So now that XP has its SP1. Which do you prefer Win2k or XP?

[pr-man 1]

And why?

[DS3Circuit 0]

It depends all onto the experience of the users as well as the environment.

 

Personally though ... I go with this

 

Win2k for the work environmnet

XP for home

 

Though this all may change in the next couple of months.

[Mr.Guvernment 0]

Xp still - i still find it superioor to 2k in the way i use O/S'. and mainly for me, stablity.

 

heck so far longhorn is more stable for me then what 2k was last time i tried it for the heck of it.

[pr-man 1]

whats longhorn?

[PaTiNsAnE 0]

its a post-OS after XP (next big OS im guessing)

[duhmez 0]

2000

 

Because it's just as stable and compatible, it doesn't cost me more for upgrade cause I already have it, avi file deletion bugs in XP anyed me very hard in xp, and xp hides the status bar, I have to spend hours tweaking xp to make it like 2000 was, xp is too noobeed, the stupid search dog I have to reg tweak to get rid of, the bigassed icons in my computer eating up screen resources, can't see the OK button in display properties when the res is 800x600, can't share a folder with an acocunt that has a blank password, XP home is the only microsoft OS that can't logon to a domain, bloated , huge wizards and crap popping up all over the place, windows messenger installed by default and autoloaded, media player 7 is relly bad and xp does not ship with 6.4, dozens of extras unnecessary services started by default.

 

There are my reasons.

I've been using win2k since RC2 and have never looked back.

[shassouneh 0]

By Far Windows 2000. Reasons include:

1.) WIndows 2000 is more stable

2.) Windows 2000 has 3 service packs as opposed to 1 (more updated, fixes, patches, etc..)

3.) Windows 2000 STILL has better hardware support than XP

4.) Windows 2000 (in my humble experience) gives a lot less BSODs than XP

5.) Windows 2000 has bene tried and tested in the work enviroment and has been proven to be a robust, stable, dependable OS. XP on the other hand still has trouble standing up on its feet sometimes.

 

2000 all the way. XP needs some MAJOR plastic surgery!

[DigiKiD 0]

I've been running XPPro since Beta 2 Had some problems But by far the best Workstation OS I've worked with.

 

_______________________________________________

Home configs:

 

PII 400 512MB 32MBVID 7USB (5x2.0) 2 Burners 1 DVD Win XPProSP1

 

Proliant 5500 SERVER 4 x PII XEON 450 4Gig mem WinXPProSP1 W2KAS and .NETEE RC2 :x

[ThC 129 0]

I have never had problems with 2k or XP.

 

If i was at work i would use 2k. For home use I like XP pro because of the ability to skin the OS. Yes I like my OS to look nice, i don't want it to look like it is a 80's reject like the "classic" style looks; bland to say the least.

 

XP has its problems, like the services thing, and the stupid search dog, and the folder view defaults.

 

My hardware runs fine on either OS, so that is a non-issue. Stability is the same for both OSes. XP seems to be able to load faster due to its prefetch capabilities.

 

I dont like a lot of the stuff that XP comes pre-installed with. WMP is one, I dont use WMP 8 9 or whatever because it sucks. I have a MPEG card so i just use that to decode and view movies. I use Nero to burn not that XP built in Engine which is crap anyway. I don't like the "simple file sharing" by default either, or allowing "everyone" access to your drives. I use Opera so IE is a non-issue, though Anti-Leech support in Opera seems to be shotty.

 

Really though it comes down to look, XP looks nicer and is skinable which is what I want.

 

Sooo the winner is Windows 3.1 LOL!!