I recently put together a barebones system and haven’t decided which is a better OS to use. There are things I like about both of them but am still up in the air about it. I have Win XP at home and can get Win 2k from work for free (the company bought copies and licenses for everybody who can use it on their laptops or home pcs since we have a liberal policy and can work at home from time to time).
What should I use and why?
XP is far better in all respects. Faster, more stable, better compatibility with older (Win98) programs. The only advantage 2000 might have would be price, since XP is expensive, but since you already have XP this doesn’t apply.
I say use win 2k, if that’s what your office is using and you plan on working from home. It will make things (especially support) a little less complicated. I can’t think of any advantages of using XP in that scenario.
If you don’t plan on working from home, then use whichever one is better for the apps you use the most. In my case I’ve been able to tweak XP to the point where I’m actually happy with my midi/recording system (IOW making music and not shopping around for another system), so I’m sticking with XP.
XP Home is for the home because it has drivers for things people use at home.
The other one is for the office.
I think XP Pro is the best.
I would go with Win XP (but only if your system will support it). It’s much more stable than Win 2k, and will generally recover from errors more easily. I use XP, and the only time I’ve ever gotten the Blue Screen of Death is when I’ve crashed while playing old games (like, 80’s old). Also, XP has a whole slew of configuration tools that can help it run smoother and look better (both bundled software and freeware on the Internet).
3 for XP
1 for 2k
I guess I will put XP in after I get home. Thanks everyone so far. Keep them coming as I can always uninstall XP and install 2k if it goes that way.
I am a escalation lead analyst for a large mortgage company. We just started using XP Pro at work. I bought it for the house and it works so much better, is more compatible, and much more stable than any previous Windows product.
You didn’t say whether you had XP Home or XP Pro available to you.
1st choice: XP Pro
2nd choice: Win 2K
3rd choice: XP Home
Another for XP. I’d take it over 2K anyday (and I use 2K at my office… everyday…)
Assuming this is for a fairly “average” home user, why are people recomending Pro over Home? I just thought it was more flexible on the networking and and allows for dual processors?
Among other things, XP Pro has a few goodies that Home doesn’t. One of the more popular ones is Remote Desktop Connection, which allows you to connect to your computer from another computer. Home only allows you to make connections (to another computer), while Pro allows you to both make connections and set up your computer to accept connections.
“while Pro allows you to both make connections and set up your computer to accept connections.”
I have XP Home & it has a program in it to let people connect to my computer & do whatever they want-- I guess it’s for tech’s to look around & see what’s up.
Someone said Pro only has about 50k more code than home.
XP has the neat feature that you don’t need software to burn CD’s. Convenient.
Another XP vote here, go pro if you can.
You said you have a barebones system? Then you better run 2K, not XP. XP is a resource hog that slows down your system. 2K is just as stable and is a leaner system.
You don’t need 3rd party software is what you meant. This is a non-issue though since all CD burners come with the required software, and Nero rocks.
Xp comes with it’s version of Roxio. So people who put EZ creator (which is Roxio) on XP find weird things happening as EZ writes over XP’s files, tsk…only certain versions of EZ should be used.
One nice thing about XP is that I can connect my digital camera without using the camera software & XP sees the camera as a HD.
It is my understanding that XP Home is crippleware in a lot of irritating ways, one of which is the “XP Call Home” feature in which your computer checks with Redmond before allowing you to use it every time you add a peripheral. XP Pro isn’t significantly more bloated since it doesn’t contain things that were added but rather doesn’t contain the little snippets of cripplecode that disable various features and functionalities. I’m pretty sure that since XP Pro was created with offices in mind, it doesn’t impose such stringent and irritating limits on what you can do with your computer (including adding new cards and drives and whatnot). And with Pro, you can log onto a Windows domain, which may not be important to you right now, but do you really want to be deprived of that ability in case you take a new job next year and would like to use this computer occasionally to grab your email from work or copy a file from the server that you forgot to bring home?
But I could definitely be wrong and I’ll defer to more knowledgeable & PC-centric folks.