Win2k Pro vs. WinXP Pro

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by nameruse, Aug 2, 2004.

  1. nameruse

    nameruse Guest

    **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

    Hi all,

    I've been trying to decide between the 2 Os's for some time. Various
    online review web sites seem to offer different opinions. In terms of
    stability, W2k and Wxp are on par with one another. Performance-wise,
    some say one is faster than the other, and vice versa. As for
    compatibility (e.g. old Apps and games), Wxp wins hands down.

    I am just wondering should I get Win2k or WinXP or should I wait for
    the 64-bit version sometime next year? One thing that keeps me from
    choosing WinXP is the whole activation process and basically MS has
    a record of my HW information and what not. Is this concern valid?

    Thanks for any input.



    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
    http://www.usenet.com
    Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
     
    nameruse, Aug 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Get WinXP! 2K crashes a lot.
     
    Samuel Townsend, Aug 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Jimmy" <> wrote in message
    news:LQvPc.618$...
    > Personally I've never used 2k but would choose XPpro anyday, start up
    > time is 99% quicker and built in encryption is good.
    > This page will help you decide:
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/top10.mspx
    >
    >
    > nameruse wrote:
    >
    > > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
    > >
    > > Hi all,
    > >
    > > I've been trying to decide between the 2 Os's for some time. Various
    > > online review web sites seem to offer different opinions. In terms of
    > > stability, W2k and Wxp are on par with one another. Performance-wise,
    > > some say one is faster than the other, and vice versa. As for
    > > compatibility (e.g. old Apps and games), Wxp wins hands down.
    > >
    > > I am just wondering should I get Win2k or WinXP or should I wait for
    > > the 64-bit version sometime next year? One thing that keeps me from
    > > choosing WinXP is the whole activation process and basically MS has
    > > a record of my HW information and what not. Is this concern valid?
    > >
    > > Thanks for any input.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    > > *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
    > > http://www.usenet.com
    > > Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
    > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
     
    Samuel Townsend, Aug 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Get WinXP. 2K crashes a lot.
    "Jimmy" <> wrote in message
    news:LQvPc.618$...
    > Personally I've never used 2k but would choose XPpro anyday, start up
    > time is 99% quicker and built in encryption is good.
    > This page will help you decide:
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/top10.mspx
    >
    >
    > nameruse wrote:
    >
    > > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
    > >
    > > Hi all,
    > >
    > > I've been trying to decide between the 2 Os's for some time. Various
    > > online review web sites seem to offer different opinions. In terms of
    > > stability, W2k and Wxp are on par with one another. Performance-wise,
    > > some say one is faster than the other, and vice versa. As for
    > > compatibility (e.g. old Apps and games), Wxp wins hands down.
    > >
    > > I am just wondering should I get Win2k or WinXP or should I wait for
    > > the 64-bit version sometime next year? One thing that keeps me from
    > > choosing WinXP is the whole activation process and basically MS has
    > > a record of my HW information and what not. Is this concern valid?
    > >
    > > Thanks for any input.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    > > *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
    > > http://www.usenet.com
    > > Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
    > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
     
    Samuel Townsend, Aug 2, 2004
    #4
  5. nameruse

    Jimmy Guest

    Personally I've never used 2k but would choose XPpro anyday, start up
    time is 99% quicker and built in encryption is good.
    This page will help you decide:
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/top10.mspx


    nameruse wrote:

    > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
    >
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I've been trying to decide between the 2 Os's for some time. Various
    > online review web sites seem to offer different opinions. In terms of
    > stability, W2k and Wxp are on par with one another. Performance-wise,
    > some say one is faster than the other, and vice versa. As for
    > compatibility (e.g. old Apps and games), Wxp wins hands down.
    >
    > I am just wondering should I get Win2k or WinXP or should I wait for
    > the 64-bit version sometime next year? One thing that keeps me from
    > choosing WinXP is the whole activation process and basically MS has
    > a record of my HW information and what not. Is this concern valid?
    >
    > Thanks for any input.
    >
    >
    >
    > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    > *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
    > http://www.usenet.com
    > Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
    > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
     
    Jimmy, Aug 2, 2004
    #5
  6. nameruse

    Sonic Guest

    "Personally I've never used 2k but would choose XPpro anyday"

    Makes a lot of sense .....
     
    Sonic, Aug 2, 2004
    #6
  7. nameruse

    amsjabams Guest

    Sonic wrote:

    > "Personally I've never used 2k but would choose XPpro anyday"
    >
    > Makes a lot of sense .....
    >
    >
    >
    >



    2k is a "rushed out" version of XPpro is it not?
     
    amsjabams, Aug 3, 2004
    #7
  8. nameruse

    Duane Arnold Guest

    "nameruse" <> wrote in
    news::

    > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
    >
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I've been trying to decide between the 2 Os's for some time. Various
    > online review web sites seem to offer different opinions. In terms of
    > stability, W2k and Wxp are on par with one another. Performance-wise,
    > some say one is faster than the other, and vice versa. As for
    > compatibility (e.g. old Apps and games), Wxp wins hands down.
    >
    > I am just wondering should I get Win2k or WinXP or should I wait for
    > the 64-bit version sometime next year? One thing that keeps me from
    > choosing WinXP is the whole activation process and basically MS has
    > a record of my HW information and what not. Is this concern valid?
    >
    > Thanks for any input.
    >


    I like them both XP Pro and Win 2K Pro. Yes, XP Pro has some new and
    advanced features and MS is more geared towards securing the XP series
    O/S from an end-user standpoint for the workstation and home version of
    XP.

    However, that doesn't mean the Win 2K cannot be made just as secure. With
    Win 2K you can install it on multiple machines as opposed to XP, one
    cannot do that.

    And make no mistake about it, Win 2K has been around longer than XP and
    is the most stable of all the MS O/S(s) to date. Win 2K will be just like
    Win 98SE has become in a few more years.

    But if I had to choose one or the other, I would go with XP Pro.

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Aug 3, 2004
    #8
  9. nameruse

    Mark Shaw Guest

    "Duane Arnold" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9539DDE50D972notmenotmecom@204.127.204.17...

    > I like them both XP Pro and Win 2K Pro. Yes, XP Pro has some new and
    > advanced features and MS is more geared towards securing the XP series
    > O/S from an end-user standpoint for the workstation and home version of
    > XP.
    > However, that doesn't mean the Win 2K cannot be made just as secure. With
    > Win 2K you can install it on multiple machines as opposed to XP, one
    > cannot do that.
    > And make no mistake about it, Win 2K has been around longer than XP and
    > is the most stable of all the MS O/S(s) to date. Win 2K will be just like
    > Win 98SE has become in a few more years.
    > But if I had to choose one or the other, I would go with XP Pro.



    Duane, the best answer yet in this thread.
    Let me add that if you're going the win2k route, you'll want at the very
    minimum 256mb ram. For xp, you may well want 512mb ram as the bare minimum.
    So if you're purchasing the OS for use on an older pc with hardware
    limitations, you might want to go for 2k.
     
    Mark Shaw, Aug 3, 2004
    #9
  10. nameruse

    Your name Guest

    "Samuel Townsend" <> wrote in
    news::

    > Get WinXP! 2K crashes a lot.
    >
    >


    2K Pro has been very stable for me, the only time I have to restart it is
    for program updates, it never ever crashes.
     
    Your name, Aug 3, 2004
    #10
  11. nameruse

    mhicaoidh Guest

    Taking a moment's reflection, Duane Arnold mused:
    |
    | With Win 2K you can install it on multiple machines as opposed to XP...

    Certainly not legally! ;-)
     
    mhicaoidh, Aug 3, 2004
    #11
  12. nameruse

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "amsjabams" <> wrote in message
    news:cGCPc.1204$...
    > Sonic wrote:
    >
    > > "Personally I've never used 2k but would choose XPpro anyday"
    > >
    > > Makes a lot of sense .....
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    > 2k is a "rushed out" version of XPpro is it not?


    no...

    XP is 2k with a facelift and more options.
    let me rephrase: 2k and XP are based on NT. NT lacked the GUI so 2k was
    developed to make the GUI similar to win98.
    since Microsoft has an investment in macintosh, the XP GUI and options were
    added to 2k to boost company profits.

    XP has kept up with the times, therefore, it runs best on uptodate machines.
    (requires more CPU speed, memory, and disk space.

    -a|ex
     
    127.0.0.1, Aug 3, 2004
    #12
  13. nameruse

    Duane Arnold Guest

    "mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailŠPäM.com> wrote in
    news:xOOPc.83130$eM2.46094@attbi_s51:

    > Taking a moment's reflection, Duane Arnold mused:
    >|
    >| With Win 2K you can install it on multiple machines as opposed to XP...
    >
    > Certainly not legally! ;-)
    >
    >
    >


    Well, what can I say! ;-)

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Aug 3, 2004
    #13
  14. nameruse

    Mark Shaw Guest

    "Your name" <Your@email.""> wrote in message
    news:Xns953A6E17F862CYouremail@24.71.223.159...
    > "Samuel Townsend" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > Get WinXP! 2K crashes a lot.
    > >

    >
    > 2K Pro has been very stable for me, the only time I have to restart it is
    > for program updates, it never ever crashes.


    Stability very much depends on the applications and drivers you run on the
    OS. I've seen both OS's crash with the infamous BSOD. Slow memory leaks in
    3rd party applications are probably another factor that requires an OS
    reboot.

    2k pro is very stable (compared to previous versions of windows), and I
    expect XP to be more stable than 2k.
     
    Mark Shaw, Aug 4, 2004
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tim Fickes

    Laptop WinXP pro - Linksys WCG200 - PC Win2k pro

    Tim Fickes, Jul 29, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,599
    Tim Fickes
    Jul 29, 2004
  2. Alam
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,595
    Andy Foster
    Aug 6, 2003
  3. zeus
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    442
    ADRENALINE
    Jan 21, 2004
  4. Dean Harris
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    822
    Ken Briscoe
    Jul 1, 2004
  5. thing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    737
    thing
    Aug 15, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page