Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Mike Lewis on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Windows 2000 or windows XP ?
- Thread starter ml55
- Start date
ml55,
It's just my opinion, but I NEVER upgrade! If you MUST do it, either choice is as good as the next for stability.
Caveat:
Drivers! Use your Windows 98se OS to search for the drivers you'll need for XP, or 2000. Alternatively, both XP, and 2000 provide for a detailed report on compatibilty with both software, and hardware.
Try this:
1.) XP, or 2000, run "winnt.exe" from the "i386" folder on the CD-ROM, using the following argument:
"winnt.exe /checkupgradeonly"
This will run setup, but won't change your configuration, it will simply provide a report, (which can be printed, too!). This report, should be all you need to make a descision...you 'll have to run both, obviously, and compare reports.
Finally, bear in mind that the "checkupgradeonly" argument, will provide a report that is only as good as the date the CD-ROM was cut...so be sure to check any reported incompatibilties, (particularly HARDWARE incompatibilties), against the current HCL, or Hardware Compatibilty List at these sites:
XP:
Windows 2000:
Have Fun!
![[pc3]](/data/assets/smilies/pc3.gif "[pc3] [pc3]")
Rich
prescot9@hotmail.com
Father, Geek, and MCP
It's just my opinion, but I NEVER upgrade! If you MUST do it, either choice is as good as the next for stability.
Caveat:
Drivers! Use your Windows 98se OS to search for the drivers you'll need for XP, or 2000. Alternatively, both XP, and 2000 provide for a detailed report on compatibilty with both software, and hardware.
Try this:
1.) XP, or 2000, run "winnt.exe" from the "i386" folder on the CD-ROM, using the following argument:
"winnt.exe /checkupgradeonly"
This will run setup, but won't change your configuration, it will simply provide a report, (which can be printed, too!). This report, should be all you need to make a descision...you 'll have to run both, obviously, and compare reports.
Finally, bear in mind that the "checkupgradeonly" argument, will provide a report that is only as good as the date the CD-ROM was cut...so be sure to check any reported incompatibilties, (particularly HARDWARE incompatibilties), against the current HCL, or Hardware Compatibilty List at these sites:
XP:
Windows 2000:
Have Fun!
Richprescot9@hotmail.com
Father, Geek, and MCP
MisterZuzu
Technical User
Regardless of popular opinion, Windows 2000 and Windows XP are both upgrades to Windows NT, not Windows 98. I can tolerate 2000 but I detest XP. I think 98 is currently the very best Windows operating system and I think DELL made a mistake by not offering it as an option in their online configuration. I know for a fact that they lost one sale as a result.
MisterZuzu,
Ok, I can certainly see not wanting to jump on the XP Bandwagon, but I must part company with you concerning Win2k being simply an upgrade to Windows NT:
Win2k went one HUGE step beyond BOTH NT, and Win9x, by providing PnP in an NT product, together with the stability of all 32-bit kernel code, married to the HAL. I loved 98, but GEEZ! I have NEVER HUNG Win2k. Hold on, this bears repeating:
I have NEVER HUNG Win2k.
That's reason enough in my opinion to give Win2k more than a simple upgrade status!
XP at least promises this same inordinate stability, but somehow, I always get the feeling I'm using a re-tooled Windows Me interface when I load up XP...to sum up:
1.) NT 4.0 was NT 3.51, with a Windows 95 interface.
2.) Windows 98, was Windows 95, with a "partial" NT 4.0 registry.
3.) Windows 2000, was NT 4.0, plus Windows 98.
4.) Windows Me, was part Windows 2000, part Windows 98.
5.) In my opinion, Windows XP Pro, is Windows 2000, plus Windows Me.
|
Rich
prescot9@hotmail.com
Father, Geek, and MCP
Ok, I can certainly see not wanting to jump on the XP Bandwagon, but I must part company with you concerning Win2k being simply an upgrade to Windows NT:
Win2k went one HUGE step beyond BOTH NT, and Win9x, by providing PnP in an NT product, together with the stability of all 32-bit kernel code, married to the HAL. I loved 98, but GEEZ! I have NEVER HUNG Win2k. Hold on, this bears repeating:
I have NEVER HUNG Win2k.
That's reason enough in my opinion to give Win2k more than a simple upgrade status!
XP at least promises this same inordinate stability, but somehow, I always get the feeling I'm using a re-tooled Windows Me interface when I load up XP...to sum up:
1.) NT 4.0 was NT 3.51, with a Windows 95 interface.
2.) Windows 98, was Windows 95, with a "partial" NT 4.0 registry.
3.) Windows 2000, was NT 4.0, plus Windows 98.
4.) Windows Me, was part Windows 2000, part Windows 98.
5.) In my opinion, Windows XP Pro, is Windows 2000, plus Windows Me.
|
Richprescot9@hotmail.com
Father, Geek, and MCP
The following is 'MY OPINION ONLY'
If you decide to go with XP, choose XP Pro! You can do more with it and have more control. If you are familiar with 2000, you'll have little problem with the features of Pro. XP Home just does not allow you to do much.
-Bill
If you decide to go with XP, choose XP Pro! You can do more with it and have more control. If you are familiar with 2000, you'll have little problem with the features of Pro. XP Home just does not allow you to do much.
-Bill
StelardActek
Programmer
While I myself am having a little problem with XP and the internet, that may have something to do with hardware (see my own post).
Still, I much prefer some of the features in XP, such as the user switching without logging off. You'll want to turn off that hypergraphical interface, though. Plus, as others have said, it's built on NT technology, and is actually more compatible with some strange software than 2K.
Anyway, that's my two cents worth.
-- Stelard Actek
Still, I much prefer some of the features in XP, such as the user switching without logging off. You'll want to turn off that hypergraphical interface, though. Plus, as others have said, it's built on NT technology, and is actually more compatible with some strange software than 2K.
Anyway, that's my two cents worth.
-- Stelard Actek
At this point in time, Windows XP is the newest operating system, and as such may not be supported by (or may not support) certain hardware or software. This has been a problem with every new OS release that I've observed. That said, I've had signifigantly fewer compatibility problems with this OS that I had when any other version of Windows was the newest OS.
I personally find Windows XP to be an excelent product. For me, it is an excelent NT based product, but it also supports the games and entertainment products that I've previously only been able to really enjoy on Windows 98.
I'll admit that there are some issues with Windows XP, but I have had fewer issues with this new OS than I had with Windows 2000, Windows ME, and Windows 98 when they were the newest OS.
One thing though, and Internet connection is esential. Error reporting, support information, and many other features that help to maintain your OS are available with an internet connection in Windows XP. I can see signifigant potential for these features to signifiganly improve the end-user experience.
I second the notion of XP to be an "excellent" product. I have heard and read of reviews where many customers have regretted the upgrade or have experienced problems with XP. However, in a majority of those cases, the reason was due to hardware or not knowing how to tweak XP settings.
With that in mind, it all depends on your hardware and how comfortable you are with Windows. If you own a system that's more than 2 years old, it might not be the best idea for you. Also, older games and some 16-bit apps that worked fine in 98 might fail in XP or 2000.
The good news however is that XP has a better chance at running 16-bit apps and older games than 2000. From a business standpoint, you might be better off with 2000. For a mix of personal and business, go with XP if your hardware isn't severely outdated. Check with vendor websites to ensure comatibility.
As J741 mentioned, XP is still fairly new and better support is constantly coming from vendors.
Bottom Line: XP will "eventually" replace 2000
With that in mind, it all depends on your hardware and how comfortable you are with Windows. If you own a system that's more than 2 years old, it might not be the best idea for you. Also, older games and some 16-bit apps that worked fine in 98 might fail in XP or 2000.
The good news however is that XP has a better chance at running 16-bit apps and older games than 2000. From a business standpoint, you might be better off with 2000. For a mix of personal and business, go with XP if your hardware isn't severely outdated. Check with vendor websites to ensure comatibility.
As J741 mentioned, XP is still fairly new and better support is constantly coming from vendors.
Bottom Line: XP will "eventually" replace 2000
Databaseguy
MIS
I've been running XP on 5 machines (out of 30) for a month now. So far my opinion is, ehhh.
Sharing resources with non XP peers on the network (both ways) is problematic at best . My XP machine keeps getting dropped from the network, and there are a host of other mysterious errors.
It could be just that I don't know XP well enough yet, but I'd choose 2000 Pro for any new machines...... Tyrone Lumley
augerinn@gte.net
Sharing resources with non XP peers on the network (both ways) is problematic at best . My XP machine keeps getting dropped from the network, and there are a host of other mysterious errors.
It could be just that I don't know XP well enough yet, but I'd choose 2000 Pro for any new machines...... Tyrone Lumley
augerinn@gte.net
- Status
