XP vs W2K

Have to leave win98 behind, what do I choose as an upgrade

[jimbeetle]

It's finally come to the point where I have to ditch win98 in order to upgrade certain apps and to run a new one or two. I was just going to add a couple of sticks of memory in my old machine and buy an upgrade version of XP or W2K, but when I saw the prices for old PC100 memory I decided it wasn't, at about $400 total for memory and OS, a cost-effective solution as a stopgap fix.

So, I decided to roll my own machine according to isitreal's specs in this thread [webmasterworld.com]. I can get a dang nice machine for about $600.

Now the question is, Do I go with XP Pro or W2K Pro? The price difference for an OEM version is negligible. I have XP Pro on a new laptop, and I have to say that I just can't wrap my head around it; I seem to wander in circles anytime I have to change a setting or find the network -- again! Add to that all the things that pop up just when I'm actually trying to do something, well, I just get very frustrated.

So, would W2K Pro be a better choice for a user who just wants a system to work the way the user wants it to? Or should I just bite the bullet and try to somehow get comfortable with XP?

[encyclo]

XP Pro plus SP2 without any doubt. W2K is not going to get any additional upgrades apart from security fixes, and is now obsolete compared with XP.

Having said that, my number one reason for picking XP is for Cleartype [microsoft.com]. I just hate using modern machines if they don't have anti-aliasing enabled - it is so much nicer on the eye, and if you spend a long time staring at a screen, it is much better for the eyes too. Why XP doesn't come with Cleartype enabled by default is a complete mystery to me. If you don't like the XP theme, you can easily switch back to the classic look, and other than that XP Pro can do just as much as W2K.

(Of course, I personally would always choose Linux over Windows in any case!)

[sun818]

Win2k is by no means "obsolete". It is not the latest, but there are plenty of users and it is a very useful operating system. I think XP has its benefits, but I'm not impressed since a lot of features seem to be obfuscated.

If you are the only user, I think Win2k is fine. Less frills and simplified. That's how I like my computers. (Oh, and your system will run just a little faster under Win2k than XP.)

[jimbeetle]

Less frills and simplified

So far that's what I want. I would really like a system I can use, that doesn't try to tell me how to use it.

Okay, so I realize that support for W2K will dry up after awhile, but with the large installed base it is still currently supported. Are there any real pitfalls if I decide to go W2K Pro not instead of XP?

[webdude]

I have XP and 2k - 2003 workstations and servers that I administer. I would definitely recommend going the 2k route. Why? 2k and 2003 are sleeked down platforms based on NT technology. You have much more control as to what is loaded with the platform and a much better chance of totally deleting apps and processes you don't need. The platforms are faster and much easier to administer. There is a lot of stuff on the XP platform that is unneeded. Try deleting Outlook on XP. There are many pages of stuff on Micro$oft and a bunch of hoops to go through just for that one program. Most of the other Micro$oft products loaded on the XP platform are the same. They tried making that platform all things for all users and from the IT guys I hang with, it makes for a very unwieldy complicated platform with a large footprint. Just the process of changing user and permission info on machines that are not part of a domain is absolutely ridiculous.

Anyway. It's just my preference and my 2 cents worth. Maybe I got hooked on NT, 2k and 2003.

[steve]

Now the question is, Do I go with XP Pro or W2K Pro? The price difference for an OEM version is negligible

You can buy W2K on ebay for a few dollars/pounds.

Upgrade it with SP4 and its a very stable and fast OS.

I can see little reason at the moment to upgrade to XP.

[Leosghost]

If you like your "kludge" with "holes"..go the XP route.

[webdude]

If you like your "kludge" with "holes"..go the XP route.

Do you mean "kludge" as in extra junk and "holes" as in security? If so, I couldn't agree more.

[atadams]

Have you considered ME?

Kidding.

For my part both XP and W2k have been very stable OSes in my experience. I like XP because, as I don't need every ounce of speed from my machine, it seems more "polished."

[isitreal]

W2K, all the way. The security thing is really sort of a red herring, that's almost all based on IE and IE rendering engine holes. XP has far more serious non-IE holes in it than W2K, out of the box, and is loaded down with garbage features that are worse than worthless, such as their one way firewall, which lets trojans phone home, and lets remote control in by default.

Native cd burning XP is utter and total garbage, based on the notoriously aweful adaptec burning drivers. The latest jpeg security holes were xp/server 2003 only vulnerabilities.

MS screwed up by making W2K too good, that's why XP didn't sell well on the corporate network sector, almost all its 'upgrades' are downgrades from a networked security standpoint, I also work a bit in a place with a large number of networked machines, and there are no XP installations allowed, by choice.

The truth of the situation is that almost all 'security issues' are a direct outcome of that classic PEBKAC [problem exists between keyboard and chair]. I have never had a real security problem on my machine, it's behind a hardware firewall, behind a decent software firewall, I never open questionable emails, I haven't used IE for years. Don't fall for the security BS, that's just something we throw out to scare newbies.

Leosghost has been running windows 98 for years now if I remember right, and he likes living dangerously, it's all in how well you know your machine and its holes, and the methods that can be used. Of course, if you like visiting sleazy porn sites then your system won't last no matter what Windows you are using, especially if you use IE.

The real problem with W2K will come when MS starts releasing products that will only work on XP, however, MS also screwed up majorly by making Office 2000 too good, so there really is no need to upgrade to XP unless you really want to. All other major apps can be expected to work on W2K for years to come, for the simple reason that W2K is basically really just the real NT5, XP is just a candied up, junked up, useless added on featured W2K. With a built in slideshow viewer...

While you can switch off many of XP's more annoying 'improvements', you can't get rid of all of them. Converting XP to more or less W2K quality takes about 2-3 hours of tweaks, 1 if you do it a lot.

[TheBorg]

I will be the last one switching from W2K to XP. I don't need teletubbie buttons and a dog as a search assistent. ;)

However, Microsoft is releasing some new programs that won't work under W2K:
Media Player 10
Microsoft Movie Maker 2
(there's another one, but I forgot)

And from Adobe:
Premiere

The list will grow. Some say it's because of security issues, I say it's a stupid marketing strategy.

[isitreal]

In other words, get setup now, install the real software you need on your box, and you are set until probably close to 2010. I haven't done any major software updates on my box since about 2001 I think, the software industry did a really good job at that time, so unless you use products like dreamweaver/photoshop/fireworks/premier on a truly production level, the new stuff is just nice to have, not must have.

Unless you are a professional video editor/graphics person, having the latest and greatest premier is just a good way to spend a lot of money. And from what I understand, if you are a pro you aren't using premier anyway... Personally I never use media player, even the odd commercial video that might force it to open isn't going to only run on 10, so no worries there at all.

Wait for Longhorn service pack 1 [if you get the first release, you are paying MS to be their post-gold release beta testers, let other people suffer] is what I would say if you absolutely must have the latest windows in the future, W2K will do almost all users just fine. Personally I'm starting the switch to Linux now, Yoper desktop is basically as fast or faster than Windows, and it's linux, which means much more security related stuff is under my direct control, plus of course its screensavers are very cool, the melting screen is my current favorite, it's obvious where the creativity is going nowadays...

For grandma and grandpa, their teenage kids, or friends who have better things to do with their lives than learn the ins and outs of their pcs, however, I'd recommend XP, turn on its automatic update feature, install some decent AV thing, turn off XP firewall, install decent firewall, pop the thing behind a $25 router, remove or hide the outlook/IE icons, replace with firefox/thunderbird and don't tell them there is a choice, but also tell them in the most dire tones about the high risk and insecurity and danger [all things most older people don't like] of using IE or Outlook/Outlook Express, and off they go.

[jimbeetle]

Thanks to all for mostly confirming what I first felt. After having XP chase my tail around to heck and back again this a.m. -- before coffee even -- it's got to be W2K. On my way to hit the checkout button and order the parts for my new system.

Thanks for the specs and hardware advice, isitreal. The stuff should be here sometime early next week and I'll let you know how it goes.

[isitreal]

As with everyone else who has made this box, man I wish I had followed this advice when it was given to me... damn... all to save about $75, that's the stupidest $75 you will ever save [that's on the mobo/processor]... instead I have something that is just 'good enough' to not be able to justify upgrading, but which is out of room, a bit slower, a bit cludgier.... and it's now, what, about 3-4 years since I made the box? Let's do the math, save $75, over 4 years, that's $1.90 a month. Bad choice. I kick myself every week or two for not having done this.

[Chaos]

despite what people are posting as far as "they know something everyone else doesn't", and saying that windows 2000 is better than windows xp professional, i highly reccomend windows xp professional. if we break this down, we come up with a list of benefits and similarities.

the kernel is essentially the same.

incorrect graphics drivers cannot crash the system in xp pro.

raw socket support (xp2 limits this, but it's still there)

built-in firewall (people can argue the effectiveness, but it's a lot more than w2k)

future driver support

multimedia performance is better (this really isn't arguable, but i'm sure there will be flaming hate posts about this)

better power-conservation parts compatibility

a driver-signing mechanism and rollback support

on and on and on...

and, if you want the 'speed' of desktop performance .. go into services and disable 'theme' support.

[plumsauce]

in order of preference:

NT4 - daily working machine
W2K - production servers
W2K3 - compatibility testing only

all are the server enterprise editions.

the NT4 box was setup in 1998 and has *never* needed a re-install. it just works. the last hardware upgrade involved hoisting the drive subsystem into a newer box and replacing the video driver. the old box is earmarked for solaris/x86

[jimbeetle]

Okay, I went with W2k and it's exactly what I wanted, a clean OS without a lot of doodads added on.

There is the problem of MS not supporting it any longer, quite a few of MS W2K KB support pages currently come up as "no longer supported" or some such. But, as long as I have it and it's stable -- and I understand it -- I can live with it; there are plenty of W2K help pages out there to suffice for now.

[codnaway]

for anyone reading this down the road...

The short Story:
- XP Pro with SP2 for laptops that connect to multiple networks.
- Stable W2k for those stay at home desktop workstations.

W2K is without a question the most stable OS I have ever seen or used, and this includes Linux and Unix variants, but the ease of managing multiple wireless connections in XP is worth the extra$.

I recommend Pro or at least SP2 to get WPA support (also requires a wireless card that supports WPA which seems to exclude the B cards). The SP2 firewall is simple and so far seems pretty good.