Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 31633	2003-03-27 20:34:00	Winxp vs. Win2000	heni72847 (1166)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
131447	2003-03-27 20:34:00	should i upgrade from win2000 to winxp does xp have any outstanding features that win2k doesn't have? would it be more stable i just haven't really even touch a single xp computer don't really know what it's like the reason i was thinking about using win2k is because i've used it for a long time and know it's alright and my programs run properly on it also for a new comp, the older window version would have a lighter load on system resources . . . but winxp is just newer and the switch user function seems pretty handy just a bit lost here any opinion would be appreciated	heni72847 (1166)
131448	2003-03-27 21:26:00	Like yourself, I have only limited experience with XP . I have only played around with it whenever a friend has a problem . I found it confusing as system settings, et al just aren't where I'm used to them being . The thing that definitely impressed me was the "Restore" feature . When I first started playing with computers I was always loading and unloading programs and utilities and before long the registry was naffed . This restore means that you can load a program/utility and after you've finished playing with it use the restore to make the computer forget that it even existed . There must be other things that have been improved as well . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personally though, if you feel that you are happy with the setup you have why change . It takes a while to get a comp running sweetly and when everything is life is heaven :D	Gorela (901)
131449	2003-03-27 21:29:00	Rex, if you're happy, and don't really need to upgrade, then why bother? It's a lot of money to spend on a new OS just if you want the fast user switching. Win XP is about as stable as Win2k, but probably not much more stable - they're based on the same technology. XP is quite different to use from Win2k, and you may have a hard time learning where everything is, which has turned many people off it (My father uses both 2k and XP at his work - 2k for quite a while, and XP for a few months - he hates XP cause he can't find many things that are easy to find and simple to run in 2k). Most people would upgrade to XP because they need it, not just because it's a new option to try out. Mike.	Mike (15)
131450	2003-03-27 22:35:00	I agree with Mike . It would be pointless and probably a waste of money to upgrade to Win XP just for the switch user function . I have not used Win2000 and only have WinXP now because I got an additional computer . Having said that, although I found WinXP quite different and difficult to get used to after Win 98 I would not go back now . Win 98 is older than Win2000 though so if I were you I would stick with what you have . > also for a new comp, the older window version would have a lighter load on system resources . . . ummm, you do realise that if you get a new computer you are not legally allowed to install your Win2000 on it while it is still being used on your older computer (either by yourself or if you sell the machine), don't you?	Susan B (19)
131451	2003-03-28 01:02:00	Ive just reverted back two machines at home that had XP to Win2K, as it seems to run a whole lot smoother on anything but the latest PC's... Although in saying that, Ive got an AMD Athlon XP 1700+, but Win2K just seems to handle things easier, and gaming on the family's celeron 933 (With shared Video RAM) runs better in 2K as well. If you've got 2K, and you're happy (Or not completely in-content) then I'd suggest you stick with it. Its still a great OS and is really 'maturing' now, with a lot of businesses and corporate users converting to it now :-)	Chilling_Silence (9)
131452	2003-03-28 02:09:00	I'd stick to Win2k if you are happy with it and it doesn't what you want. >Although in saying that, Ive got an AMD Athlon XP 1700+, but Win2K just >seems to handle things easier, and gaming on the family's celeron 933 (With >shared Video RAM) runs better in 2K as well. I'm sure you said the opposite thing the other day :D	-=JM=- (16)
131453	2003-03-28 05:29:00	From my personal experience, the differences are quite marginal . XP Pro is a newer OS and has prettier (?) faces and additional small tools (functions) . Security and stability wise, I think they are the same . Whereas, W2K Pro gives you the more business and serious (?) look . Maybe, it is designed for business use rather than for games . I have used W2K for 2 + yrs and never encountered any problems . It is indeed a very stable OS . I switched over to XP Pro (4 months ago) simply because it is a newer product and want to keep myself up-to-date with the industry . so far, I have no complaints, yet . If your machine is new and up-to-date, probably, go for XP . Or else, stay with what you have . Cheers	bk T (215)
131454	2003-03-28 05:52:00	I vote xp. when I had me and cs foze i had to do a manuall restart but with xp, it closed it easily	TiM©:*) (977)
131455	2003-03-28 06:06:00	Stay with 2000 if you are happy with it XP has more bells and whistles fancy graphics etc which are better turned off unless you have a new PC with lots of ram I prefer 98 Se myself leaner and faster takes 300 megs of HDD as opposed to 1.5 gig for XP 98 is not as stable , 2000 is basically a stripped down version of XP which has more built in drivers etc For restore I use Drive Image 2002 so experimenting these days with new software and tweaking isnt so dangerous ; as I can do a image restore of my C: in about 6 mins to how it was working perfectly even if I or someone else deletes 100% of my C: drive	kiwibeat (304)
131456	2003-03-28 07:10:00	um... looks like most people want to stick with win2k... i kinda agree too also one more question is there any program that can only run on xp and not 2k?	heni72847 (1166)
1 2