windows2000 or XP
 

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

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

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

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?

if you gots more than 512mb ram, go for XP if not you might prefer 2000 :2 cents:

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?

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

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

their antipiracy shit gets pissed if you reconfigure the computer.

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.

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.

http://www.jpgsworld.com/gfy/coplights.jpg

Indeed.

ahahahahahaha! that's why i want to switch to unix & mac, and say :321GFY 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.

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

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

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

XP is shit. End of fuckin' story.

Its all about windows2000!!!

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

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

:thumbsup

I have 4 machines all running XP and have no problems

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

2000 :thumbsup

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.

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 :)

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

Mark

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

There are ways around the registration/activation.

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

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

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

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.

also i use Linux Debian 3.0 - rulezzz!!

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

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

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?

http://www.iroc409.com/pub/silly/freebsd.jpg

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

hahaha talk about a piece of shit OS!!

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.

XP for home PC
BSD for server


cant beat that

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.

Try win'95 :Graucho
I have XP, but it's funny to see people installing old shit :2 cents: