Announcement

**wkulecz** · 12 July 2002, 06:04

Win 2000

1) lacks Windows Product Activation so you can swap out your hardware without getting Billy G's approval.

2) XP broke the WDM to VfW wrapper in ways that make AVI_IO less useful than it was. I'm sure it affects other things as well.

I've has very good success updating Win9x system to W2K, A clean install is "better", but if you've a lot of time invested installing and configuring your apps, its worth a try and if everything works you'll have saved a bunch of time at the cost of wasting a couple of hours to learn an update won't work for you.

3) XP look much like WinME that I swear was designed by Fisher-Price. W2K looks very much like Win8se. Enough things are moved around just to be different to make either a PITA when you first switch.

My main W2K system has run since Mar 2000 without reformat or re-install. All kinds of hardware and software have been run thru it and not everything worked, but the system didn't self-destruct requiring a reformat and start over!

--wally.

**dchip** · 12 July 2002, 06:20

W2K Pro w/ SP2. Four months, one crash (operator error). All hard drives, NTFS.

**Sciascia** · 12 July 2002, 07:22

WinXP Pro, several rebuilds to get the hang of it. It turns out that most of the tweaking I've needed in the past is unnecessary and causes problems. It is pretty much crash proof, but I've managed to do some really messed up stuff to get it to run bad enough to need a reboot. If you have older HW that you can't part with then don't bother with it, go with Win2k, as a matter of fact, I would recommend Win2k just because it is more mature and definitley has better driver support. I like learning new stuff so WinXP is good for me.

Unlike Wally I like the Fisher Price interface, after I got the hang of where everything was. It made it difficult at first, but it is layed out very logically. Problem is when I am at work I can't ever find anything that I need on the 98 and 2K machines though!

Both are fine, WinXP is of course going to get the majority of new updates and support so there is that to take into account. On the other hand I was able to run the same install of Win98 for almost two years before I upgraded. It is just a matter of knowing where to look to fix problems. A lot of it is also not really the users screwing up, it is just bad code. More mature apps are going to have less bugs and that helps a lot.

**Technoid** · 12 July 2002, 10:31

Windows 2000! (last OS from M$ before they got crazy

)

**Dr Mordrid** · 12 July 2002, 10:52

Win2K SP-2 here. Beta'ed XP and almost hurled at how bug ridden it was at the end and since.

Dr. Mordrid

**Fred H** · 12 July 2002, 12:46

I tried, persistent, to convince myself how “fantastic” Win XP is.
But, I’ve had huge problems to get my Marvel G400 to work properly in XP. No chance. Hacked the drivers, patched the drivers. Nothing worked with the Marvel. MSP6.5 refused to display the SW MJPEG from timeline to TV. Dual head switched unwanted from PAL to NTSC, etc, etc. Not to mention the built in spy-hole in the Media Player. I was angry and damned Matrox for no drivers in XP.
Now, I AM convinced: No! Not Win XP for me, thanks…

And, I am glad with the W2K Pro/SP2. It has a more conventional layout, but it IS more professional OS, than XP.
Thanks Doc, Wally and others, for your advice to go W2K, instead of XP.

**Elie** · 12 July 2002, 13:15

Hi guys,

I would go for WinXP here's why...

Dual CPU support is much better in XP.
Hardware manufacturers have problems developing drivers for Win2K that does not utilize PCI bandwidth. There is no problems with XP.

WinXp is due for a service pack that "should" fix most if not all major outstanding bugs. Should be out soon.

Win2K support from Microsoft and many other manufacturers may not last as long as you think.

Plug and play is by far the best under WinXP.

Don't get me wrong, Win2K is good but I find it a bit slow and the technology is bit dated.

Cheers,
Elie

**Fred H** · 12 July 2002, 14:11

...Win2K is good but I find it a bit slow and the technology is bit dated....

My W2KPro/SP2 is noticeable faster than XP Pro.

Win2K support from Microsoft and many other manufacturers may not last as long as you think.

XP doesn't support Matrox Marvel G400 and vice-versa Matrox Marvel G400 doesn't support WinXP. (I can't come over that

) and I don't want to invest my money for new hardware, actually new graphic cards every 2-3 years, for that.
When the time comes to upgrade my video card then the XP could be an alternative. Or, who knows, maybe M$ will produce a new Windows, "Win $P"

, leaving me with another old HW?
Fred H

**Rob100** · 12 July 2002, 14:49

Well I have to say without a doubt stick with Win2K. I've used it ever since it was in late beta and it's always been rock solid for me. I have to say that on all my systems 2K "feels" faster than XP.

I've tried XP Pro, but there are too many things I don't like. Just a few of my main hates about it...

1) The "fisher price" interface as it's been called here already. I know you can turn it off, but....

2) Too many wizards. There's a wizard for everything - drives me mad.

3) All those stupid animations...

4) Unlike NT and 2K you can't mount 2 primary partitions on the same drive - something I often do in a multi-boot system.

5) Media player 7 - yaak!!

I could go on and on, personally I hate it but it's you choice.

Rob.

**jeff b** · 12 July 2002, 15:46

Many thanks! I was pretty much leaning towards W2K, and now I've tipped right over!

Jeff B

**Patrick** · 12 July 2002, 17:25

Be careful Jeff, you're liable to get an XP fanatic irate with you.

**jeff b** · 12 July 2002, 18:03

I think that "irate XP fanatic" might actually be an oxymoron, Patrick...

**Rob100** · 13 July 2002, 01:13

Originally posted by Patrick
Be careful Jeff, you're liable to get an XP fanatic irate with you.

I can't imagine that. I didn't know that they (XP fanatics) existed :-) Oh no... duck....

I've just though of another things that pi**es me off about XP and that's how it want's to "manage" your files for you. "Oh let me manage your pictures" it says... Not thanks I am quite capable of doing that myself.

Basically it seems to me to be an OS that treats you like a "muppet". Maybe okay for the "normal" home user, but I just don't see it as a "power users" OS of choice.

Your a wise man sticking with 2K.

Rob.

**MoonDoggie** · 13 July 2002, 01:47

Ok.. Heres my 2 cents worth. (not that your gonna need it.

)

I done tried da XP Pro, not by choice I must admit,
(Company Big-Wigs figured newer ='s better)

So there I was, XP disc in hand.. I installed.. booted.. started
to frown..(Qweasy feeling in my guts don't cha know) shrugged
it off and began to fiddle and tweak.. Crash, fiddle some more..
crash.. fiddle. crash. fiddle..... well you get the picture.. So I
went from frowning to grumbling.. Soon after that I started to
curse.. (I don't like four lettered words.. lol ) About this time
a bud of mine over in admin gives me a call, asking for Da Low
Down on whether or not we would be switching to XP on all the
systems (Over 300 stations total in tech support alone) and after
telling him he would need to hire a new system admin if it
happened (Something about being over a dead body was thrown
in there also I think)..

Now.. We're back to w2k /sp2 and I have far fewer puking
episodes then I would have had with XP Joke..

Wheew.. Longest dang ramble I been on for awhile.. felt good though..

Just My 2 cents.. take em or leave em..

Peace

MoonDoggie

Announcement

New OS: XP or 2000?

New OS: XP or 2000?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment