XP vs 2000

mrurmil

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
81
Which would you guys say is more stable / has less problems overall? XP pro SP2 or 2000 pro SP4? And why?
 
Either one would be very stable, so what are the roles of the system, and what type of hardware is it going to be on?
 
It's going on an old 1Ghz Celeron w/ 512 RAM. It's primary use will be web browsing and playing music/dvds. Nothing more than that.
 
mrurmil said:
It's going on an old 1Ghz Celeron w/ 512 RAM. It's primary use will be web browsing and playing music/dvds. Nothing more than that.

Well, in that case why not use linux?

I don't think there will be much of a difference between 2k or XP. With more then 256mb of ram I suspect you will be able to use any OS for the web, music, videos, etc.
 
win2k isnt as bulky as xp .. but I'll throw in another vote for Linux on that bad boy



[F]old|[H]
 
You can still buy Windows 2000 licenses all over the place, unless he doesn't have one already. I'd avoid Linux for DVD viewing, unless you want to learn how to use Linux. XP would run fine on that system because of the memory. I have a test system at work that's an HP Vectra VL400 that has a 1 Ghz PIII and 512 MB of memory.
 
djnes said:
You can still buy Windows 2000 licenses all over the place
Then why does the Microsoft site say they haven't been available for a year?
 
djnes said:
You can still buy Windows 2000 licenses all over the place, unless he doesn't have one already. I'd avoid Linux for DVD viewing, unless you want to learn how to use Linux. XP would run fine on that system because of the memory. I have a test system at work that's an HP Vectra VL400 that has a 1 Ghz PIII and 512 MB of memory.

DVD viewing in Fedora Core 4 (what I use at work) is as easy as windows .. other stuff like burning cd's is as easy if not easier then xp .. pulling stuff off of thumb drives or digi cameras is easier that xp (already easy in xp I know)

..but like you said .. you do have to learn some stuff ..its not harder , just different is all... and did I fail to mention the "it's free!" part that I really like about linux ...?

:p



[F]old|[H]
 
mikeblas said:
Then why does the Microsoft site say they haven't been available for a year?
Just because Microsoft doesn't sell them directly doesn't mean you can't buy them from retailers . After all, this guy is discussing a single system, and probably already owns the license, making this a moot point anyway.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
djnes said:
Just because Microsoft doesn't sell them directly doesn't mean you can't buy them from retailers.
The page I referenced isn't about direct availability from Microsoft. (Was the product ever available directly from Microsoft?) It gives dates for availability in the retail channel, from OEMs, and system integrators. Are you saying that they're still selling old stock?

Indeed, that Windows 2000 is at the end of its support lifecycle is far more germaine.
 
You could buy copies of the Oses directly from microsoft, but it wasn't common. It's not being offered on new machines anymore. I'm searching for the link Phoenix86 had a little while ago showing that Win2000 still had a ways to go before it was officially out of support...like a clarification for the link you gave. I know it's still being supprted in the enterprise sector.

You're also skipping what may be the biggest point of all. What if he owns the license already? Even if MS stopped officially supporting it, doesn't mean he shouldn't use it for a basic system at home.
 
2K if you don't run old apps or emulators on there, XP if you are.

2K is a bit lighter, XP might start a bit quicker, but you can start working with 2000 faster.
 
W2K has my vote
especially if you can rip it and lock it down properly

or as mentioned Linux

min memory for W2K is 64MB
XP 128MB
 
interesting I havent seen that

of course having actually PAID for an XPLite license....:p
of course as I use it its a W2KLite

but Id very much like a freeware version I can employ on customers boxes
 
Back
Top