Win2k Pro vs. WinXP Pro

**** 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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

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
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

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
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

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
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

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

Makes a lot of sense .....

 

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?

 

"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" <> 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.

 

"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.

 

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! ;-)

 

"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

 

"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

 

"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.