I am currently using Windows 2000 Professional, and am very pleased with it. When Windows 200 came out, Microsoft said that it was the future, now they say that XP is the future. How does Windows XP Professional compare to Windows 2000? By staying with 2000 am I missing much?
It depends on what you’re using it for, I suppose.
I have been told, but cannot confirm, that XP is basically 2000 with a nicer interface. That is, it’s based on 2000’s security and networking tools but with a different look and feel. I don’t know how accurate this is.
From personal experience (I run 2000 at work and XP at home) the main noticeable difference is in the interface, which is very pleasant (if a bit ‘noddy’) in XP and includes ClearType, the font-smoothing tool that some love and some hate.
I’ve also been told that XP is generally nicer with games and other programs, and, in my experience, there is very little difference in terms of stability. If you don’t play games (like my eldest brother, who uses 2000), I would venture that you are not, in fact, missing much.
If I were you, I’d wait for a generation or two of Windows to go by before upgrading again (assuming that future Windows generations manage to maintain Microsoft’s newfound stability).
I agree with whats been said. I ran 2000 for almost 2 years before I updated to XP. My Athlon 500 ran great on Win 2k, but its a little sluggish on XP, and yes, all the crap is turned off. If you have a “slower” processor(less than a gigahertz), you might just be happier staying with 2k.
I dont think I agree with the games may run better on XP though. AFAIK, all the drivers are interchangeable between xp and 2k.
If you do upgrade, upgrade to xp pro NOT xp home, especially if you are used to win 2k.
dead0man
Another factor in using XP is how much RAM you have. My processor is under 1 GHz, but I have 512 MB of RAM, which keeps it puttering along quite nicely. Microsoft has some comparison charts on their website, I’ll see if I can find them…
Try this for starters…
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/performance.asp
Another, perhaps less biased site might be this one…
http://www.computeruser.com/articles/2105,5,17,1,0501,02.html
XP’s claim to fame was supposed to be compatibility: works better with existing hardware and works better with existing software (remember, XP replaced the DOS-based Windows line, which ended with Windows Me). They’ve also integrated a bunch of software that you had to buy separately with earlier OSes, such as Winzip (the integration of this is actually pretty nice) and CD creation (I believe they licensed technology from Roxio EZ CD creator). But a third-party solution will still do the job, and in some cases (CD creation isn’t that great with the built-in stuff) work better.
There is certainly some software (most likely games or kid’s stuff) that won’t work with 2000, because that (Win 2k) was viewed as more of a workplace OS, whereas XP is supposed to be the **Swiss Army Knife[sup]TM[/sup] ** of Operating Systems. But IMO, if everything is running fine as it is, stick with what you’ve got.
And remember, the latest and greatest version of a piece of software is always the future; they wouldn’t make much money selling the past… 
If you look at how the operating systems identify themselves you get a much clearer picture of what is going on than what you get from the microsoft advertising dept. There used to be windows and that was it. Then after windows 3.1 came out, they started with a new operating system called NT. Windows 95 identifies itself as windows 4.0. Windows 98 identifies itself as 4.1. I’m not sure about ME but I think it’s 4.2.
On the NT side, NT 4.0 identifies itself as NT 4.0 (that one is kinda obvious). Windows 2000 is NT 5.0. XP is NT 5.1. They changed quite a bit of the user interface (the tip of the iceberg that you see) for XP, but the core operating system (the rest of the iceberg that you don’t see) didn’t change much.
The “merging” of operating systems really irks me. There was no merge. They killed off the windows line (95, 98, ME…). The two systems differ radically in their underlying structure. The 9.x line is basically built on top of DOS, although it’s not so much a DOS app as a real operating system, but it does have strong ties to DOS. 9.x allows software to directly access hardware, just like DOS does. NT has what’s called a “hardware abstraction layer” or HAL (which for DOS programs is just as evil as the HAL 9000 computer, because for a lot of things it basically says “I can’t do that Dave”). They much hyped “compatibility” capabilities of XP refer to improvements in the HAL, but the mere presence of the HAL causes a lot of problems to older DOS apps, so much so that when Microsoft first attempted to “merge” their operating systems at windows 2000 that so much software didn’t run on it that they changed their marketing strategy dramatically (and hence was born ME).
The one thing to be cautious of is that Microsoft always (so far, at least) intentionally will break backwards compatibility if they think they can make the operating system “better.” If something breaks, the microsoft attitiude is that you should just upgrade the thing that broke (in other words, they broke it, but they expect you to fix it). For a small jump, like from 2000 to XP, you probably won’t run into too many software compatibility problems, but you almost definately will if you make a major jump like from the 9.x line to XP. You’ll also likely run into a lot of problems just going from NT 4.0 to XP, in spite of the fact that they are both NT operating systems.
The biggest thing you are missing if you stick with 2000 is what I’ve heard a few people call the “fisher price interface” that comes with XP. You get a rolling hills background that makes you want to puke, and all of your windows are framed in blue with rounded corners. Once you ditch the horrible background it’s not so bad (IMHO) and you can get theme packs for it if you want. I’m using XP right now, and I’m pretty much happy with it. I have to dual boot this box into Windows 98 to run a lot of my software, but if you are already on 2000 you shouldn’t have to worry so much about compatibilty.
I’m also extremely annoyed at the security that microsoft put into XP. It was bad enough that I had to phone microsoft just to install XP (and type in about a thousand numbers using their automated system) but I also know that any time I reformat or re-install the operating sytem for any reason I’m going to have to phone them again. This has me particularly concerned in the long term because Microsoft typically only supports an operating system for about 5 years, and then it is essentially worthless garbage as far as they are concerned. I have this nagging suspician that if I re-install my operating system 7 years from now they are basically going to say sorry, you can’t do that, you should upgrade to windows ZBZ or whatever the heck is the NEXT BEST THING THAT IS GOING TO RULE THE WORLD that they are selling at the time. At least with 2000 I know that as long as my CD is still readable I’m all set.