XP or 2K
 

do you use win XP or 2K and why (stability options...)

They are both pretty stable. It depends what you're looking to do with your computer and how old it is for which to use.

I use windowsxp because it supports hyperthreading.

XP is as swank as they come, so I'd take it above all else.

However, 2K is also super nice, just don't install it on a FAT 32 partition or you'll be living in a world of hell, trust me on that one.

If you have both OS's on hand, I'd say just go with XP, but either way you should be set.

Depends on whether you like having Bill's hand down your shorts. I'll stick with 2K, thank you. XP has more plug-n-pray drivers built in and a rather nice (save my ass) system restore capability, but I hate the idea of having to send my system info to MS everytime I add or change hardware.

2K supports hyperthreading also, though it's not acknowledged by either MS or (in my case) Asus. I have a 3 Ghz 800fsb P4 with HT on an Asus P4P800dx mobo. Hyperthreading is enabled and working. I've got two little cpu heartbeat monitors in Task Mgr.

I still think 2K is the more stable of the two. XP probably needs at least one more released bug fix (oh sorry, 'Service Pak') before it's as stable. Even then I value my privacy too much to ever install it.

It all depends on what type of hardware you have and what type of stuff you will be doing. 2K is more stable and quoting what platypus said, you won't have "Bill's hand down your shorts." XP has all of the newest features and is constantly being updated. If you want to run any server of any kind go with 2k but if you are just the end user wanting to do all the basics without a lot of trouble go with XP.

You only have to send system info to MS everytime you add or change hardware if you have Windows XP Home. Even then you can change stuff 6 or 10 can't rember exactly how time you can do it before you have to send the the info again. If you get Windows XP Pro you never have to send anything to MS. Windosw 2000 and XP are alot alike, after all XP is built on 2000 kernel. I like both OS their both very stable compaired to 95/98/ME, make sure you use NTFS insted of Fat32 for the file system. I it was up to me i'd go with XP sinse 2000 all most 4 years old know, plus 2000 had 10000's of bug in it win it first came out, not to say that XP doesn't have its far share of bugs too, but I would figer they all been patched by now, but you never know. If you do go with 2000 or XP make sure you get all the update for them!

XP for many of the reasons already stated. Sure it's a bit buggy but it's REALLY stable and has great plug and play compatability. Nothing like it when you go out and buy a digital camera plug it in and watch it get recognized. Also has the nice remote assistance function and webcam chat with MSN messenger. That's great for those of us with broadband who live far from their family!

If I remember corectly, MS releases their Service Packs after every 10000 fixes...that means that 2000 has had 40000 fixes so far!!

IMHO, however, that just means that there's 30000 more to find in XP ;)

2k is my OS of choice. :)

Bullshit.
And it loves to lock down, oh and you get one activation a year then you have to call up their fucking phone # to use your own fucking computer.

Oh and all software of any large size has hundreds of thousands of bugs, they will never fix them all.

Not quite. You actually get 4 per year.

As far as the hardware changing, the number of swaps depends on if you have a network card or not. If you have a network card, and you don't change it, you get like 7 changes before you have to re-activate. If you don't have a network card, or you change your network card, then the number drops to 5.

The only time you do not have to activate is if you have a corporate license.

Win2k owns. I find Win2k much better than XP in terms of speed AND stability. Win2k SP4 just came out recently, and everything seems to run great as usual. I know lots of people that have problems with XP, and almost no one with 2k. I pulled a 9 week 5 day continuous uptime with Win2k SP3, from January 20something till March something. This time period included many man-hours of playing GTA3, having 20+ IE windows open, 3+ different IRC connections, FTP server, and so on. 2k is a more solid OS, IMHO, and is probably why the (Canadian) federal government deploys it on all their machines (I work for them). My opinion is that if you can forego the WinXP built-in CD burning crap, media player (7, 8, or 9, i forget, everything above 6.4 sucks), and other such "family" type programs, then get Win2k. 2k is a more streamlined install, less space and memory wasted by useless (well, for me) applications. XP is just a newer version of 2k, with junk added, which slows it down.

Well, that's enough ranting for tonight..

I'm running XP, but I had NO FRIGGING IDEA about this having to send my hardware configuration to Microsoft. Is this for real? What is their rationale for this? What if I don't have an internet connection, do I have have to mail them my receipts or something?

XP. If you're planning on playing any games on that machine, there's really no choice.

you'd have to change a lot of hardware before XP complains. I've had my people change motherboards, video, ram, etc, and have no problem with XP. activation is a non-issue.

MSFT does not release SPs every 10,000 hotfixes. that's just absurd.

The bottomline is they are both built around NT technology and therefore both pretty stable. In my history of using both os's I've had 3 lock ups in XP and 1 in 2000 (os related that is). Bottom line is if you do a lot of gaming and or want the greatest compatibilty with the most stuff...go XP. If you are a business and or not a big gamer 2000 is great. Spend the extra cash and go XP Pro though.

Anyone who says 2k is better than XP is ... well I don't want to say they're full of shit, but...

XP (pro) is 2k on steroids dudes. XP Pro wins all around. I use XP Professional but I don't like the bubbly look, so I switch my theme to "classic (2k)" -sometimes.

2k is cool and everything, but XP Pro just flat out owns it: Plug and playability out the wazoo; really friggin stable; much more 'friendly' if you want it to be; completely configurable (you can do anything with this beast). Work or play, XP Professional (or corporate) is the way.



ps: if you don't like all the spiffy features in xp, you can always just get rid of them. it's that simple. Lets say that. I don't like microsoft messenger or their media player. Solution: uninstall 'em

I moved from '98 to 2K for the stability (and keep a '98 partition for old games). I'm put off by XP because of all the eye candy and overzealous user-friendliness. The installation that came with my wife's Dell laptop was huge, too--15 GB or something. I don't know if it has to be that way, but that seemed excessive.

Do a search of the TFP for this same topic. It was covered two weeks ago.

XP.

I've never had any gaming issues with win2k. My current machine has XP Pro on it but my next one will have Win2k once it's done.
Just seems like XP gets in the way of itself but once to get it to look and feel like Win2k it's ok.

I run xp, however the reason I run it is because it's got a nice remote control feature built into it. I have two computers and It makes it very easy for networking when I only have 1 monitor. However If I had to choose between the two and only had one computer I would choose win2k.

I like my OS's to be basic and whatever I want or need I will download. I don't want to search for all the things I need to uninstall. There is a great page that will help speed up your XP if you decide to install it:

www.blkviper.com

just look at all the crap that is running. XP loads soo much slower than win2k ever did. just my 2 cents.

Windows partition of my PC is running XP Pro, but I spend most of my time in front of other operating systems.

Oh yeah: why?. It's newer and shinier, and I figured it would be nice to have a legit install of Windows. It's a salve for the conscience, basically.

XP pro w/ classic look.


ITs 2k but better stuff.

Thats really all XP is, now if your heavily into networking and serving for many computers, 2k3 is the way to go.

2k is just OLD now.

Depends on how well you know computers. If you are relativley new go with XP. If you are IT savy goe with 2k. 2k is far more secure then XP. XP leaves all kinds of ports open through the firewall (including external). As an "IT security" guy i ask that you all use XP, it keeps me employed.

Both are stable, however, when it comes to networking, 2000 pro has a clear advantage. In XP a person who wants to access shared files does not need to enter user name or password in 2000 you do need to. XP runs better on newer machines than it does on older machines. It has a lot of visual frills and other stuff, when compared to the plain and simple looking 2000. However, those features can be customized.
As for 2000 pro, I have never had it crash, or BSOD on me. It ran nearly all my games and software. And ran very quick. I didn't need to worry about regestering it at MS everytime I reinstalled. I didn't even have a limit to the number of times I could install it.

Whatever choice you make can't be a bad one. Good luck.

I find that XP is more of "an idiots guide to windows" designed so that you can't mess up too much. The problem is, if you know what you're doing and want ot change anything, it's a real pain in the ass. I prefer 2k, i've had no problems with it so far.

Not to be different but, I have been running W2k3 Enterprise on a couple of systems and it is noticable faster than either 2K or XP (got a NFR copy from M$). It isn't a workstation OS so there isn't any solitare or minesweeper (not that you can't get them on it), but Microsoft has put out a really nice product I have only found one issue with hardware and that is an old Advansys SCSI card that doesn't (and probably will not) have any drivers available (XP had them built in).

just another $0.02 worth.

2003 server is great. It probably is faster because you had a clean install so your registry is nice and short. The install i have of it is nice so far i think they have finally this one right!

I'd say XP.

I'd go for 2k - haven't had any problems with games yet, and seems stable. I've heard XP is slightly slower. So, as long as you can do without the extra XP features I think 2k is the way to go for now...

I like XP. It seems every bit as stable as 2k, and it's almost as lickable as OSX.

I've been using 2k for about 2 years now and so far have had no problems. If I do end up upgrading I may go to xp pro but for now I have no reason to go through the pain to get every thing the way I like it again.

XP Pro

I have found XP pro with SP1 to be the most stable Microsoft OS yet!

Been using XP Pro since January this year, and have been really happy w/it

I did have a memory problem for a while... had my memory oc'd and one of the sticks would would heat up, freezing my system. Damn, that was a bitch to diagnose :mad: Put heat spreaders on both banks (just to be safe) and the problem disappeared.

Of the two - XP

Ever thought of using Linux ??? (lol)

I wouldn't recommend using Win2k for anything other than a server, if you're choosing between XP and 2K. XP is more stable, more optimized for gaming/etc., and in general, a better OS.

2K Pro is a workstation OS, designed to be used in a corporate environment, while XP Pro is a more robust version of a system geared towards "normal" users.