stability and reliability

[dizarludba 0]

mmm i just have a general enquiry .... reagard to windows 2000 pro and windows xp pro , i just thinking to buy a new pc .... but i still not decide , which OS i wanna use , either windows 2000 pro or XP Pro .... , i just thinking the most stable OS and have least of drivers problem , please give me an advise which is more stable OS , 2K or XP .... and what is their advatages or disadvantages in common .... thanks a lot for ur helpful informations .... thanx again

[zoooom 0]

Although xp is pretty stable.. and I consider it much more reliable then win9x... I still think win2k is more of a stable os. However this depends entirely on your hardware. People tend to blame os's and recommend people dont use them due to a problem with their own configuration. Xp has shown some probs.. and this is to be expected with a new os. Win2k had far more problems when it was released. However now it seems to work pretty good. Win2k is just totally rock solid for me. So I recommend win2k. Simply because all the latest software is supported and works good with most hardware configurations. xp pro is basically win2k anyways... just with bloated features I dont really need.

[Catdog02 0]

I concur, 2k is a superior product. Xp is aimed at the Mom and Dad market, even the professional version needs a lot of work to fit into a corporate (or professional ;P) environment. Both are about as stable as each other. Both have shown (around here in my place of buiseness at least) that they have similar compatibility problems with older Dos based stuff. I rate 2k over any other MS OS.

 

But hey, have you considered Linux?

 

Its free you know...

[clutch 1]

Buy XP Pro, as the license is backward compatible with 2K anyway. It's a waste of money to buy Win2K unless it's less than $100US for the full version (which I doubt).

[michaeljbrooks 0]

If I were in your situation I would get Windows XP if it was the same price as Windows 2000.

Windows NT4/2000/XP are all much more stable than the Windows 9x operating systems but Windows XP is more stable than Windows 2000 is more stable than Windows NT4 if the device drivers are all compatible.

[Uykucu 0]

Quote:

Buy XP Pro, as the license is backward compatible with 2K anyway. It's a waste of money to buy Win2K unless it's less than 0US for the full version (which I doubt).

I didn't know that. Win2k OEM is retailing at about £90 that makes roughly $140 or so (you just have to buy a new mouse or cable or something with it, not that it makes much difference). Win2k is a lot more stable since XP still needs at least 2 service packs. But in my opinion W2k fared a lot better even without the SP's.

Also just remembered. WinXP Pro and Win 2k pro are about the same price +/-£5.

If clutch is correct which i presume he is. do as he says. Get the XP, Run Win2K, upgrade when SP2 is out etc.

BTW XP is stable but it is a pain in the *ss. Loads of HW does not have decent drivers for it. I advise against it to all my customers. It is good for games though

[clutch 1]

Most (but I think all) MS licenses are backward compatible, so there is rarely any good reason to buy an older version of an OS or any of the applications that they sell. There are other software vendors that permit this type of usage as well.

[CyberGenX 0]

I don't think XP is ready for prime time yet. Sure it's stable, but as stable as 2K? I don't think so. All that extra crap and fluff you don't need. If you want a pretty OS with lot's of bells and whistles then go XP. If you want a great OS that is just as stable if not more stable then XP go with 2K. I ran XP for 6 months and loved it. Then i started getting problems with certain software that works fine in 2K. I will now wait until SP2 for XP to switch back. I get 2K OEM for $89.00. Another thing about XP is the security is f^^ked. My girl has XP on her machine and she was able to get into a triple X site members area just by repeating a made up login and password several times. When I tried this on my 2K machine I got "not authorized" the first try.

[clutch 1]

Quote:

Another thing about XP is the security is f^^ked. My girl has XP on her machine and she was able to get into a triple X site members area just by repeating a made up login and password several times. When I tried this on my 2K machine I got "not authorized" the first try.

Well, from what you have written it sounds like it has more to do with the site's security than with the workstation's security. The presentation might be different, but I don't see how you made the logical link between the local security of the PC and a prompt from a website. If you can explain further please do so.

[sapiens74 0]

XP is way better. More stable.

 

Just make sure you stay away from VIa chipsets, and you should be fine with either OS

[Admiral LSD 0]

After using XP for 9 monthds or so (after using 2k for about 12) I can honestly say: 2k sucks balls.

[pbuckne 0]

A question like that is bound to draw a variety of answers. I prefer 2000 pro, and if you want a license key go to http://www.9software.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=1&cat=Windows+Operating+Systems

Win2k pro is currently running $80.00 for the lic and cd.

http://www.9software.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?page=2

XP pro is running $144.00

[Jerry Atrik 0]

ive had zero problems with xp pro

i dont use via or amd either.

never had a game, driver, app, or hardware fail to execute properly

[Bursar 0]

The guy is in the UK, so linking to sites in the US that sell software probably isn't terribly useful.

 

As for the XP backward compatibility thing, yes it's true, but buying a copy of XP gets you a copy of XP. You still need the 2K media to install, and that's not something the public can easily get hold of without buying a copy (not counting the dodgy sides of the net).

 

So if you want 2K, buy 2K. If you want XP, buy XP. It's the easiest way. Also bear in mind that if you buy a new PC, you will be unlikely to get a proper set of media for the OS. You'll likely get a recovery CD that will restore the machine to its factory condition from a hidden partition on the hard disk.

 

And which one you choose will also depend on the various peripherals you have, and what you actually want to use the PC for.

 

I found 2K to be a great OS. I've now moved over to XP full time, and find that it too is pretty decent. Most of my hardware works properly apart from my digi-cam (seperate thread about that). But a card reader should fix that.

 

There's little difference between the two for most home users.

[Four and Twenty 0]

i was all for 2k then i liked xp now i am .NET only

XP just gets in the way

[RedStar 0]

.net? SO support the MS conspiracy then. They will have ya renting software forever in no time.

[Uykucu 0]

XP Definetely looks neater but i am still all for 2k. just when i was ready to forgive MS for releasing Win XP Beta (Ithink it might even be an alpha) under the name final!!!. a 6 hour in total troubleshooting session reminded me in full why i still prefer XP!!!

 

And no it was even an intel chipset with P4

[Preacher 0]

I too found XP to be the more compatible OS for games, althou Win2k crashes a bit less often. XP also has the better caching system; on XP I had one third the level load time of Serious Sam (1&2) compared to Win2k. However, XP needs some major tweaking and a decent firewall to go online with.

 

All of this is with my current and known to be buggy rig. Maybe it changes with my new one.

 

Personally, I´d buy the XP Pro license, install 2k and wait until at least SP1 for XP is available, then do a dual-boot slipstream installation and check it our for a few weeks to see if the bugs and flaws I absolutely can´t live with are gone.

[oldspice 0]

Win2k is by far superior, just ask the leader of that European country(I think France of Spain) who wrote a letter to Bill Gates asking him why he would release such a crappy product(WinXP) before it was ready. What a piece of garbage. XP is the Me of NT products. If you like unexplained lockups and incompatibilities get XP, if you want rock solid smooth operation get Win2k. I don't even use the service packs for Win2k, I have found that most Service packs just seem to bring new problems with them, unless you are an IT guy and have security risks to deal with. I keep reinstalling WinXP every now and then on my wifes computer(haha, not mine) to muse her for awhile but she always ends up going back to Win2k. XP is like the 3 ring circus of Microsoft, lots of stuff for the kids.

[Admiral LSD 0]

In the 10 months I've been using XP, I've had less trouble than I did in a year of using 2k. My IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL BSODs have vanished and more stuff installs without having to **** around. Never again will 2k see the HDD of this machine. It really does suck balls.

[BladeRunner 0]

Windows 2000 was like a breath of fresh air.

Touted as "for business use only" it made it's way onto my system along side Win98 within a week of it's release.

Within a month my system was reformatted to run Win2k only.

 

Then WinXP came along.

It was like a breath of fresh air but with a nice smell of freshly mowed grass too!

WinXP incorporated everything Win2k can offer me and more!!

 

Never again shall I go back to Win2k, WinXP is just too good.

I haven't had a BSOD since I adopted Win2k, WinXP has been equally good, that is not a single glitch or crash with it.

No competition, WinXP all the way.

[zoooom 0]

Its like I said. Different hardware/software configurations produce different os. Just because xp or 2k works flawlessly on one persons machine doesnt mean that it will work the same for another. 9x was just plain bad. No matter what the situation. 2k was like a dream for me when it came out. xp is basically 2k. Except its newer and yes *still* has problems. More then win2k. However I do agree that xp plays games a bit smoother in some cases. But thats on my system. With my video card drivers. How can you compare the way games run on two systems with different hardware and drivers? You cant. Try xp if you like it use it. Otherwise... 2k....

[Uykucu 0]

When did this discussion turn into XP/W2k debate from giving, unbiased advice to dizarludba?

 

Why do we always sidetrack the threads? Are we too lazy to start a new one?

[bayross 0]

Win2k is much more stable than any of the other windows i've seen. Win2k is stable, reliable, secure and has good memory optimization. I would definitly choose Win2k, over XP.

 

COMP SPECS:

ASUS A7V133 MB

1 - 256MB SD RAM PC133

1 - 512MB SD RAM PC133

1GHz AMD ATHLON PROCESSOR

32MB ASUS AGP-V7700 DELUXE W/3D GLASSES

SOUND BLASTER LIVE W/LIVE DRIVE

2 - 40GB MAXTOR HD ON RAID 0(HARDWARE RAID)

HP CD-WRITER 9500 + SERIES 12/8/32

SONY DVD-ROM 16X

ENERMAX PWS SUPPLY 450W

US ROBOTICS 56K V.92 MODEM

3COM ETHERLINK 10/100 MBPS - MD NO:3CR990-TX-95 W/WOL

MICROSOFT WIRELESS DESKTOP

EZONICS WEB CAM

CAMBRIDGE SOUNDWORKS 4.1 SURROUND

APC-500 UPS

NIKAO CASE W/BLUE & SILVER TRIM

VIEWSONIC PF775 17' MONITOR

[Admiral LSD 0]

Quote:

Win2k is much more stable than any of the other windows i've seen.

heh, you could have fooled me. I had more BSoDs under 2k than under XP (of course, much of that was possibly my SBLive! acting ghey but the important thing is that somehow, XP fixed it). I think I've mentioned this before but there isn't a force on this planet that can make be go back to 2k (and all the hassle that goes with it).