Why Windows 2000 is better than Windows XP ?

[haimadan]

Windows 2000 has, apparently, been superseded by the new Windows XP, which features (apparently) more ease of use, and an easier start.

However, for most purposes Windows 2000 Professional is a better OS than Windows XP Professional, with a comparable set of features. There are some compelling reasons to stick with 2k, such as:

• Windows 2000 uses considerably fewer system resources (memory, CPU) than XP. Fewer services are started by default, leading to decreased memory usage and less background processor usage. An upshot of this is that 2000 will run on much older PCs with little RAM. XP was slow on an old family PC with 128MB of RAM, even with most of the useless services disabled, whereas 2K was snappy and fast, if slightly less user friendly.

• 2000 comes with little of the "cruft" present on Windows XP. The user interface is fast and streamlined, Windows Media Player, Movie Maker, MSN Messenger are not installed by. Windows 2000 is more of a "blank slate", allowing you to have more or less what you want on your PC, and have things your way.

• Because they share the same kernel, XP and 2000 have much the same hardware support (although not by default).

• Whatever runs on XP will most likely run on 2000, due to the similar underlying code bases.

A lot of the graphical enhancements on XP (like alpha blending) are also present in 2000.

• On a purely economic basis, Win2K is much cheaper than XP

• 2000 seems to be much more stable than XP, and I've known it to run for months at a time.

Performance Benchmarks of Windows 200 and XP:

(Link: www.infoworld.com/articles/t..9tcwinxp.html )

Above tests of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000 demonstrated that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows 2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. Our tests of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000 demonstrated that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows 2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario, our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as did the Windows 2000 client.

As it often happens with Microsoft, Windows 2000 is another mystery. It was released after one disaster (Windows ME) and before another one (XP).
True, it's not as multimedia-friendly as XP. But 2000 is true to its goal - successor to Windows NT. It's stable as no other Windows OS, much more multimedia-friendly than NT ever was and doesn't require devices made yesterday - it flawlessly supports all devices I currently have.

[Zap]

If you don't like XP for the reasons above, you're probably not going to like Vista either. It's more graphically intensive with more bells and whistles.

[G10]

Windows 2000 has been out since 1999, many more bugs and security issues have been fixed (or at least addressed) via periodic Service Pack releases than with Windows XP so there is definately an advantage to it and I can see why people would want to stick to that. - (I think 2000 is pretty good also)

That said though:

• Windows XP delivers 34 percent better performance when installed on a new PC than does Windows 2000.

• Average application access time is also 21 percent faster.

• It is also more configurable, giving you more control over your environment.

• Windows XP is also fully compatible with Windows NT 4, Windows Workstation, Windows Millennium, and Windows 98, and roughly 90 percent compatible with Windows 2000 applications, avoiding many of the compatibility issues that have plagued users of Windows.

Windows XP also offers:

• Built-in CD writer support.

• Remote Desktop Connection

• Internet Connection Firewall.

• Fast User Switching (useful for when multiple users are sharing one PC)

• Greater support for Windows 95/98 games and utilities.

Personal choice I guess but if you got the system and can afford it, I'd say go XP.

[kristeejo]

I'm a HUGE XP fan.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by kristeejo

I'm a HUGE XP fan.

Yeah, me too. Can't wait for Vista. I had a look at the first beta. I'm trying to get my hands on the second beta (just released).

[kristeejo]

how'd you beta test????

[Zap]

Originally Posted by kristeejo

how'd you beta test????

I work in IT. Computer networking is my regular job. The webmaster thing is just a hobby ATM, hoping that it will provide income down the road.

I have "regular channels" I could pursue to get a copy. But, these things are readily available if you know where to look.
(Not that I would condone such things)

[JamieJelly]

I was a network admin a few years ago and loved Win 2k. Hated the way WinXP came with the disgusting picture of the rolling hills, the nasty start bar etc... the first thing I did was change the desktop to a win2k like blue and the theme to Windows Classic.

The CD writing software that comes with Win XP can only be described as moody.

Now I have a mac as well as some windows PCs, I only use my main windows pc for counterstrike now

[reteep]

Originally Posted by kristeejo

how'd you beta test????

http://www.andreas-kraus.net/blog/wi...ta-2-download/

[Zap]

Thanks Andreas! Nice and easy.

[Daniel-Z]

Bah Windows XP and Windows 200 both suck along with 99% of Microsofts products.

LINUX is the only way to go man

[reteep]

Originally Posted by Daniel-Z

LINUX is the only way to go man

Vista is Desktop-Wise centuries ahead of Linux

[haimadan]

Just look into this thread too. Might be a usefull one for you...

http://www.v7n.com/forums/computers-...tml#post361460

[JamieJelly]

check out xgl on SuSE! It looks amazing... a bit of visual competition for Vista

http://dl.tv/blogs/digitallifetv/arc.../22/14230.aspx

(second vid)

[haimadan]

Great... Really very usefull one.

[Web Gazelle]

Originally Posted by G10

Windows 2000 has been out since 1999, many more bugs and security issues have been fixed (or at least addressed) via periodic Service Pack releases than with Windows XP so there is definately an advantage to it and I can see why people would want to stick to that. - (I think 2000 is pretty good also)

That said though:

• Windows XP delivers 34 percent better performance when installed on a new PC than does Windows 2000.

• Average application access time is also 21 percent faster.

• It is also more configurable, giving you more control over your environment.

• Windows XP is also fully compatible with Windows NT 4, Windows Workstation, Windows Millennium, and Windows 98, and roughly 90 percent compatible with Windows 2000 applications, avoiding many of the compatibility issues that have plagued users of Windows.

Windows XP also offers:

• Built-in CD writer support.

• Remote Desktop Connection

• Internet Connection Firewall.

• Fast User Switching (useful for when multiple users are sharing one PC)

• Greater support for Windows 95/98 games and utilities.

Personal choice I guess but if you got the system and can afford it, I'd say go XP.

That is the biggest reason why Windows 2000 sucks.

[Daniel-Z]

Originally Posted by reteep

Vista is Desktop-Wise centuries ahead of Linux

When I installed Longhorn beta which was vista before it became vista I saw so many desktop ideas that were stolen form Linux

Linux is by far the more powerful operating system and can do everything windows can and more desktop wise

There is a reason why Lucas Arts Industrial Lights and Magic and Disney both ported over to Linux from SGI machines.

Both companies stated that Linux performes 5 times faster than an SGI box

AND

It's FREE!

[Kalina]

haimadan is the new ! !

[Daniel-Z]

Haimadan ?