What Windows is best?

[Zero*Hack]

What Windows is better Win2000 or WinXP ?

[jim1595]

I think it's just a matter of opinion. I'm very happy with Windows XP, it's very stable being built on the same platform as Win2k and compatability with older DOS programs at least in my experience is excellent although hardware wise it's not quite there. However XP is a step backward in other areas compared to win2k. Having grown up on Win95 the new interface was very annoying, although easily changed. Also the product activation IMHO is a bunch of BS. My last complaint with XP is Microsoft trying to cram it's products down your throat. Windows messenger and Windows.net are completely useless to me and cannot be uninstalled through add/remove programs.

So at least in my case Win XP is better. Win 2k is definately better though if you dislike the fluff in XP and don't use old DOS programs

[sarahjh69]

of course u can uninstall messanger and other bits
u just need to unhide the items in the add/remove menu.
this is how u do it!

in your windows/inf directory there
is a file called sysoc.inf
open it with notepad
look along the lines of text....if it has ,hide,
in it then that program is hidden fron the uninstall menu
in windows add/remove
just delete hide (not the commas) and save the file.
you can now install/uninstall that program from windows.

v useful for messanger

[triffid]

just stay away from WinXP Home edition.
i use win2k myself, but XP Pro is also a good OS. Win XP Home is Pro with power taken away. XP is slightly slower than 2k although it gives the illusion of booting faster by showing the desktop before the OS has fully loaded. Basically, if you have a fast machine and like bubbly gui's and pre-loaded drivers, go with XP pro. Otherwise, stick with win2k pro. I'm not sure about XP, but Win2k has run rock solid for me (not a single OS crash requiring reboot in 6+ months) and is speedy on my T-bird 1333mhz.

Final word: I prefer win2k myself, but on my machine either would run great. Just don't get XP Home.

ps Windows XP has removed its NetBEUI support, which is excellent for small lan's. I am on a lan with my 3 roomates, and NetBEUI protocol is wonderful for this.

just thought i'd throw in a bit of information, gona stop before it turns into a full fledged rant.

-triffid

[da franksta]

not all software and hardware have winxp support. w2k support is better available.

[Slick]

Originally posted by triffid
XP is slightly slower than 2k although it gives the illusion of booting faster by showing the desktop before the OS has fully loaded.
Whoever told you this crock of s**t is totaly wrong.
XP does not continue loading it's system files once the Desktop is loaded. as a test Re-boot. then imeadiately load taskmanager. look at the running processes. unless you are running a P2 350 with 32mb ram all system loading will have finished before you can even open taskmanager.
some 3 - 5 secs.
not only is XP a lot faster than 2K it is also more stable.
you get to know these things as a system administrator managing some 30 + machines.
life has been wonderful since October 2001 (XP)

ps Windows XP has removed its NetBEUI support,
Sorry wrong again :p
XP has not removed it's Netbeui support. they have simply decided not to support the protocol in windows.
they now advocate the use of netbios.
it provided for you to use though (they had no option really).
a hell of a lot of Lans still use this protocol.

if you have the original XP Pro disk look on the disk.
find the folder called Valueadd/MSFT/NET.
you will find another folder called NETBEUI.
in this folder you will find 3 files in the NETBEUI.TXT file it gives you instruction for including Netbeui in the protocols register.
IE:
NetBEUI (NBF) is a non-routable protocol suitable for small networks.
Support for this protocol in Microsoft Windows has been discontinued.
If you are instructed by the Product Support Personnel to install this protocol
as a temporary measure, follow the instructions below.

Installation instructions for NetBEUI protocol on Windows XP and Windows 2002.

* copy nbf.sys into the %SYSTEMROOT%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\ directory
* copy netnbf.inf into the %SYSTEMROOT%\INF\ directory
* open network connection properties and use "Install..." button to add NetBEUI protocol
:D
hope this helps.
Have fun.

[fisix]

not only is XP a lot faster than 2K it is also more stable.
you get to know these things as a system administrator managing some 30 + machines


i've experienced the boot times, and xp DOES boot much faster.. but i've read reports that have xp as running quite a few applications slightly slower. not a lot slower, but slightly. of course, if that is also a factor while doing multihour processing, like video encoding, it might constitute more of a problem. humph. the XP boot time is absolutely excelent. but win2k works so well for me that it's not worth the time to upgrade (yet).

i'm interested in why you say winxp is more stable. i know there are particular problems with xp and drivers that aren't there with win2k. also, i think the 4k memory page vs 4M memory page issue with amd cpu's is still an issue with xp, though there is a fix for win2k (tell me if i'm wrong). i guess other than that i've gotten the feeling that xp, while good and worth the upgrade from win98 (though, what isn't), is still young and a little twitchy when compared with win2k. and i know from my one experience with it that i felt pretty frustrated with what was available for fiddling with, and how the layout functioned. i can understand how that could be a sysadmins fantasy (keep the users in check), but it bugged me a little, and i usually take to new things pretty quickly if they work smoothly. shrug. what instabilities have you experienced with win2k? so far it has been a dream come true, especially on my laptop....

-fisix

[TactX]

not only is XP a lot faster than 2K it is also more stable.

lol

Sorry, but that's what you like to call s**t.

- W2k has less code then XP, so the number of potentual bugs is lower.

- there are already 2 service packs available for W2k, removing bugs ANY new software (including XP) has.


I would even prefer NT4, but some functions I need are missing (Hybernate, newer DirectX-versions)

[Slick]

@fisix

O.k. you asked what instabilities in 2K.
have you expierienced HIVE not found yet on boot? if you have you will know that re-install is the only option.
all files there but corruption in registry.

have you had the need to "repair" a damaged or corrupted installation in 2K?
if so you will know that 9 times out of 10 it will fail.

Win XP successfully repairs registry corruption at boot.

have you ever expierienced the machine slow down to such a state that it simply freezes? (memory leaks)

not seen any yet in XP. & not seen a total freeze on any of the 12 machines running XP.

i could go on & on. quite simply 2K was better than any of the other windows releases. but not quite as stable as NT4. :)
Xp seems to be the best of both systems. (once you remove the flowery facade it call a GUI of course)

Proof of the pudding is in the eating!

what does have a bearing of course is the software being used.
we use accounts & production manufacturing software ("dos")on all our machines along with a 3D design & drafting package & supporting file
tracking software (Smarteam) and also CAM.
corelDraw & dtp software is also used extensively.

quite simply there will always be someone who has all the problems. :D
Especially AMD users :p (i should'nt but I did) :) sorry!

sorry for that but i've not used AMD since the first "was it was called 586". @ 80mhz
It gave me big problems & only bought Intel after that.

worth an upgrade from Win2k? "not unless you are having problems".
mind you if you like game play & run a 2K & Me or 98 dual boot. then upgrade to XP. you wont need the dual boot & runs games MEga fast. :D

[fisix]

have you expierienced HIVE not found yet on boot?
nope, not yet.have you had the need to "repair" a damaged or corrupted installation in 2K? if so you will know that 9 times out of 10 it will fail./QUOTE]i have experienced this, but only when i got cocky and decided to install some intel inf's after i had a bunch of other junk installed. i admit i was pretty pissed, and the repair option on the win2k disk didn't help. however, on another computer, it made an unbootable computer (again, it became unbootable due to user being silly) work perfectly again. it was almost like magic. shrug. i don't think either were registry errors...[QUOTE]have you ever expierienced the machine slow down to such a state that it simply freezes? (memory leaks)only in win98, ME, and winnt4.0 pack 6. NEVER in win2k. use with 3dmax, maya, all the stuff here on doom9, personal applications... and just recently some really old dos programs. many many games. i never boot into win98 anymore because all the games work fine in win2k.not seen any yet in XP. & not seen a total freeze on any of the 12 machines running XP.my sister has winxp pro and the one time i fiddled with it it froze. but i think i'm going to chalk that up to a hardware issue.i could go on & on. quite simply 2K was better than any of the other windows releases. but not quite as stable as NT4.arg, you've got to be kidding. there are documented issues with memory leaks and disallocation with nt4. i have experienced the disallocation error in nt4, and it is fixed in win2k (no data xp)

quite simply there will always be someone who has all the problems.
Especially AMD users (i should'nt but I did) sorry!

sorry, i have a correction to my post above. the memory page size error with amd cpu's requires a patch with win2k, but doesn't with winxp (at least according to one source). AND it seems to not effect performance... unless it's unpatched. shrug. i also use intel, for quiet, cool, crash free running. i have nothing against amd users, i just haven't chosen that path (yet).

worth an upgrade from Win2k? "not unless you are having problems".
mind you if you like game play & run a 2K & Me or 98 dual boot. then upgrade to XP. you wont need the dual boot & runs games MEga fast.well, like i said, with all the compatibility updates installed, i can play every game i've tried in win2k with all the bells and whistles. at some point when i have some time, my win98 partition (hasn't been booted into for 4-5 months) will be converted to either a test linux dist, or winxp pro.

thanks for telling me about the problems you've had. it speaks well for winxp..

-fisix

[FranchiseJuan]

I have used both Windows XP and 2000 pro extensively and I have to say to the average windows user, that XP is a much better operating system. I have so many problems findin the right drivers for my hardware under 2000, to make it stable and work fine that It really shit me. Although I have found many people who have stable Win2k pro installations, but I never had one.

Win XP on the other hand had all the right drivers out of the box, and I was able to get up and running in no time. But I have to say that I have a year old machine so all hardware had been out for a while. On my Win2k install, I had a blue screen about twice a week (ran it for about 8 months), but only had one in XP (that was because of a virus... bloody Kazaa...) after four months. If you are worried or don't like product activation, then get a non product activation version ;).

One thing I will say is that Norton Antivirous 2002 slows down my system noticably, and take a whole 30 seconds to boot up! But then I would not run my system without it so....

[TactX]

Win XP on the other hand had all the right drivers out of the box

Yeah, graphics-drivers without OpenGL !

But you're right. For the "average windows user" (means unexperienced) WinXP is propably better.

[Slick]

But you're right. For the "average windows user" (means unexperienced) WinXP is propably better.

Ahh, now I see were you are coming from! I wasnt so sure in your earlier post. ;)

so to be more than an "average windows user" (unexperienced).
you need to have to put up with all the problems that windows can throw at you.
spend hours searching the internet for work arounds so your hardware & software will work. (sometimes having to buy new hardware / software) cos all your hours of being expierienced (more than an average user) still dosent give you what you need.
instead of enjoying the simple task of switching on your computer & carry out a basic requirement. :D

mmmmm if i had the choice I think I would opt for the "unexpierienced" :D

sounds like you need to move to linux, or go back to Win 3.1 or 95!
there you will get the full effect of having to struggle.

[TactX]

I think you misunderstood me. WinXP is propably easier to use, but definetely less stable than NT or 2000. This is the reason why I stick to 2000. I do not need any of the features XP has. And I don't miss them.

btw, why does your company use XP ? I'd really like to know that !

[Slick]

@Tactx
That's not what you said at the bottom of your previous post!:confused:

but in answer to your question of why my company uses XP:

Simple.

1: because it allows us to use all our software on one platform without dual boot.
2: I wanted / needed something more stable than 98 & 2k. (dual boot a possible cause of instability?)

Operating systems are like cloths!
some people will love it, some people will hate it.

(P.S )
I hate the XP interface as standard. it is very cartoonish.

[TactX]

That's not what you said at the bottom of your previous post!

Eh, I don't get what you mean.

1: because it allows us to use all our software on one platform without dual boot.

Dual-boot Arrrggghhhh !!!!!!! I hate this one. Not dual but triple boot. @ work we sometimes need this for our CAT (Computer Aided Testing) systems (DOS 6.2, Windows 98/95 and NT). And it sucks....

2: I wanted / needed something more stable than 98 & 2k. (dual boot a possible cause of instability?)

I see, we will not become friends with that stability question. But I don't think that dual boot is a stability issue. (It either works or not).

[Slick]

"Triple Boot" I feel for you!

but loosing the dual boot on a dozen of the most troublesome machines means more ZZZZZZZ time for me.
or even more web time :D that can only be good "can't it"?

I'm glad this thread didnt turn into the Flames I've seen RE: XP v Other opp systems. :)

[TactX]

The worst case I've had with triple boot was a system with a HD with an installed NT and an additional HD where I needed to install Win98 and DOS 6.2 (NOT DOS 7 from Win98), doing that just with the NT-boot-loader.
Anyone that has ever done sth. like that knows THAT IT SUCKS !!!

Anyway, I managed this problem, but then the automatic Anti-Virus-Update screwed everything up...... :angry:

[AbuNidal]

Haven't had a software-related crash for months - and 35 MB memory usage after a fresh boot certainly speaks for effiency - or lack of features, but as long as its just more wizards, I'm happier without them!

Of course, gaming is kind of tricky with DirectX-3, but still possible as long as you have an Open-GL compatible graphics board (like the Voodoo... sob!)

But yes, NT4 has memory leaks; after about week, memory usage is around 200 MB without any programs running, but I don't mind rebooting every few days or so...

As a statement in regard of stability: 210 hours of TMPGEnc encoding-time on an Athlon-1400 isn't that bad, is it !?


Inshallah!