Today's Posts Follow Us On Twitter! TFL Members on Twitter  
Forum search: Advanced Search  
Navigation
Marketplace
  Members Login:
Lost password?
  Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 24,256
Total Threads: 81,169
Total Posts: 566,839
There are 68 users currently browsing (tf).
 
  Our Partners:
 
  TalkFreelance     Design and Development     Programming     .NET and MSSQL :

Why Windows 2000 is better than Windows XP ?

Thread title: Why Windows 2000 is better than Windows XP ?
Closed Thread  
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
    Thread tools Search this thread Display Modes  
06-21-2006, 05:59 AM
#1
haimadan is offline haimadan
haimadan's Avatar
Status: Sin Binner
Join date: Jun 2006
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

haimadan is on a distinguished road

  Old  Why Windows 2000 is better than Windows XP ?

Windows 2000 has, apparently, been superseded by the new Windows XP, which features (apparently) more ease of use, and an easier start.

However, for most purposes Windows 2000 Professional is a better OS than Windows XP Professional, with a comparable set of features. There are some compelling reasons to stick with 2k, such as:

Windows 2000 uses considerably fewer system resources (memory, CPU) than XP. Fewer services are started by default, leading to decreased memory usage and less background processor usage. An upshot of this is that 2000 will run on much older PCs with little RAM. XP was slow on an old family PC with 128MB of RAM, even with most of the useless services disabled, whereas 2K was snappy and fast, if slightly less user friendly.

2000 comes with little of the "cruft" present on Windows XP. The user interface is fast and streamlined, Windows Media Player, Movie Maker, MSN Messenger are not installed by. Windows 2000 is more of a "blank slate", allowing you to have more or less what you want on your PC, and have things your way.

Because they share the same kernel, XP and 2000 have much the same hardware support (although not by default).

Whatever runs on XP will most likely run on 2000, due to the similar underlying code bases.

A lot of the graphical enhancements on XP (like alpha blending) are also present in 2000.

On a purely economic basis, Win2K is much cheaper than XP

2000 seems to be much more stable than XP, and I've known it to run for months at a time.

Performance Benchmarks of Windows 200 and XP:

(Link: http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc...29tcwinxp.html)

Above tests of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000 demonstrated that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows 2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. Our tests of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000 demonstrated that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows 2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario, our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as did the Windows 2000 client.

As it often happens with Microsoft, Windows 2000 is another mystery. It was released after one disaster (Windows ME) and before another one (XP).
True, it's not as multimedia-friendly as XP. But 2000 is true to its goal - successor to Windows NT. It's stable as no other Windows OS, much more multimedia-friendly than NT ever was and doesn't require devices made yesterday - it flawlessly supports all devices I currently have.

Haimadan
My Profile

06-21-2006, 06:09 AM
#2
Garrett is offline Garrett
Status: Waving
Join date: Aug 2005
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 2,694
iTrader: 11 / 100%
 

Garrett is on a distinguished road

Send a message via MSN to Garrett

  Old

I like you man, you always make awsome posts! Thanks!

06-21-2006, 06:11 AM
#3
Andrew R is offline Andrew R
Status: Request a custom title
Join date: Dec 2005
Location: Arizona
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 5,200
iTrader: 17 / 95%
 

Andrew R is on a distinguished road

  Old

Very nice post. I would actually be using Windows 200 but I just don't like the graphical feel and accessability (as far as custom themes go) compared to WinXP. But you make very good points.

06-22-2006, 06:12 AM
#4
MattL is offline MattL
Status: I love this place
Join date: Jan 2006
Location: BC, Canada
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 583
iTrader: 1 / 100%
 

MattL is on a distinguished road

Send a message via MSN to MattL

  Old

Originally Posted by haimadan
2000 seems to be much more stable than XP, and I've known it to run for months at a time.
I agree with almost everything except for that statement. My WinXP Home Edition has been installed and running smoothly for over one year. Very good article however, like all of your others!

06-22-2006, 06:31 AM
#5
officially poor is offline officially poor
Status: I'm new around here
Join date: Jun 2006
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

officially poor is on a distinguished road

  Old

I agree, I like use it on one my older desktop, mainly because it is more lightweight so games usually work a little better. Good post

06-22-2006, 07:36 AM
#6
Julian is offline Julian
Status: Simply to simplify
Join date: Apr 2005
Location: Foxton, Manawatu, New Zealand
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 5,572
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

Julian is on a distinguished road

  Old

I have had Windows XP installed and running smoothly on my PC for 18 months, never had to reinstall it (disabled system restore from day 1)

Windows 2000 is far easier to install, much faster and smoother, less resource hungry and better all round. It doesn't have service packs that lag the sytem down and has almost the same amount of hardware support as XP.

Why am I using XP?

Simply because it is a newer operating system, and I can't be bothered with the dual boot system I had.

I run a small business repairing computers and installing operating systems. I would love to install 2000 into all of my client PC's but they ALL request XP for the same reason I use XP.

06-22-2006, 12:56 PM
#7
haimadan is offline haimadan
haimadan's Avatar
Status: Sin Binner
Join date: Jun 2006
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

haimadan is on a distinguished road

  Old

Hi all,

Good Going so far... Thankx Garrett and AndrewR for your comments about my post.

Haimadan
My Profile

06-23-2006, 10:41 AM
#8
Alycium is offline Alycium
Status: Junior Member
Join date: Jun 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 92
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

Alycium is on a distinguished road

Send a message via MSN to Alycium

  Old

Now I wish I were running WIN 2000.
Because Windows XP is sucking away my ram.
With very little ram I have.

06-23-2006, 10:56 AM
#9
wii is offline wii
Status: Member
Join date: Aug 2005
Location: Denmark
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

wii is on a distinguished road

  Old

On older PCs Windows 2000 is better, but we are really talking about PCs from 1999-2000 or so, on everything I have ever tested within the last 3 years, XP was better in every respect.

Nice article though.

07-18-2006, 09:07 PM
#10
KewL is offline KewL
Status: OG
Join date: Apr 2006
Location: California
Expertise: Design, Music, Xhtml, Css
Software: Photoshop, Coda, FL Studio
 
Posts: 2,006
iTrader: 11 / 100%
 

KewL is an unknown quantity at this point

  Old

Befor i bought my current computer, we used to run an old laptp with 2k pro.

Closed Thread  
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >


Thread Tools
Display Modes

  Posting Rules  
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump:
 
  Contains New Posts Forum Contains New Posts   Contains No New Posts Forum Contains No New Posts   A Closed Forum Forum is Closed