windows2000 or XP - GoFuckYourself.com

ack · 04-28-2003, 07:57 AM

i am putting a new pc together what do you think is better to put on it windows2000 or XP?

Machete_ · 04-28-2003, 07:59 AM

since SP1 came for XP, I'm running XP on all the workstations now.

Reak · 04-28-2003, 08:01 AM

I run on XP never used Windows2000 before..
I think XP is good & hot

ack · 04-28-2003, 08:06 AM

but recenlty with xp i made some changes to my pc and now i have to reactivate it that is a pain. Why the hell should i have to call microsoft just to get my OS to work correctly

jact · 04-28-2003, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ack
but recenlty with xp i made some changes to my pc and now i have to reactivate it that is a pain. Why the hell should i have to call microsoft just to get my OS to work correctly

What'd you do to cause that to happen?

znoz · 04-28-2003, 08:13 AM

if you gots more than 512mb ram, go for XP if not you might prefer 2000

ack · 04-28-2003, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact

What'd you do to cause that to happen?

well i changed the nic card that was in the machine and moved the soundcard to a different pci slot

jact · 04-28-2003, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ack

well i changed the nic card that was in the machine and moved the soundcard to a different pci slot

Uh, so? Why would that make you have to call Microsoft?

manuelk · 04-28-2003, 08:24 AM

put 512 or more ram into the box and go with XP

ack · 04-28-2003, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact

Uh, so? Why would that make you have to call Microsoft?

casue to install xp you have to activate online or you have to call them and i can't reactive my XP online since i made the changes to my pc

iroc409 · 04-28-2003, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact

Uh, so? Why would that make you have to call Microsoft?

their antipiracy shit gets pissed if you reconfigure the computer.

Darin · 04-28-2003, 08:34 AM

Both are good but obviously XP is the latest. Why install an old OS?

Unless its for a server. Go Win2k Server.

iroc409 · 04-28-2003, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darin
Both are good but obviously XP is the latest. Why install an old OS?

Unless its for a server. Go Win2k Server.

is it worth using w2k advanced server on a lan box? or just throw 2k pro on it and call it good? for a file / print server.

Backov · 04-28-2003, 08:37 AM

XP is Win2k with bells and whistles on.

There is so little difference between the two, you wouldn't believe it.

However, one of the important issues is all the integrated DRM and Activation shit. I would never use XP myself.

goBigtime · 04-28-2003, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Backov
XP is Win2k with bells and whistles on.

Indeed.

iroc409 · 04-28-2003, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime

Indeed.

ahahahahahaha! that's why i want to switch to unix & mac, and say

to M$.

Backov · 04-28-2003, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by iroc409

ahahahahahaha! that's why i want to switch to unix & mac, and say to M$.

I will most likely be doing so myself, and this is coming from a windows guy that's been using/programming in Windows since 3.0. They're just becoming too police-statey for my liking.

So it's likely my next work box will be OSX.. Either that or a linux desktop box if it matures some more.

I'll most likely always need to have a windows box around though. It's unlikely the game situation will change anytime soon.

Machete_ · 04-28-2003, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Backov
XP is Win2k with bells and whistles on.

There is so little difference between the two, you wouldn't believe it.

Bullshit ! It is build on the same Kernel -thats right, but the administration, network interface, system-calls are SO different that you cant compare them

Lane · 04-28-2003, 10:21 AM

XP has been rock-stable for me.. i've managed to crash win2k lots of times.

Tipsy · 04-28-2003, 10:29 AM

2000 is stable, XP is even more stable. Go with XP IF you don't mind the registration bullshit.

RedShoe · 04-28-2003, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lane
XP has been rock-stable for me.. i've managed to crash win2k lots of times.

XP is shit. End of fuckin' story.

Iced Out Gear · 04-28-2003, 10:32 AM

Its all about windows2000!!!

Yo Adrian · 04-28-2003, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tipsy
2000 is stable, XP is even more stable. Go with XP IF you don't mind the registration bullshit.

I haven't noticed much difference in stability between the two....they've both been stable IMO

Kel · 04-28-2003, 10:38 AM

Go with the latest and greatest. Go with XP Pro.

Joe_Blow · 04-28-2003, 11:35 AM

I have 4 machines all running XP and have no problems

Pappa · 04-28-2003, 11:46 AM

I'm still running 98 SE, and no plans to switch. Works like a charm

SetTheWorldonFire · 04-28-2003, 11:48 AM

2000

Tipsy · 04-28-2003, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yo Adrian

I haven't noticed much difference in stability between the two....they've both been stable IMO

Depends what you're doing on them. Once upon a time I was heavily involved in writing vid cap software. XP was far more stable for it.

iroc409 · 04-28-2003, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Backov

I will most likely be doing so myself, and this is coming from a windows guy that's been using/programming in Windows since 3.0. They're just becoming too police-statey for my liking.

So it's likely my next work box will be OSX.. Either that or a linux desktop box if it matures some more.

I'll most likely always need to have a windows box around though. It's unlikely the game situation will change anytime soon.

edit: oh yeah, keep a decent but not too expensive win box for games, and basically _nothing_ else.

has anyone here ever gotten samba to run???

dude, linux mature? maybe... get FreeBSD. tell me something you _can't_ do with FreeBSD. i wanna use the mac for all my design and video editing work. and i think i may have just scored a cheap hookup for mac hardware. they are so fucking expensive

. so, use the *nix for everything but design, i should be good to go.

as far as w2k/xp stability, they're both great, but 2 exceptions with w2k. first, do NOT use sp1, PERIOD. it can fuck up your FAT, and you lose everything really easily. use it without an sp, or get sp2. do NOT use sp1. also, it seems from my experience, when 2k crashes, it's DEAD. xp doesn't seem to crash. so don't bluescreen in 2k

Kohun · 04-28-2003, 12:42 PM

I'm running XP Pro and XP much better that 2000.

Mark

Mr Pheer · 04-28-2003, 12:44 PM

I have 29 computers
23 run win2k pro and 6 run xp pro

I prefer win2kpro, its just easier to spam, er i mean, it easier to work with

MattO · 04-28-2003, 01:15 PM

There are ways around the registration/activation.

Cassie · 04-28-2003, 01:39 PM

ive used 2000 since it came out and it is incredibly stable. i hear that xp home and professional are both resource hogs.

Backov · 04-28-2003, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by iroc409

dude, linux mature? maybe... get FreeBSD. tell me something you _can't_ do with FreeBSD. i wanna use the mac for all my design and video editing work. and i think i may have just scored a cheap hookup for mac hardware. they are so fucking expensive . so, use the *nix for everything but design, i should be good to go.

FreeBSD is an amazing server OS (especially now with 5.0) - but linux gets the majority of desktop development. Try to tell me with a straight face that there's a FreeBSD distro as slick as Mandrake 9.1 or even RH 9.

Cheers,
Backov

Netmax · 04-28-2003, 02:10 PM

i use win2k SP3 + last microsoft updates. No problems! xp-shit =)

jact · 04-28-2003, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Backov

FreeBSD is an amazing server OS (especially now with 5.0) - but linux gets the majority of desktop development. Try to tell me with a straight face that there's a FreeBSD distro as slick as Mandrake 9.1 or even RH 9.

Cheers,
Backov

Tell me with a straight face that there'll ever be a secure Linux build when comparing it to FreeBSD straight up.

Each has its own merits, Linux got adopted as the script kiddies OS so it got more desktop development. FreeBSD got adopted as a webserver (At least with hosts with a clue) so it got more security work.

Netmax · 04-28-2003, 02:16 PM

also i use Linux Debian 3.0 - rulezzz!!

ack · 04-28-2003, 03:22 PM

i think i will go with windows2000 i dont want to deal with this activation thing with XP if i change up my pc around

Backov · 04-28-2003, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jact

Tell me with a straight face that there'll ever be a secure Linux build when comparing it to FreeBSD straight up.

Who cares?

I say I'm going to move my desktop to Linux and you tell me it's not secure? You do realize that I'm coming from WINDOWS right?

And linux is hardly insecure. Just like Windows, it can be secured quite easily if you know how and keep current.

Cheers,
Backov

iroc409 · 04-28-2003, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Backov

FreeBSD is an amazing server OS (especially now with 5.0) - but linux gets the majority of desktop development. Try to tell me with a straight face that there's a FreeBSD distro as slick as Mandrake 9.1 or even RH 9.

Cheers,
Backov

ahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahah ahahahahahahahahahahaahah

MANDRAKE? REDHAT?

dude, those words should be banned. i've used both of those and they were very disappointing. mandrake i could almost handle, but redhat was sickening. and what do you mean by "slick"? FreeBSD will do everything linux can do, and more securely. did anyone tell you there's a rpm translator for FreeBSD?

keyDet79 · 04-28-2003, 05:44 PM

It's a fact XP is faster on the latest puters. Unless you plan to use it on a server. Can't deny that.

IntenseCash · 04-28-2003, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pappa
I'm still running 98 SE, and no plans to switch. Works like a charm

hahaha talk about a piece of shit OS!!

Backov · 04-28-2003, 05:53 PM

FreeBSD zealots go back to /. - Not interested in arguing about it with you.

Linux kicks BSDs ass for desktop, end of story.

BSD kicks Linuxes ass for server, in almost all cases.

It will be LONG time, if ever, that BSD is as viable as linux is right now for the desktop. RPMs don't mean shit, device support is king and Linux has it.

Lane · 04-28-2003, 09:03 PM

XP for home PC
BSD for server

cant beat that

iroc409 · 04-28-2003, 09:08 PM

hey everybody! go check out FreeBSD hardware compatibility! woohoo!

http://www.freebsd.org/

mwahha.. FreeBSD can do anything that linux can

.

hey keydet, what are you smoking? i think backov and i would both agree that statement is incorrect

(but i'm not a surfer of /. )

keyDet79 · 04-29-2003, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by iroc409
hey everybody! go check out FreeBSD hardware compatibility! woohoo!

http://www.freebsd.org/

mwahha.. FreeBSD can do anything that linux can .

hey keydet, what are you smoking? i think backov and i would both agree that statement is incorrect (but i'm not a surfer of /. )

Here are the ZDnet benchmarks, which is a reliable source: http://www.zdnet.com/products/storie...808643,00.html

And offcourse when it comes to gaming and other multimedia, Win2k isn't even near.

Vivaldi · 04-29-2003, 07:12 AM

Try win'95

I have XP, but it's funny to see people installing old shit

04-28-2003, 07:57 AM	#1
ack Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 163	windows2000 or XP i am putting a new pc together what do you think is better to put on it windows2000 or XP?

04-28-2003, 08:24 AM	#9
manuelk Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: dot com Posts: 146	put 512 or more ram into the box and go with XP __________________ ...

04-28-2003, 08:34 AM	#12
Darin Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 345	Both are good but obviously XP is the latest. Why install an old OS? Unless its for a server. Go Win2k Server. __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

04-28-2003, 08:37 AM	#14
Backov Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Cat Detector Van Posts: 1,600	XP is Win2k with bells and whistles on. There is so little difference between the two, you wouldn't believe it. However, one of the important issues is all the integrated DRM and Activation shit. I would never use XP myself. __________________ <embed src="http://banners.spotbrokers.com/button.swf" FlashVars="clickURL=http://banners.spotbrokers.com" quality=high pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="120" height="60"></embed>

04-28-2003, 10:21 AM	#19
Lane Will code for food... Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Buckeye, AZ Posts: 8,496	XP has been rock-stable for me.. i've managed to crash win2k lots of times. __________________

04-28-2003, 07:59 AM	#2
Machete_ WINNING! Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 14,579	since SP1 came for XP, I'm running XP on all the workstations now.

04-28-2003, 08:01 AM	#3
Reak So Fucking Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: 420Calendar.com Posts: 17,920	I run on XP never used Windows2000 before.. I think XP is good & hot

04-28-2003, 08:06 AM	#4
ack Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 163	but recenlty with xp i made some changes to my pc and now i have to reactivate it that is a pain. Why the hell should i have to call microsoft just to get my OS to work correctly

04-28-2003, 08:13 AM	#6
znoz Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 133	if you gots more than 512mb ram, go for XP if not you might prefer 2000

04-28-2003, 10:29 AM	#20
Tipsy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig Posts: 6,989	2000 is stable, XP is even more stable. Go with XP IF you don't mind the registration bullshit.

04-28-2003, 10:32 AM	#22
Iced Out Gear Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 10	Its all about windows2000!!! __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

04-28-2003, 10:38 AM	#24
Kel Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ashland, OR Posts: 591	Go with the latest and greatest. Go with XP Pro.

04-28-2003, 11:35 AM	#25
Joe_Blow Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Atlanta Posts: 774	I have 4 machines all running XP and have no problems __________________ ICQ for bulk deals http://www.faproductions.com ICQ: 151177714

04-28-2003, 11:46 AM	#26
Pappa Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: In front of my computer Posts: 636	I'm still running 98 SE, and no plans to switch. Works like a charm __________________ Traffic Cash Gold!

04-28-2003, 11:48 AM	#27
SetTheWorldonFire Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: California Posts: 7,444	2000 __________________ www.STWOFDesign.com hit me up on icq 154206276 or Skype: JaimeGizzle

04-28-2003, 12:42 PM	#30
Kohun Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Copenhagen Posts: 274	I'm running XP Pro and XP much better that 2000. Mark __________________ Click here to make money www.PEAKMONEY.com ICQ # 172316026

04-28-2003, 12:44 PM	#31
Mr Pheer So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 21,582	I have 29 computers 23 run win2k pro and 6 run xp pro I prefer win2kpro, its just easier to spam, er i mean, it easier to work with

04-28-2003, 01:15 PM	#32
MattO The O is for Oohhh Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: AUSTIN TEJAS Posts: 10,861	There are ways around the registration/activation.

04-28-2003, 01:39 PM	#33
Cassie Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 3,139	ive used 2000 since it came out and it is incredibly stable. i hear that xp home and professional are both resource hogs. __________________ ICQ: 309756847 ]

04-28-2003, 02:10 PM	#35
Netmax Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 335	i use win2k SP3 + last microsoft updates. No problems! xp-shit =)

04-28-2003, 02:16 PM	#37
Netmax Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 335	also i use Linux Debian 3.0 - rulezzz!!

04-28-2003, 03:22 PM	#38
ack Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 163	i think i will go with windows2000 i dont want to deal with this activation thing with XP if i change up my pc around

04-28-2003, 05:44 PM	#41
keyDet79 Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 1,109	It's a fact XP is faster on the latest puters. Unless you plan to use it on a server. Can't deny that. __________________ Multihomed quality BW for less ICQ 51034232 - MSN [email protected] - Email keydet(at)vibehosting.com

04-28-2003, 05:53 PM	#43
Backov Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Cat Detector Van Posts: 1,600	FreeBSD zealots go back to /. - Not interested in arguing about it with you. Linux kicks BSDs ass for desktop, end of story. BSD kicks Linuxes ass for server, in almost all cases. It will be LONG time, if ever, that BSD is as viable as linux is right now for the desktop. RPMs don't mean shit, device support is king and Linux has it. __________________ <embed src="http://banners.spotbrokers.com/button.swf" FlashVars="clickURL=http://banners.spotbrokers.com" quality=high pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="120" height="60"></embed>

04-28-2003, 09:03 PM	#44
Lane Will code for food... Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Buckeye, AZ Posts: 8,496	XP for home PC BSD for server cant beat that __________________

04-28-2003, 09:08 PM	#45
iroc409 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: midwest side, yo Posts: 4,728	hey everybody! go check out FreeBSD hardware compatibility! woohoo! http://www.freebsd.org/ mwahha.. FreeBSD can do anything that linux can . hey keydet, what are you smoking? i think backov and i would both agree that statement is incorrect (but i'm not a surfer of /. ) __________________ <a href="http://www.iroc409.com/"><img src="http://www.iroc409.com/adv/120x60.gif" border=0></a> icq: 1 7 6 4 2 0 9 6 0 Gallery templates for ONLY $25! w00t! Last edited by iroc409; 04-28-2003 at 09:11 PM..

04-29-2003, 07:12 AM	#47
Vivaldi Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 303	Try win'95 I have XP, but it's funny to see people installing old shit __________________ don't even think about it