Win2k and XP wars END NOW

[NTGAMEMAN 0]

Windows 2000 Windows XP

NO WPA WPA

compabily mode(with Sp2+) compabily mode(comes with OS)

up to 3 SP's(4th is in BETA) only has 1 SP

DX9(can be installed on it) DX9(can also be installed on it)

WMP9 WMP9

IE6 SP1 IE6 SP1

STABLE NO VERY STABLE(on my machine)

NO LUNA LUNA(slows down OS)

 

 

THERE

[adamvjackson 0]

Using 2000 Professional here, and I will be for quite some time. At least, until the Service Pack 4 beta is complete. But to be completely honest, I don't see any compelling reason to upgrade from 2000 Professional to XP Professional.

 

I don't care for some of the default options, such as shared folders, simple file sharing, etc.

 

I know you can turn this all off, including Luna, but why go through all that when 2000 is what I'm trying to emulate?

 

Not trying to start a flame, or flame anyone, but I'm open to opinions and thoughts.

[BladeRunner 0]

...and the weekly OS Vs Os thread is started.

Well, the week was a whole day old before it appeard, somebody is getting slow.

[clutch 1]

LOL @ BladeRunner

 

Yep, who would have thought we'd get by without seeing a post about it eh? And just wait until the new desktop OS comes out along with the new office that have document tracking and certification features. Then, there will be "2000 vs. XP vs. Stupid New OS/Office Suite" comparisons. Oh well, such is life...

[duhmez 0]

I ave to spend gobs of extra time turing XP back into win2k. So no sale for me

[ThC 129 0]

whatever, who cares what OS is better or worse. You people need to find something better to debate about, than this dumb crap all the time.

[Jerry Atrik 0]

Quote:

...and the weekly OS Vs Os thread is started.
Well, the week was a whole day old before it appeard, somebody is getting slow.

[pr-man 1]

well for some reason win2k pro is much less stable on my system than winxp but I find that XP bogs down much faster as you install things on it. im temted to try win2k again but im afraid i will lose gaming performance.

 

Also there seem to be MAJOR problems with the drivers for my Promise Ultra 100TX2 and win2k SP3

[adamvjackson 0]

Quote:

Also there seem to be MAJOR problems with the drivers for my Promise Ultra 100TX2 and win2k SP3

There was, and supposedly Promise has updated their drivers accordingly. I no longer have one of these cards, so I really can't verify that firsthand though.

[pr-man 1]

I believe I had tried their new drivers and it aloowed win2k to boot but the HD speed was horrible and even mp3's skipped

[adamvjackson 0]

If I may ask, do you need the additional 2 IDE channels, or are the channels on the motherboard ATA33/66?

[pr-man 1]

well both my HDs are ata-100. The 2 ports on the mobo are ata-100 also but I have 2 HDs and 1 dvd-rom and 1 cd-rw. I thought it better to have them all on seperate channels

[videobruce 0]

Quote:

whatever, who cares what OS is better or worse. You people need to find something better to debate about, than this dumb crap all the time.

Of course you don't HAVE to read it do you?

Anyone for a AMD vs Wintel thread?


P.S. 2k is for REAL men, not boys!

[gilgamesh 0]

XP Pro is better, end of story.

[DosFreak 2]

XP PE is "better".

[Phalanx-Imawano 0]

My 2c about the two OS's (I have both at home and use Win2K Pro and Server at the office)

 

WinXP: overall better for home/entertainment use

-overall better compatibility with legacy software and games (I got old games like Wing Commander: The Kilrathi Saga running on WinXP fine; there are exceptions, like Resident Evil3, which works on Win2k but not on XP)

-nicer interface, for me at least (I click on My Computer on the Start button more often than on the desktop due to screen clutter eg lots of open applications; otherwise I'll keep having to minimize all of them to find My Computer)

-better gaming performance (by my estimate, at least 1000 more 3DMarks on XP than on 2k)

-overall faster and fewer incidences of "bog downs" (a newspaper claims that WinXP solved the "memory leak" problem that plagued all older versions of Windows, inlcuding Win2k; they even recommend using utilities like RAMBooster with Win2k!)

-setting up a home LAN with WinXP as the gateway/server is a snap due to the Wizard (Win2k requires doing it the "hard way")

 

Win2k: overall better for corporate/enterprise use

-keeps the feel of WinNT4 and Win9x (good for the office where tons of PC's with legacy OS's and software are everywhere)

-legacy hardware support

-better in network/security management; tasks of doing so are more familiar

-absense of the Product Activation feature makes reinstalling and restoration much less of a hassle (remember that recovering and restoring a trashed PC in the office must be done in record time)

[clutch 1]

Quote:

My 2c about the two OS's (I have both at home and use Win2K Pro and Server at the office)

Win2k: overall better for corporate/enterprise use
-keeps the feel of WinNT4 and Win9x (good for the office where tons of PC's with legacy OS's and software are everywhere)
-legacy hardware support
-better in network/security management; tasks of doing so are more familiar
-absense of the Product Activation feature makes reinstalling and restoration much less of a hassle (remember that recovering and restoring a trashed PC in the office must be done in record time)

While your XP comments seemed to make sense (although there was a leak issue with XP SP1 that introduced a new memory mgmt issue, there is a fix that you can get for it) I do have a few comments on the Win2K side:

-The interface can be subdued for the most part and returned to the "classic" (as termed in XP) look. The Luna interface can be completely canned, or portions of it can be retained (I keep the new start menu myself while sometimes removing everything else).

-I haven't seen a piece of hardware yet that only works in Win2K and not XP, so an example would be nice.

-You get more registry functions that can be managed through Active Directory, and these workstations will be able to manage Windows 2003 Server via MMC while Win2K will not. You also get Remote Desktop built-in using the Terminal Services tech from Win2K Server, which is much faster than using something like VNC or PCAnywhere, plus it doesn't require the permission from the user (another registry/policy selection).

-If you are in a corporate environment, then you probably have volume licenses anyway and can get the corporate version of the CD which does not have product activation. In some cases, you can modify a file on the image, reburn it, and not even need to enter a serial number (this last part has been around for a while).

As for me, I have found XP to be kind of a wash in performance. It's faster in some things (3D, CAD/CAM, etc.) while slower in other things (having more than 15 windows open at once, it might bog sometimes). However, I love having ClearType for my LCDs, and I really like Remote Desktop. Plus, I can still manage Windows 2003 server (.NET Betas) without issue and I have more options with AD management using XP on workstations. So, it's XP for me when using Windows, while I use Gentoo for Linux on servers.

[Shakti 0]

For me its W2K all the way, having problems with xp right from the start (betatester). W2K is faster in rendering mpg4, uses less resources, doesnt need activation (whatever that is...), lets me install new hardware without reactivation (see above), has not 20 spywares installed per default from ms, is rockstable and in my eyes its the os ms has put most care in, as it was the first merging of nt and w9x.

 

Beside that i use server 2003 rc2, but only once in a month to nourish my W2K from the outside.

[el_vago32 0]

Quote:

For me its W2K all the way, having problems with xp right from the start (betatester). W2K is faster in rendering mpg4, uses less resources, doesnt need activation (whatever that is...), lets me install new hardware without reactivation (see above), has not 20 spywares installed per default from ms, is rockstable and in my eyes its the os ms has put most care in, as it was the first merging of nt and w9x.

Beside that i use server 2003 rc2, but only once in a month to nourish my W2K from the outside.

You have a point with that, but still like more XP Pro because I think that XP will be getting better through time (only SP1a, Win2k SP3), even it'll take a little while to debug the OS, perhaps the graphical interface in XP is nicer, hehehe.

[gilgamesh 0]

Actually, as surprising at it may seem I get better gaming performance on 2000 rather than XP. I get about 150 points more 3DMark 2001 score and almost 50 more in the 3DMark03 score. So I have switched back to 2000 as a result.

[Phalanx-Imawano 0]

Quote:

While your XP comments seemed to make sense (although there was a leak issue with XP SP1 that introduced a new memory mgmt issue, there is a fix that you can get for it) I do have a few comments on the Win2K side:

-The interface can be subdued for the most part and returned to the "classic" (as termed in XP) look. The Luna interface can be completely canned, or portions of it can be retained (I keep the new start menu myself while sometimes removing everything else).

-I haven't seen a piece of hardware yet that only works in Win2K and not XP, so an example would be nice.

-You get more registry functions that can be managed through Active Directory, and these workstations will be able to manage Windows 2003 Server via MMC while Win2K will not. You also get Remote Desktop built-in using the Terminal Services tech from Win2K Server, which is much faster than using something like VNC or PCAnywhere, plus it doesn't require the permission from the user (another registry/policy selection).

-If you are in a corporate environment, then you probably have volume licenses anyway and can get the corporate version of the CD which does not have product activation. In some cases, you can modify a file on the image, reburn it, and not even need to enter a serial number (this last part has been around for a while).

As for me, I have found XP to be kind of a wash in performance. It's faster in some things (3D, CAD/CAM, etc.) while slower in other things (having more than 15 windows open at once, it might bog sometimes). However, I love having ClearType for my LCDs, and I really like Remote Desktop. Plus, I can still manage Windows 2003 server (.NET Betas) without issue and I have more options with AD management using XP on workstations. So, it's XP for me when using Windows, while I use Gentoo for Linux on servers.

-Well changing the interface to classic mode would then cripple some of its features (eg My Computer in start button), plus I've tried it once and somehow it just didn't feel right - WinXP is better off with its new interface if you ask me.

-I've read a number of complaints about external devices (particularly those using COM: and Firewire) such as scanners, digital cameras, and game controllers not working with WinXP, mainly due to driver support, though other problems are also reported. In fact I have one such device that just plain didn't work on WinXP but was okay in Win2k: my old Creative Labs Modem Blaster FlashII56 external modem - while WinXP detected it and installed a driver, somehow WinXP couldn't actually dial the modem (it kept reporting "port already open" even when the modem was idle - it could query the modem in the diagnostics tab, it just couldn't dial out). Also my Logitech Wingman Formula Force wheel - Logitech says its serial interface won't work in WinXP, luckily it also can connect via USB so I could still use it.

-Well Windows Server 2003 is not yet deployed in my company, so it pays to be familiar with Win2k. Plus many corporate vendors like Nokia sell application products like Data Warehousing systems that still use WinNT Server or Win2k Server.

-Again WinXP is still relatively new to my company, only a handful of PC's have it installed, most of the others have Win2k and Win98 since our IT department still purchases older OS's for cost reasons (obviously WinXP is more expensive than Win2k). Of course we won't go into Windows Server 2003 until it reaches it's final release (actually more like 1 year after).

Also WinXP does have a few other niggles. One thing I found out about WinXP is that it's very picky about DMA support for DVD-ROM drives - if the drive was detected at bios level not to have DMA support, then WinXP will always configure it to PIO mode, but Win2k can still force it into DMA mode in those circumstances. Luckily I put Win2k on my parents' PC (to replace the hopelessly disgusting WinME which was loaded there prior), and that PC had such an issue with the DVD-ROM drive (the Creative 8x DVD-ROM, which seemed always to be set to PIO mode by the bios - I tried forcing DMA support at bios level, and the result was that the drive would not be detected).

[Mr.Guvernment 0]

Quote:

...and the weekly OS Vs Os thread is started.
.

again? aren't there enough of these darn threads - everyone has to be a critic.

Both XP and 2k rules - it depends what u are used to - period! just cause to one person Xp suxs, does not mean it does to others or vice - versa.


TO be honest, this is such an OLD topic, that i don't think anyone really cares any more as people can make their own choices and decide for them selves via trial and error.

I would not mind seeing a sticky here as i do on many other forums along the lines of:


"no more XP vs 2k threads"
"no more AMD vs Intel threads"

because it is just the same crap over and over and over and over and over! and is usually a waste of bandwidth.


EDIT

But it is nice to see well typed out replies here as many have done,. such as Alec and clutch (and others) as they always do.

[Mr.Guvernment 0]

Quote:

Actually, as surprising at it may seem I get better gaming performance on 2000 rather than XP. I get about 150 points more 3DMark 2001 score and almost 50 more in the 3DMark03 score. So I have switched back to 2000 as a result.

150 and 50 is not a comparable difference- i get that difference by running the test 2 or 3 times after reboots on the same machine.

[adamvjackson 0]

Quote:

Both XP and 2k rules - it depends what u are used to - period! just cause to one person Xp suxs, does not mean it does to others or vice - versa.


TO be honest, this is such an OLD topic, that i don't think anyone really cares any more as people can make their own choices and decide for them selves via trial and error.

I would not mind seeing a sticky here as i do on many other forums along the lines of:


"no more XP vs 2k threads"
"no more AMD vs Intel threads"

because it is just the same crap over and over and over and over and over! and is usually a waste of bandwidth.

I second that.

Quote:

150 and 50 is not a comparable difference- i get that difference by running the test 2 or 3 times after reboots on the same machine.

IIRC, there is an error margin of ~10% with any benchmark, so you would be correct with that.

[Mr.Guvernment 0]

 

question, what does IIRC stand for..LOL - been wondering for a while.....