Win 2000 Pro -or- XP Pro

[proexpert]

Operating System Choice: Win 2000 Pro vs. XP pro

If you were buying a new computer today, which would you get?
The cost is the same, but which is 'better' for me?

I am a 3D CAD user. I write large textbooks. I want to be able to hook in my digital video camera to the computer. I want stability, not fluff. I have been running NT 4.0 forever.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks

pro

[NetJunkie]

I see no reason to put Win2K on a new system, unless you're a company that has standardized on it. XP has better hardware support and is faster for doing most things. It also has a more refined and easier to use interface.

[IM4A2Z]

Don't bother with 2000. Another thing to consider on XP is Pro or Standard edition.
Pro is better for networking and also supports multi-CPU's. If your ordering it with a new computer spend the few extra bucks for PRO. If your buying off the shelf don't spend the extra $100 unless you need it.

[David Pintaric]

I bought a new IBM Thinkpad just before the end of the year and made a conscious effort to make sure it had XP Pro. I also upgraded my daughter's desk top and added XP Pro of that one.

I don't know alot about these things, but I know people who do, and XP Pro (even over the Home Edition) was the concensus choice.

You will not be disappointed.

[novetteyet]

I know this wasn't on your list of choices, but I run dual boot, with Mandrake Linux 9.0 on one partition, and Win2K on another.

I spend about 90% of my time booted to the Linux partition, to get away from all the #(!)@ Windoze spyware that's around these days. The other 10% I boot unto Win2K, mostly for games or the few things I don't have Linux versions of.

Linux is a much less infuriating OS for advanced users, but, I suspect, much more infuriating for non-experts. Still, I value my privacy, and refuse to run all the spyware infested crap and DRM-infested nonsense on Windows these days.

[missileman]

I run Win 2K at work and Win XP Pro at home and I prefer the user interface from Win XP. Both systems have been very stable but I have had some flaky things happen with Win 2K. Therefore I would recommend Win XP Pro slightly over Win 2K.

Chris

[BlackWidow]

I'm going to buck the trend here My husband uses AutoCad & 3D modeling software extensively. I do a lot of grsphics / art work on mine. We both use Win 2000 Pro and love it. Our son has the XP on his and from the little bit I've been on it I prefer my Win 2000.

[Roland]

I prefer Windows 2000 Pro also.

If you don't want fluff, I'd say go with 2000. XP Pro =Win2k + fluff.

Windows XP Pro is identical Windows 200 Pro at the core. They support the same hardware. Microsoft just added a bunch of nonsense features to XP. The XP Pro installation is about 1200 mb because of all the fluff. Windows 2000 is considerably more stable and less prone to bugs & security flaws because the new features in XP introduce new loopholes. Windows 2000 also runs quicker and uses less system memory because it isn't burderned by an excessive interface.

[NetJunkie]

XP Pro isn't less stable, in fact, it's more stable than Win2K especially on a notebook. The extra "fluff" can be disabled, but once you get use to the nicer interface additions you'll like it. If you don't like some of the additions you can turn them off. I turned off the menu fades and other things that slow the system down.

Benchmarks have proven XP to be faster than 2K. There are no more holes in XP than there are Win2K.

[wvphoto]

mac 0sX
rocks..

[proexpert]

Originally posted by wvphoto
mac 0sX
rocks..

Maybe so, but the main application I use to make a living doesn't run there (Pro/ENGINEER 3D CAD).

Thanks for all the info. Keep 'em coming.

[Zeanster]

I have used both of these systems for awhile now. Win 2K has been very reliable, only ever saw a blue screen twice and I use a lot of Industrial software that tends to cause problems.

I tend to go towards the Win 2K OS because of the lack of fluff. I find with XP I have to dig more, when looking to tweak the system.