Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 44934	2004-05-03 22:24:00	Win 2000 better than Win XP ?	Steve_L (763)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
234054	2004-05-03 22:24:00	Reading another post here on F1, "Hamster" wrote: << I upgraded a clients computer from XP to 2000 today. A leap forward. They loved how "unconstricting" and "uncomplex" and "un IN YOUR FACE" it was...>> Really? Well, I have heard really good things about Win2000, but wonder if there are limitations with Win2000, such as with gaming or video editing or digital photo editing??? I will be upgrading (new PC) sometime this year and was thinking of getting XP. BTW, is 2000 the same price as XP? Can I LAN - link 2000 to my wife's XP laptop? Thanks, Steve L	Steve_L (763)
234055	2004-05-03 22:38:00	The core code of XP is much the same as 2000 in most cases. You can network XP and 2000 (or any version of Windows or Linux or Mac etc) XP has a lot more "user freindliness" in my opinion, which is probably counter to hamstar's views. It is better for some multimedia processes as well, having more internal support. 2000 will still work fine however, its a matter of choice. However to qualify my opinion, I must state that I have only been using and working with PCs since 1981, and have used, programmed and maintained PCs with every version of DOS and Windows ever released from DOS 1.1 to Windows XP (apart from DOS 4.0), I therefore assume hamstar has considerably more experience than I do and will defer to his very scientific analysis of the issue. But in my own personal (uninformed and uneducated) opinion, go with XP.	godfather (25)
234056	2004-05-03 23:54:00	Whoa! Almost missed this one. Hamstar to the rescue. Time to convert another one of the innocent before bill gates take his soul. ;-) >However to qualify my opinion, I must state that I have only been using and working with PCs since 1981 Lol... I was only born in 1986 but I wasn't born yesterday. I can tell the difference between a working operating system and a frozen one. XP is right up there and "in yer face" with its "Look at MEEEEE, I'm BLUUUE!" It will enhance your online and media "eXPerience" as MS marketing says. (notice the sarcasm) And users of the O/S can rest easy as now they have an O/S that is "colourful" like "Macintosh" Woweee! But XP has deep problems. All this crap that MS has chucked on top of a 2000 core or "kernel" has made the OS unstable at times and just plain ridiculous! Who needs Universal Plug and PLay? Oh thats right! That 13 year old haxx0r who jusst can't wait to get into your computer and run amuck! XP is huge, Some of its core components are from Windows 3.0 and 95! Microsoft has just built and built and built on top of its same crappy code until this latest reincarnation "XP" so much so that now its about as fast as a herd of turtles stampeding through penutbutter and as stable as a house of cards! To top it all off, Satan gets 95% of the revenue from XP! And billy's still making a whooping profit of this unfit O/S. So before you go out and buy XP, punch yourself in the face and get Windows 2000 instead. Top 10 Reasons Why Windows XP Sucks (www.geocities.com) 2000 is like a breeze of fresh air compared to XP. Some may say that I'm old fashioned by liking the old GUI but... as it says in that link, I want speed! Not a green start button. Xp may have more shortcuts to "Your" (downloaded) Music, and "Your" (DivX) Movies, but it sure as hell does not run games better. That is just bloated MS crap! Any game that runs on XP, runs on 2000. Do you know why 2000 is so stable? Well like Server 2003, It was built for big Companies who needed stability. MS actually hired guys who wrote an old O/S back in the days of DOS that was uniquely stable, to write the win2k kernel! So if XP has the core of Windows 2000, why isn't it stable? Well MS has chucked in all these services and **** 3rd party apps that no average user uses. They stuck cardboard to the taskbar and painted it blue. It is more complicated than any Windows O/S. Its just bad news. So my suggestion to you, is to buy 2000 not XP. Ahhhhh, that felt good. HA! Someone try and play down that!	hamstar (4)
234057	2004-05-04 00:01:00	XP Pro = $380 2K Pro = $413 Including GST. However, Steve, if you wanna buy 2000 from me, I can give it to you for just above wholesale price ($325). Not pirated either, but OEM (only for new PC's).	hamstar (4)
234058	2004-05-04 00:03:00	Just above wholesale price? lmao. your 98 dollars above wholesale.	metla (154)
234059	2004-05-04 00:12:00	Your article you linked to is crapola, most of what is complained (bells and whistles) can be turned of in under 4 seconds, Winxp has far superior auto-detection of hardware,. Its also completely stable, and many of the features are of huge benefit to first time users. An OS is like any other piece of software, it needs to be matched with the required hardware, if the guy wants speed then I suggest he retire his 200mhz celeron. And if one takes a minute to look at the worms and such that have been doing the rounds, they effect w2k as well as XP,does this mean anything to you?	metla (154)
234060	2004-05-04 00:42:00	Personally I think 2000 is a far better OS than XP simply because it is so simple to tweak the crap out of the system. I believe this is so because 2000 is intended for corporate environments where advanced users are in control of the whole network (administrators) and therefore everything is tweakable very simply. I run gaming lans at home every two weeks and have found that 2000 is highly stable in this sort of environment and far less prone to problems with games (unlike my experiences with the XP machines on the network). I also build machines for gamers and my OS of choice is 2000 for these rather than XP. Eventually I will have to move to XP as support and drivers or 2000 will eventually disappear but I am hoping by then that all the problems in XP are solved by users and large amounts of info are available to beat XP into some sort of decent shape. 2000 is rock solid in a network with 95/98*/XP/MacOS and unlike XP will network with all the above without any hassles at all right out of the box. I have never seen any problems with video editing or photo editing even with professional packages.	John Grieve (367)
234061	2004-05-04 02:04:00	If you don't like the bells and whistles in XP you can turn them off. You can even select the win2000 look if you like. We use win2000 at work - I use XP at home. I have less hassles with the home pc network than the work network. I too hold LANs and most machines that turn up are XP plus a few win98 units- the interoperability of the machines has been second to none. No problems networking - sometimes people look to hard for answers to their networking issues. Games run effortlessly. Different strokes for different folks I guess :)	Jester (13)
234062	2004-05-04 02:18:00	> Whoa! Almost missed this one. Hamstar to the > rescue. Time to convert another one of the innocent > before bill gates take his soul. ;-) What's your problem with Bill Gates? Jealousy and envy I imagine. Good on him for making all that money. > > However to qualify my opinion, I must state that I > have only been using and working with PCs since 1981 > Lol... I was only born in 1986 but I wasn't born > yesterday. I can tell the difference between a > working operating system and a frozen one. *sigh* Any operating system is only going to work as well as the user using it... in other words, if you load it full of junk programs, etc of course you are going to have problems with stability. > XP is right up there and "in yer face" with its "Look > at MEEEEE, I'm BLUUUE!" And your point is? How does being "in yer face" affect its stability and performance? > And users of the O/S can rest easy as now they have > an O/S that is "colourful" like "Macintosh" Woweee! Again - the relevance of this to your argument is what exactly? > But XP has deep problems. All this crap that MS has > chucked on top of a 2000 core or "kernel" has made > the OS unstable at times and just plain ridiculous! > Who needs Universal Plug and PLay? Oh thats right! > That 13 year old haxx0r who jusst can't wait to get > t into your computer and run amuck! Wow... talk about a case of misperception! But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh? > XP is huge, Some of its core components are from > Windows 3.0 and 95! Microsoft has just built and > built and built on top of its same crappy code until > this latest reincarnation "XP" so much so that now > its about as fast as a herd of turtles stampeding > through penutbutter and as stable as a house of > cards! Again... see my rant comment... You've chosen quite conveniently to ignore the fact that computers and CPU processing power is increasing exponentially to the demands of XP. > To top it all off, Satan gets 95% of the revenue from > XP! And billy's still making a whooping profit of > this unfit O/S. Who cares? Good on him for making money. Last time I checked, we still lived in a capitalist society. > Top 10 Reasons Why Windows XP Sucks (www.geocities.com > ks.html) Lol... again with the ranting and not letting facts get in the way of it... > 2000 is like a breeze of fresh air compared to XP. > Some may say that I'm old fashioned by liking the > old GUI but... as it says in that link, I want > speed! Not a green start button. Xp may have more > shortcuts to "Your" (downloaded) Music, and "Your" > (DivX) Movies, but it sure as hell does not run > games better. ROFL... ok... again with the misperceptions... what you've pointed out so far are cosmetic features which don't actually affect the stability or overall performance of the OS... i mean seriously... a "GREEN" button?? Call the cops!! /roll eyes... > That is just bloated MS crap! Any game that runs on > XP, runs on 2000. Yes, but does it run just as quickly? > Do you know why 2000 is so stable? Well like Server > 2003, It was built for big Companies who needed > stability. MS actually hired guys who wrote an old > O/S back in the days of DOS that was uniquely stable, > to write the win2k kernel! Yes, it's SOOO stable it's currently up to SP4!!! > So if XP has the core of Windows 2000, why isn't it > stable? Well MS has chucked in all these services > and **** 3rd party apps that no average user uses. > They stuck cardboard to the taskbar and painted it > blue. It is more complicated than any Windows O/S. Misperceptions galore... the stability and performance of the OS is only as good as the user and the components... Must we go through this ad nauseum ad infinitum?? > Its just bad news. Yes... Hamstar said so, so it must be true... > So my suggestion to you, is to buy 2000 not XP. Based on WHAT?? Based on the start button being green? Based on the half dozen misperceptions you've listed?? Lo.	Lohsing (219)
234063	2004-05-04 02:52:00	>Just above wholesale price? uhh, damn... whos your wholesaler? >Your article you linked to is crapola, most of what is complained (bells and whistles) can be turned of in under 4 seconds, Winxp has far superior auto-detection of hardware,. Its also completely stable, and many of the features are of huge benefit to first time users. What do you work for Microsoft!? It is not stable! I have worked on plenty new install and no-junk-included XP machines and they still run crap! More **** = slower computer! Turn it off in 4 seconds? You think the average n00b or even above average n00b is going to be bothered wading through the registry and services for at least a half hour? >An OS is like any other piece of software, it needs to be matched with the required hardware, if the guy wants speed then I suggest he retire his 200mhz celeron. Exactly! So lets see a 5Ghz processor just for XP! >And if one takes a minute to look at the worms and such that have been doing the rounds, they effect w2k as well as XP,does this mean anything to you? Whats this got to do with anything. Patches are just ways for Microsoft to legally get in to your computer. If you got nortons and a firewall you're sweet. Before I got Nortons 2003 I had Nortons 2002 - never patched my 2000 system, never had a problem. Couldn't do that in XP. Too many backdoors :P >What's your problem with Bill Gates? Jealousy and envy I imagine. Good on him for making all that money. Yes good on him... he has the marketing strategy of the century. However he still steals souls. >Any operating system is only going to work as well as the user using it... in other words, if you load it full of junk programs, etc of course you are going to have problems with stability. Of course... with any normal O/S. XP comes with all that junk preloaded ;-) >And your point is? How does being "in yer face" affect its stability and performance? Its just plain annoying and tryhard. >Wow... talk about a case of misperception! But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh? >You've chosen quite conveniently to ignore the fact that computers and CPU processing power is increasing exponentially to the demands of XP We still haven't hit 5Ghz yet. >cosmetic features which don't actually affect the stability or overall performance of the OS Stoopid cosmetic features like XP's take memory, not to mention sanity. >Yes, it's SOOO stable it's currently up to SP4!!! So? In four years 2k has 4 SP's. In two XP has two sp's. Its right on par. >the stability and performance of the OS is only as good as the user and the components Am I supposed to wait 5 minutes for My Computer to open? >> So my suggestion to you, is to buy 2000 not XP. >Based on WHAT?? Based on the start button being green? Based on the half dozen misperceptions you've listed?? What misperceptions? :D >Personally I think 2000 is a far better OS than XP simply because it is so simple to tweak the crap out of the system. I believe this is so because 2000 is intended for corporate environments where advanced users are in control of the whole network (administrators) and therefore everything is tweakable very simply. Right on brother! >I run gaming lans at home every two weeks and have found that 2000 is highly stable in this sort of environment and far less prone to problems with games (unlike my experiences with the XP machines on the network). Exactly! >I also build machines for gamers and my OS of choice is 2000 for these rather than XP. Me too! >Eventually I will have to move to XP as support and drivers or 2000 will eventually disappear but I am hoping by then that all the problems in XP are solved by users and large amounts of info are available to beat XP into some sort of decent shape. If I ever have to use XP, It'll only be in some sort of decent shape. >2000 is rock solid in a network with 95/98*/XP/MacOS and unlike XP will network with all the above without any hassles at all right out of the box. And plus that XP Network Wizard. WTF is up with that! Let me put in the raw settings! >I have never seen any problems with video editing or photo editing even with professional packages. Neither. 2000 even has most of the features, like my pics, my music, thumbnail view etc... without that blue crap around it. I think you've all been brainwashed by some hidden pattern in that blue start button. Spose your kids names are bill and billina? <littlevoice>Hail microsoft</lv>	hamstar (4)
1 2 3 4 5 6