Windows 2000 or XP Pro

[StressedTechie]

Heres a question for you. I am running about 2 dozen laptops and a dozen workstations.

The Laptop users are frequently visiting clients and I am concerned at the level of security.

I have recently upgraded everyone to new Dell Kit and everyone is now using Windows 2000 on a Windows NT server network (soon to be upgraded to 2000server)

I have been informed that the laptops should be running XP as this is more stable and more secure.

What advise would you give me

 

[irzyxel]

XP is crap, its unstable and insecure ...
ms is still telling companies NOT to use XP ... go figure ...

 

[wolluf]

XP and 2k have in my experience similar levels of stability and security. I prefer 2k (as don't like the XP bells & whistles and new interface), but there's nothing in it. One point of course - XP is newer and so will be supported longer.

 

[thegreger]

I'd have to agree with everyone else. I'm running XP Pro on only about 3 of our laptops, and no desktop systems. I can't see the advantage of upgrading to XP from 2K, there's a few problems in it to make it worthwhile. I also end up skinning XP to look like 2000 for our users anyway, so I'd stick with 2K.

My 2 cents.

 

[StressedTechie]

Thanks Guys
Its just to know what others are doing. I was dubious about it anyway. I had just heard that XP allows individual file encryption where 2000 doesnt

I will be sticking to 2000 for the time being.

Is there any news on development of the replacement for XP

 

[lifto]

The bottom line for me is that I want to support as few platforms as possible. There are security holes and problems with XP and Win2K but it is far easier to sipport and keep up with the patches for one OS. I have gone with Win2k and don't user to have XP.