedia:
Audio Adapter Creative Labs EMU10K1 SB Live! Audio Processor
Audio Adapter SiS 7012 Audio Device

Storage:
Floppy Drive GENERIC NEC FLOPPY DISK
Disk Drive GENERIC IDE DISK TYPE47
CD/DVD Drive HP CD-Writer cd16r (16x/10x/40x CD-RW)
CD/DVD Drive LITEON DVD-ROM LTD163 (16x/48x DVD-ROM)

Partitions:
C: (FAT32) 38152 MB (155 MB free)

Input:
Keyboard Standard 101/102-Key or Microsoft Natural Keyboard
Mouse Compatible PS/2 Port Wheel Mouse
Game Controller Microsoft PC-joystick driver

Network:
Network Adapter PPP Adapter.
Network Adapter Realtek 8139-series PCI NIC

Peripherals:
Printer AGFA-AccuSet 1000
Printer Lexmark Z23-Z33
USB Device General purpose USB Hub
USB Device InkJet Color Printer
USB Device USB Human Interface Device

Problems & Suggestions:
Problem Disk free space is only 0% on drive C:.

[Krell]

Questions:

1) Does his PC meet the minimum hardware requirements to install W2000 or XP?

Yes - Altho it is advisable to purchase another 256 Mb of PC2100 DDR SDRAM when possible.

2) Are there any limiting factor to consider in a migration to W2000 or XP?

Yes - He is critically low of free disk space, so an Upgrade of his existing O/S will not be possible. The choices are to
a) Add a new hard drive as the C: drive, and make his current drive a Slave, then delete the Windows ME folder. (preferred)
b) back up his data to another source, then delete enough free space to meet the requirements, or
c) back up the data he wants to keep to another drive, and do a clean install, which will delete the partition and allow him to repartition, and format using NTFS.

3) Are there additional things to do to ease the reinstallion?

Yes - Make a folder to contain the Mother Board chipset drivers latest XP peripheral drivers, such as Video, Sound, Printers. Since he has an Intel Chipset, he can get the Intel Update util, and the Application Accelorator, which will need to be install FIRST, upon reinstallation.

4) If he upgrades his O/S, instead of a clean install, is it still neccessary to reinstall the drivers etc?

Yes - New drivers that are XP certified will be needed, and can easily be updated using an internet connection, or downloaded driver sets.

5) Are there any downsides to Upgrading the O/S, as apposed to a clean install?

Yes - A history of uninstalled programs, broken paths, incorrect registry entries, will follow the ME migration, and pollute his new O/S. While it may seem to be the easier way to go, for longevity, a clean installation is by far prefferable.

6) - Are there advantage to instaling XP over W2000 ?

Yes - Windows XP is a breeze to install, will install most drivers from it own driver database, and will configure his broadband in the installion process. Were he to install Windows 2000, he would find it more difficult to configure his internet connections, and prepare his machine for stable multimedia use.

7) What recomendations do I make regarding a possible upgrade fro ME?

a) Buy more memory, even if he goes with W2000.
b) Buy a larger hard drive, it's gonna happen sooner or later
c) Do a clean install of XP using NTFS, and learn to use it.


I hope this will help you make an informed decision regarding your departure from ME, may it not rest in peace.


cheers

[MauerPower]

Okay, thanks.

[el_omega]

This guy just know what he preaches.

Krell, no doubt in the world you are a saver, how much knowledge on that brain of yours.

To all members on these forums:

Don't you feel honored to have Krell around?

And no I am not brownosing ( not sure if spelled right ).

[aqlo]

There is a shrine (http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8409) available for those who wish to worship the mighty Krell.

[Winphuk]

I have been using Windows 2000 for several months now and I am very happy with it.
My machine came preinstalled with WinXP home version, but I was not happy with the amount of resources that it consumes.
If you use Windows XP, make sure it's Pro version.
If you decide to install Windows 2000 you will need to use third party drivers, but I found it was well worth it.
You will also find that Windows XP will obsolesce alot of software that was compatible with your former operating system.
Pros and Cons with both of them, but it's your choice.

Yes, and big ups to Krell.

[Theinfamousone]

I don't think I've ever come across any software not compatible with XP, and one video card I got for 99 cents that was supposed to capture video that was only compatible with 95 and 98. So as far as compatibility, XP is and will be, the best. Win 2000's days are numbered as far as compatibility.

XP is like a pretty version of 2000 (runs on the NT kernel) and if you have all of the updates, I don't think security is any more of a problem than any other OS. If you are one of those guys that spends every waking moment counting how much RAM is left, have fun with 2000. But if you buy 2 gigs of RAM, why not use it? *Gasp*

[Winphuk]

Actually, I didn't like the look of winxp either. Too MSN.
When I was using it I fixed it to use the classic settings and disabled all that animated shit like the sliding task bar.
That sped it up a bit.

[nasrules]

Originally posted by Saito
system requirement from MS site:
-128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

I worked with a system with XP and 128MB and sometimes iy slowed down anyway. Think about it, if u run an antivirus, a firewall and a p2p proggy at the same time u r basically multitasking(and I didnt even mention browser, download accelerator, IM prog, etc).

It's not necessary to format, but it's much better if u get a full version and format, since ME is a buggy OS.

Im no PC genius but I've worked with all 3 systems , so how can u judge if I know what Im on about or not?


er.....wot if u aint running antivirus, firewall and p2p? nevermind download accelerator, im prog etc. wot if u jus wanna use it for word processing and sending email? huh?

u dont need the full version to do a clean install, so long as you have a windows 98, me or 2000 cdkey you're fine, it just asks for it during the install.

Originally posted by Saito
of course, if u r low on budget, then get the minimum memory and the upgrade version, and then u dont have to format.

u dont need to format with the full version anyway!

and if by all 3 systems you mean MacOS, Unix/Linux and Windows, so what? doesnt mean you're good at any of them! and if you mean me, 2k and xp then thats nothing! loads of the posters here will have done, including myself!

[Malakai1911]

Originally posted by Theinfamousone
I don't think I've ever come across any software not compatible with XP, and one video card I got for 99 cents that was supposed to capture video that was only compatible with 95 and 98. So as far as compatibility, XP is and will be, the best. Win 2000's days are numbered as far as compatibility.

Hah.

Windows XP Home Edition - EOL is December 31, 2007
Windows 2000 Pro - EOL is March 31, 2008
Windows XP Pro Edition - EOL is December 31, 2009

The end-of-life date for Windows 2000 Pro is actually between XP Home and XP Pro editions.

Why? Because its better :P

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/desktop/consumer/default.mspx

[Krell]

HAH back at you.

The EOL date says nothing of the functionality or warrentability of the O/S.

Futhermore, software developers are not writing their software to be compatible with Window2000, which has not permiated the home market. Any software that is in developement for Windows 2000 is for business applications.

Windows 2000 is in full swing for deployment in the business sector, and will be for many years to come. This is the 4th year that software has been released for that O/S, so little new software will be "optimised" for Windows 2000.

And last, unless you can cite examples of how and why W2K is better than XP, I dont see where you have to much ground to stand on.

At least you did some research.

[Winphuk]

Waiting for Windows XP

By P.J. Connolly with Randall C. Kennedy
October 26, 2001



HOPELESS OPTIMISM must be a fundamental part of human nature, because we want to believe that new operating systems truly represent an improvement on their predecessors. It's easy to point to certain features in a new OS as examples of progress, but end-users often find that a new OS performs like molasses compared to the version they were using. As a result, CTOs wanting to capitalize on the benefits of a new OS may find that new hardware investments are necessary -- and expensive -- requirements.

Unfortunately, Microsoft's Windows XP appears to be maintaining that tradition, as indicated by results of independent testing performed by CSA Research and confirmed by our work in the InfoWorld Test Center. Our tests of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000 demonstrated that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows 2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario, our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as did the Windows 2000 client. Our testing also suggests that companies determined to deploy Windows XP should consider ordering desktop systems with dual CPUs to get the most out of the new OS.

How we tested

For our evaluation of Windows XP's performance, we used CSA Research's Benchmark Studio Professional, a suite of benchmark tests that are especially well-suited for evaluating the performance of both PC hardware and the Windows environment.

At our direction, CSA Research carried out four sets of tests to compare Windows XP and Windows 2000 performance: one set using Microsoft Office XP on a PC equipped with a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 CPU; a second set using Office XP on a PC with a 733MHz Pentium III CPU; a third set using Microsoft Office 2000 on a PC with two 1GHz Pentium III CPUs and on a PC with a Pentium 4; and finally, a fourth set on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 PC running Office 2000 over Windows 2000 and Office XP over Windows XP.

Each set of tests involved measuring the execution times of four different workload scenarios, dubbed baseline, scenario 1, scenario 2, and scenario 3. First we used Benchmark Studio's OfficeBench 3.0, a linear script that performs tasks in Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Internet Explorer, to provide a baseline for the system's performance under each OS. We then added increasingly heavy workload simulations to OfficeBench to create the other three scenarios. Performance was measured under both default and optimized versions of the Windows user interface. For optimized testing, the animation and font-smoothing features of both OSes were disabled, as was Windows XP's System Restore feature.

XP by the numbers

In every test we performed on systems with a single CPU, OfficeBench ran in less time under Windows 2000 than under Windows XP. The differences ranged from slight to dramatic, depending on the hardware configuration, but XP was always slower. For example, our initial baselining using Office XP and an optimized UI on the Pentium 4 system indicated a lag of a modest 11 percent, but things went downhill from there. The baseline reading for the Pentium III system showed that under Windows XP and Office XP, OfficeBench took 27 percent more time to execute than under Windows 2000 and Office XP.

Generally, Windows XP proved increasingly slower than Windows 2000 as load increased, with a few rare exceptions. For example, in the first multitasking scenario (scenario 1), using light database, messaging, and multimedia workloads, we got mixed results using Office XP on our Pentium 4 client. Under the default UI, Windows XP with Office XP narrowed the performance gap to 24 percent, compared to a gap of 35 percent in the baseline scenario.

Except for a few instances, Windows XP increasingly ate the dust of Windows 2000 as load ramped up, regardless of machine specs or Office version. When the Pentium 4 client with Office XP was tested, script execution generally took between a quarter and a third longer with Windows XP as with Windows 2000, and as much as half again as long with the heaviest load and a stock UI. The Pentium III client fared even worse. Running Windows XP with our heaviest workload and the default UI raised script execution time to more than twice that of Windows 2000. Optimizing the UI helped Windows XP to narrow that gap, taking 1.6 times as long as Windows 2000 to process the workload.

Windows XP stayed closer to Windows 2000 when we tested the software on fast hardware using an optimized UI and Office 2000 instead of Office XP, but speed differences were still as great as 18 percent on the dual-CPU Pentium III and 25 percent on the Pentium 4. Not surprisingly, Windows XP posted the slowest times and the greatest deltas using the stock UI and Office XP on our Pentium III client, taking 58 percent longer than Windows 2000 needed to perform the relatively undemanding workload.

read the rest here - http://archive.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml

[Winphuk]

What's the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?

Intended For
Windows XP
Windows 2000

Windows 2000 and Windows XP are essentially the same operating system (known internally as Windows NT 5.0 and Windows NT 5.1, respectively.) Here are some considerations if you're trying to decide which version to use:
Windows 2000 benefits

Windows 2000 has lower system requirements, and has a simpler interface (no "Styles" to mess with).
Windows 2000 is slightly less expensive, and has no product activation.
Windows 2000 has been out for a while, and most of the common problems and security holes have been uncovered and fixed.
Third-party software and hardware products that aren't yet XP-compatible may be compatible with Windows 2000; check the manufacturers of your devices and applications for XP support before you upgrade.
Windows XP benefits

Windows XP is somewhat faster than Windows 2000, assuming you have a fast processor and tons of memory (although it will run fine with a 300Mhz Pentium II and 128MB of RAM).
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.
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.
Windows XP has better support for games and comes with more games than 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.
Manufacturers of existing hardware and software products are more likely to add Windows XP compatibility now than Windows 2000 compatibility.




http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article10-001

[Malakai1911]

Originally posted by Krell
Futhermore, software developers are not writing their software to be compatible with Window2000, which has not permiated the home market. Any software that is in developement for Windows 2000 is for business applications.

Windows 2000 is in full swing for deployment in the business sector, and will be for many years to come. This is the 4th year that software has been released for that O/S, so little new software will be "optimised" for Windows 2000.

And last, unless you can cite examples of how and why W2K is better than XP, I dont see where you have to much ground to stand on.

At least you did some research.

Well, for one the driver architecture is the same. Notice how the majority of 2k drivers are also labled XP, and visa-versa.

You might also know that XP can also use 2k drivers in some situations (for older hardware that dont have XP support),

The fact of the matter is, as long as XP has updated drivers.... so will 2000.

Also, I enjoy the fact that 2k doesn't have "call home" features, or DRM built in.

[King_Zamunda]

To put it bluntly, XP is a poncy version of 2K. If you have less resources use 2K.


I still love W98SE though. You can strip it down to 50MB. EOL is Dec 31st , 3000

or armageddon, whichever comes first.

[Malakai1911]

Originally posted by my name
you cant escape drm.
since i learnt whats drm is and tried to avoid it i saw its imposiable.
they put it even in the old 6.4 media player and i if you download ie6 youl see it upgrades or installes drm too.
bit ny bit the drm will be in your pc no matter if its xp win98 or win2k

I use Service Pack 2, I use IE 5.5 SP2, I dont even have Media Player installed.

(a little editing to sysoc.inf allows WMP uninstall)

I use MPC in its place.

And if M$ tries sneaking in DRM in a security update that I need, I will just switch to linux. Simple as that.

[overdo]

ok ppl are getting overly worried about DRM here. DRM is intended to stop u playing media for which u don't have the required license. this only currently works for WMA files and real audio files, but those both require the respective players to say that the files have "expired." if DRM was extended to mp3s and u found u couldn't play them, surely u'd just use system restore and then not install the update? and think about the criticism MS would get if it did "secretely" install a DRM update of this kind. i can't see DRM getting any worse until longhorn is out in the shops.