To XP, or not XP, that is the question...

Hi all,

Maybe this is the wrong forum to expect an "objective" answer, but I'll give it a shot...!

My notebook has been running 2K since I purchased it roughly three years ago, I've been quite happy with it, and never had to do a re-install or any such thing.

Lately, the OS is acting flaky and I've realized it's a result of 3 years of installing, removing, re-installing, patching software etc. Weird things like IE and explorer freezing and needing to be shut down with task manager (spyware free, I've got a full host of utilities on my system and am careful with where I go and what I run).

One way or the other, I need to do an OS reinstall. This alone terrifies me because I've never done a backup and have a host of programs I purchased online and am not even sure I still have the keys for, not to mention a ton of data files. I'm going to back up all of my key files onto my linux box temporarily, and hope for the best.

But here's the thing, since I'm going through a clean install anyways, should I stick with 2K or move to XP? I've started using XP in our office, and am beginning to think that I should bite the bullet and buy and upgrade to XP Pro, but I've been quite happy with 2K.

I'm looking for any input from anyone that has gone from 2K to XP (clean install). Any complaints? Any gotchas? Anything to worry about?

Any advice is greatly appreciated...!

Cheers and thanks,
KV

I have been running both Windows 2000, and also run XP Pro. I still have to say that I like Win2K as a better OS than XP.
I have found that I have to take about 20 minutes with each new install of XP to insure that I turn off things like the Firewall, the extra graphics that come with XP Pro, and insuring that I run the machine with the “Best Performance” option turned on, because it is not turned on by default.
I have experienced lockups with my XP machines that I do not get with my Win2K boxes too. Both OS’s, are stable as far as the BSOD factor, and neither OS crashes on me. It does seem like there have been more application glitches on my XP machines using the same apps on both machines, and basically the same configurations.
I have also seen that my Win2K machines are still faster than the XP machines, even when I have stripped down XP configurations. I think that although being improved with the SP1, and patches, the XP OS is just not as fast as the Win2K OS, and this is by the nature of the OS design and what it has to support.

All this being said, I would recommend that you do the rebuild, but I think that unless you go to the Windows 2003; then I would say go back to the Windows 2000, and run that for now. In the future when XP really gets more refined, then I would go with it exclusively. I just do not feel like it is better than Windows 2000 at this point.

Win2K - Yes, Win XP Pro. – Not quite yet, Win2K3 – Most definitely.

That’s my take on this Post. I currently run both OS’s.

Like ecrosson, I'm using both, as I have 2 PC's. I have to say that I find little difference between them - after all W2K is NT5.0 and WinXP is NT5.1, which gives some indication of how little difference there is between the two. Security has been improved in XP, if that's important.

Of my two PCs, the one running Windows 2000 SP4 is a little quicker than the XP Pro machine even though the machine that runs the XP has a processor that's 100MHz faster and the disk in the XP runs at ATA66 and 7200 RPM whereas the W2000 runs a ATA33 at 5000 RPM.

I do like the colors etc. in XP and so I run it accordingly, which may slow it a bit. The XP machine does seem a little less stable than the W2000 machine and I get more (though not frequent) "---has encountered and error and must close".

Just like SuperSparks said, Both OS's are based on NT 5. I have used W2K in the past and must commend its stability as compared to Win98se & ME. However having migrated to WinXP has been worthwhile, considering the enhanced security features in XP pro e.g Group Policy Editor & the general look and feel of the OS.

Also, upgrading to XP is an easy task considering the hardware detection phase of the installation process. Most of the time, XP detects and installs all device drivers needed by the specified machine as compared to W2K where you need to have all system CD's and drivers ready. However, if you would be running XP pro, consider upgrading your RAM to at least 256mb.

Both OS's are very stable and secure, expecially when used on NTFS. As for me, I'll go for WInXP anytime. But of 'cos, the chioce is yours.

I think ill be doing the opposite soon.

Ive been running XP since day 1 and have had no major problems, well none that makes me want to revert back to 98.

But im thinking of getting 2k as well just for the fun off it:D and have it set as a dual boot with xp.

I dont see it causing any problems, as Supersparks said they are both NT based and just have the added stability and security.

So whitchever one you chose, im sure you'll enjoy it;)

good gawd sir

your going to put xp on a laptop that is 3 yrs old ... bad move if you ask me

2000 does exactly what i want it to

xp does alot of things that i dont care to do

2000 is my os of choice

but i do game on my xp machine

The words "If it works, don't fix it!" come to mind. You're happy with the way Win 2K runs on your laptop stick with it. 2K interfaces with XP very easily should you need to synch with your office machine. Apart from a lot of eye candy, that I don't really care for, XP doesn't really offer what you already have. I can't say that I'm aware of any comparison study more trustworthy (?)other than this one which shows you won't really see any more boost to performance or battery life. On the other hand if you can get a hold of a copy of Windows XP Media Center 2004 Edition you'll find it has a much smaller foot print on both memory and hard drive space. Considering it is only available through computer manufacturers though it may prove tough for you to get a hold of.

If you don't mind the nail biting waiting for you Win2k machine to boot or shutdown, stick with it :p

Hi, I have a notepad that is four years old and run 2k on it. I find very little difference between XP and 2k , eye candy and a few more features that don't interest me is all XP offers. My main concern would be the memory you don't say how much Ram . XP likes to have 256 min better with 512. Calpitor would Windows XP Media Center work on this machine? Certainly the advanced features would not be available. See here:-
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/m...n/hardware.asp

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jenae
Hi, I have a notepad that is four years old and run 2k on it. I find very little difference between XP and 2k , eye candy and a few more features that don't interest me is all XP offers. My main concern would be the memory you don't say how much Ram . XP likes to have 256 min better with 512. Calpitor would Windows XP Media Center work on this machine? Certainly the advanced features would not be available. See here:-
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/m...n/hardware.asp

---

Will it run on this machine? I would assume so seeing as how he is able to run 2K. Will he be able to watch TV edit DVDs answer the phone or record movies? Probably not. So by opting not to install these 'features' saves more on the foot print of the hard drive. One thing I should mention is that Media XP has Media Player integrated even more so into Internet Exploder so using a different web browser would be a good idea.

Minimum System Requirements for Media XP:
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features). --- To be honest this is Windows we're talking about the more RAM you pour in the better. :)
1 gigabyte (GB) of available hard disk space recomended; 500 megabyte (MB) minimum required,
Super VGA (800 × 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

Sorry, forgot to publish my specs: my notebook has a 1.2 GHz PIII, 384MB and 16MB of video, so I'm not concerned about the horsepower (our XP desktops at work at 450 MHz machines with 512 MB and XP works better than I expected).

I think Calpitor hit the nail on the head, since it ain't really broke... Besides, by sticking with Win2K I may be able to get away with trying to repair the OS rather than rebuilding, I've really got nothing to lose by trying I suppose.

Thanks all for the responses, that's exactly the type of input I was looking for. Don't know where I'd be without VDR to fall back on from time to time... ;)

So Win2K it is for now.

Cheers,
KV

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kv
16MB of video

---

btw ... swingers is one of my all time favorite movies

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Running_on_Wheel
btw ... swingers is one of my all time favorite movies

---

Cocktails first. Questions later.

It's so money and it don't even know it...!

KV

About the only reason I can think of to make the move to XP for your situation would be the differences in their SMB versions that can cause problems with file sharing between the two - I think we already covered that and you got that fixed, though. Right?

Oh yeah, and..."My Baby's all growds up"