Back to Win2k from XP, felt like coming home..

[Toby 0]

I just reinstalled my workstation at home. Back to Win2k from XP and the only thing I can think of is "why did'nt I do this earlier".

 

I't feels so much more speedy and snappier and this is on a PIII 1Ghz with 512MB.

The only thing I'm gonna miss is the updated version of TS. Do anyone else feel the same way?

 

Anyway, happy new year to all of you !

 

/Toby

[DosFreak 2]

I will when I stick my Quad boot back on in the next 2 days. 2K will be my main OS and XP will be a distant memory.

[clutch 1]

Atreyu switched back to Win2K, but I haven't had a reason to (he has had numerous crashes while I have not). Besides, I have been to busy working with ISA server to even be concerned with my desktop OS. Especially since I had to redo my AD because of its bizarre concept of containerization, but that's another story...

[Atreyu 0]

Toby,

 

I also have a PIII 1GHZ with 512MB... and mine is on an Asus CUSL2-C mobo (I815). I have had problems with blue screens in XP far more than in Win2k. They happen sometimes as I'm sittin' here doing work, and they also happen when I'm nowhere near my PC. XP for the most part has been pretty solid for me, but not nearly as solid as 2k has been over the last two years.

 

This morning as I walked into my office, I noticed that XP had blue screened on me once again.. and for the final time. Fed up, I installed 2k and will probably stick with it at least until SP 1 of XP comes out.... or at least until there is better support for my hardware.

 

Also, I decided to go back because most Windows 2000 vulnerabilities have been found and fixed. Windows 2000 has a history now and there is plenty of support/fixes out there for it. XP is still a baby and major security flaws are only beginning to be discovered.

 

This was true as well for Windows 2000 when it came out, however the jump from NT 4 or 9x to Windows 2000 was so sweet that I didn't mind. It, not XP, was the first real "integration" of the two OSs.

 

Going from Win2k to XP is sorta boring, and kinda frustrating. The changes made in Windows XP are revolutionary if you were a Windows 95 or 98 user. However, coming from Windows 2000 I view XP as an unnecessary hassle, and eventually a necessary evil. Windows XP boots faster and has a lot of built in stuff like CD-Burning, MP3 ripping etc.. but who cares. I can do all that with Win2k. The only "advantage" I can see with XP is that it seems to run games faster... and the fact that I can say "Yeah, I'm running XP". But the things that count: security, stability, and compatibility, are not there yet. Perhaps they will come with the eventual release of the first service pack, but they are not there now (at least in my experience with the OS). It seems odd that these would be missing though since Windows XP is simply Windows 2000 with baggage. Perhaps they tinkered around a little bit too much with something that wasn't "broke" to begin with.

 

I have posted many other messages on this board with my feelings about XP. When I made the switch to Win2k two years ago, I fell in love right away. I've been trying XP off and on since August and I still don't like it. Probably my biggest complaint is the new and "improved" user interface. It's quite possibly the ugliest thing I've ever seen. My immediate reaction was to disable all that garbage. Then, once that was done, I wanted to do a search for a file. When I hit the search button, a stupid little dog popped up and asked me what I wanted to do.

 

Microsoft has release a "Personal" edition of XP. Perhaps the cheesy interface and animated characters would have been appropriate in that version, but certainly not the "Professional" version. All in all, I still remain disappointed. I can see where all the hype is coming from though. Win9x users are certainly going to enjoy the new OS and claim it to be the best OS they've ever used on a PC. Unfortunate that they are only now eXPeriencing what we Windows 2000 users have been enjoying for the last two years.

 

And I'm right there with ya Toby. It feels like I'm back "home".

[Toby 0]

Sandoval,

 

Glad you agree with me. The stuff you wrote is exactly what I ment

 

I doubt I'll give it another try after SP1, it will still be to many stupid "wizards" and even after disabling them the whole OS feel much slower...I have always been very pleased with Win2k so I really don't know why I even bothered with XP, I guess the only reason is that it's fun to try out everything new

 

(Just to let you know, I also got a CUSL2-mobo(BIOS 1009)and it has been very stable with XP so maybe there is a bad driver for one of your PCI-cards?)

 

Cheers!

 

/Toby

[Atreyu 0]

well i only have two pci cards in there.... a NIC and my SBLive. I did have a blue screen as a result of my video card driver (one of the detonators, i can't remember which). Other than that, the blue screens are random and happen for different reasons. I have all good hardware... the Asus board, Crucial RAM, SBLive, SMC NIC, IBM Drives, And a GeForce 2 GTS.

 

You're probably right about the driver. That's why I said I'll probably wait it out until XP has a "history" and is fully supported by all my hardware vendors. Also, a service pack may help the problems. I'm not ruling out ever using XP, but I just don't think that now is the right time. I havnt been able to even force myself to like it. I think Windows .NET Server will be cool though.

[sapiens74 0]

I have had one BSOD and that was a result of the newest det drivers that are know to cause it. Other then that its way more stable

[Brian Frank 0]

I also feel XP is need with a service pack.

[Four and Twenty 0]

damn you guys must really like win2k alot

i have been using win xp since the 2252 alpha version and i have had nearly every leaked build since. I can't imagine going back to win2k. In fact i have been using Whistler/XP longer than win2k since july 2000. I don't think i could ever go back.

[Atreyu 0]

I started trying out XP since Alpha 2257.... back when all the installation screens and "about" screens still referred to the OS as "Windows 2000".... remember that? All the more reason I don't see the need to switch, since it's the same operating system only with a couple added "bonuses".

 

And I'm not BASHING XP, I've tried very hard to make the move and like it. It just isn't working out to this point. Maybe in a couple more months.

[Brian Frank 0]

It's pretty good, but XP is simply Win2k in a pretty interface with some extras. The only reason I got it was because a local college has the hook up with MS and copies are five bucks. An offer I couldn't refuse.

[Atreyu 0]

You call that new interface pretty? That HUGE start menu? Those HUGE window borders and taskbar? Let's not forget the Blue/Green default color scheme with that lovely cow pasture background!

 

Why Microsoft chose this as their default theme I'll never know.

 

About the school thing, I just graduated from Penn State, where students were given all Microsoft products for free :-). Yeah, it's pretty sweet. All office products, operating systems, and even visual studio products.

 

Pretty darn clever (and very cunning) business tactic if you ask me.

[clutch 1]

I like the start menu myself, along with being able to right click on items in it and getting their alternate menus rather than simple shortcut properties. Plus, I have found the OS to be faster overall on faster systems; it just seems to scale better than Win2K to me. Sand had a ton of problems, while I didn't but we have very similar hardware configurations. Plus, I have WinXP Pro installed on a Celeron 300a@450 with 640MB RAM and it *does* run faster in every way than it did with Win2K. But if you have a ton of issues and it can be traced to the OS, then there is no reason to continue running it when you have another waiting in the wings to go back to (especially one as nice as Win2K).

[Atreyu 0]

clutch,

 

You have XP installed on your PIII machine right? Do you still have that sucker overclocked? It has been brought to my attention that XP is real picky with overclocked processors. If that is that case, perhaps this is my problem. I have a PIII 1.0GHZ that I have run at 1.12GHZ for months with 100% stability under Windows 2000. Maybe Windows XP doesn't like this?

 

Assuming this is the case... that makes for another reason XP is still less attractive to me than Windows 2000. Can anybody confirm this info about the overclocking?

[clutch 1]

933@1085 (155MHz FSB). Idles at 28*C, full load at 41*C. Super stable, quite cool. Also note that I have been running it on my Celeron with no issues (300a@450).