I know this has probably been asked a thousand times but which OS would you choose over each other. Currently I'm using Win2kPro and she has been faithful for all the 2 years. I know Windows XP would be a defenite yes over OS's such as 98 and ME but what about 2k? I've read that a lot of people like XP over 2k but don't tell exactly why except for better driver support? Essentially what are the <b>major</b> differences between win2k and winxp?

since u got 2k stick with it, XP just looks prettier/cartoonier..

didnt have one of em electronic pens so ill just type my name,<i>CoOoLMaNX</i>

Actually.. there has been several reviews I have read that show XP to get faster frame rates in some gaming than 2k. But overall they say its not worth the money if you already have 2k.



MeTaSpARKs

WinXP is basically Win2K with a Fisher Price interface.

About the only really cool value add in XP is cleartype. Cleartype makes an LCD panel look great.

Other than that it is mostly bundled junk that you probably already have better tools for under 2k, or don't want to use anyway.

There are a couple of nice touches, but if you have a mature 2k build, I doub't you'll find anything but trouble.

-* <font color=red> !! S O L D !! </font color=red> *-
To the gentleman in the pink Tutu

i am using both systems, but my computer is running 2k, the xp looks nice, but still there are drivers and software problems on the xp.

i am very happy with 2kpro and no way will switch to xp unless everything become compatible on it......actually no need to switch since xp does not offer a noticable performance and stability

wish if there was UnDo in the life

I am using W2K, very happy with it.
For people who play game, they must pick XP, coz W2K doesn't support all the games. Beside that XP also have extra features like: CD-R program, remote desktop, auto patches update, graphical desktop, multi-users logon, the media player support DVD playback.
I don't use those additional features, or I should say I got third party programs that perform better than XP, so I am not going to upgrade to XP. Also, there are still some programs having compatibility problem with XP, ie Norton anti-virus 2001, you need 2002. Same problem with W2k, having compatibility problem with some program when it was launch.

I'm using XP since october, not much of trouble with it, just the infinite loop trouble, solved months ago. Stable, Support multiuser (for a family, this is pretty nice. Work fin with 2 processor too. My specs should appear down. I'm playing a lot of games with it. The sims doesnt want to work. Norton 2001 work fine, when you've got the xp drivers. (norton will tell you where to get it after the installation).
Your a worker? get 2k.
you wanna work & play? get XP.

If you are buying a new os today, get xp pro.


If you already have 2k, there is no reason really to upgrade.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

If you are using win2k and are happy with it stick with it, winXP doesn't add much more besides a new interface and being able to run more older win9x software

<i>Hi I am from Canada, I don't use amd cause they melt my igloo eh.</i>

Depends what you want to do.
Win2K is definitely more stable than WinXP, but then if you are not running your computer 24/7 you shouldn't notice. Gaming benchmarks show that 2K is not good compared to XP but then, if your using office, it won't matter.
Personally I have 2K but now use XP because of the remote desktop feature, awsome was to work at work when not actually at work - is that good? The upcoming .NET version of windows will also support remote desktop and hopefully be as stable a substitue for 2K server.

LOL! Gotta love that comment!

<font color=red><i>I refugee from Guatanamo Bay,
dance around the border like I'm Cassius Clay
</i></font color=red>

No it isnt, its the same stability. XP is basically 2k with added features, added features which are not worth upgrading from 2k TO xp, but if a 98se user has to decide which to get, 2k or xp, there is no reason to choose 2k over xp.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

Agreed, stability-wise, they are equal.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

I personally like the more custom look you can give XP, and you can always switch to classic windows look. Stability is the same, no crashes =).

...

stability is the same but memory caching sucks (as crash has pointed out numerous times and i've seen it myself). i don't care about an app loading 4secs quicker. i care about having that ram while i'm WORKING in the app! the xp GUI is definitely fisher-price looking. if i wanted a custom GUI there are TONS of themes/apps/tweaks that you can do whatever you want to the UI. i just hope by the time MS's new OS(fully .NET intergrated i hear) comes out linux will have full support from software manufacturers. but then i'll have a couple macs by then.

[insert philosophical statement here]

I really do not like the Windows XP User Interface. The only reason I want to upgrate to Windows XP is that it have ClearType which make text more clear on LCD.