Compare windows xp 2000

I bought the Dell in June I also bought on my own not Dell an external gig hard drive. Thanks for responding. He never followed through. Not like the old days where they sent you a cd to fix things. I don't like that he went against his word. I guess once they have your money, one loses all power. I also hired a certified microsoft tech to do the installation. I could have installed all the old stuff myself, but I wanted a clean fresh start.

There have been some errors happening, but nothing to shut it down. I like your car comparison. I almost bought the Sony Vaio instead of the Dell. Browse Community. Windows General. Dell Community : Software : Windows General : windows professional vs windows xp.

Trending Search forums. What's new. New posts Latest activity. Windows vs. XP vs. Sidebar Sidebar. Forums Software Operating Systems. JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding. Previous Next. BehindEnemyLines Senior member. Jul 24, 0 0. I think 2K is indeed faster but in terms of usability, XP is plain better yes, it's objective. Decided not to include Vista since it's still "incomplete". Oct 16, 7, 3 Um is a server operating system and most of it is taken from XP in the first place.

So your'e comparing apples to oranges here. Using Server on my PDC as a matter of fact. Mar 21, 3, 0 0 www. Stumps Diamond Member. Jun 18, 7, 0 0. Originally posted by: spherrod for a standalone machine, XP for a server, will Link19 arrive soon to bash the 9x versions? Maximilian Lifer. Feb 8, 12, 5 I think windows 98SE is actually the best. But when comparing those three, theyre practically the same, i dunno what can do that XP PRO cant, but im sure its somthing along the lines of supporting more cpus or sockets or somthing.

Thats a bit unfair as its simply XP without any eyecandy. Wheres the option for "Theyre practically all the same, but serve different uses". Originally posted by: Soviet I think windows 98SE is actually the best. ProviaFan Lifer. Even my most tech challenged users can now burn their own archives for whatever reason. Which is good, but could be a potential security hole, in regards to proprietary data.

At home I have XP, as I do like some of the nifty features. At work, I have Windows , and it does all I need of an OS, plus its stable and runs faster on less hardware. When my parents asked me to get them a machine for email and simple web surfing, I bought a refurbished workstation that came with Windows - I could have bought XP as its fast enough but in the end has all they will need and it will run faster than the same box with XP.

I must disagree, my XP boxes tend to manage their hardware a little better than the 2K boxes do. I have both on the network here at the office, and run XP at home. You pay dearly for all those new bells and whistles by huge harddrive usage and as the last person said, you need serious RAM to make the OS run smoothly. That has always been one of the main considerations when moving from older versions of windows to the next newer version.

I'd like to see a OS that was lean and mean, using any available RAM sparingly and letting the bulk of it be available for applications. At least with and XP, you get good support for hardware. XP still has video driver troubles in some cases.

But, for the most part, it's a pretty good OS. With Windows Pro it pretty much zips along. If you are using well established HW, ie stuff where there are easily available windows drivers for the hardware, and you don't need all the bells and whistles of XP, it makes sense to run lean and mean. Well, I suppose even they have a sense of humour!

But to go back to the original question, for me W2K is by far the best system to date Microsoft has produced. It creates a balance between being stable and functional, but nowhere near as bloated as XP. Perhaps it is lack of XP use on my part, but W2K also seems more configurable.

Let's face it, Microsoft's marketing machine wants you to believe you "must have" XP. I don't believe that. It is by no stretch of the imagination fast, but it is stable. Since it is slower than the minimum requirements, I loaded it just to see if it would work. It took almost 6 hours to load, and takes almost ten minutes to boot, but what do you expect? I think most ppl prefer 2K; but what about the pros and cons in 2k and XP?

Easy to use, to get help, to get support on the web, forum, etc I personally like windows 98 as well, run very fast even on low end machine!

Well, I am not saying that it won't happen in the 2K; some nasty experience I got from 2k with a linksys usb wireless nic as well, it just didn't work on 2k. XP does have it's good side; as I remember it runs less services compare with 2K; the desktop theme can be customized; other extra features mostly for gamers, or home users. However, I don't think I really "need" those features.