pharaoh fortune slot
ExamNotes.net
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 19, 2017, 09:49:03 AM

Login with username, password and session length
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  ExamNotes.net
|-+  Microsoft (MCSE, MCSD, MOUS, MCAD)
| |-+  Windows XP exams
| | |-+  2000 Vs XP
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Poll
Question:
Windows 2000 Pro - 59 (64.1%)
Windows XP Pro - 30 (32.6%)
Can't decide, love them both!!! - 3 (3.3%)
Total Voters:

Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: 2000 Vs XP  (Read 3067 times)
Teck Shark
Caffeine Fueled Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713

2


View Profile WWW
« on: March 08, 2002, 06:38:12 PM »

I know XP is brand new, but we are all IT gurus.  This is just a fun poll to see which OS is more popular right now.  I'm guessing 2000, but you just never know!!! Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Share your thoughts, intuitions, etc...
Logged

Tech Shark
MCSE 2000
MCSA 2000 Charter Member
A+, Net+


Words to Live by:
"No! Try not.  Do, or do not.  There is no try!"

Einstein's theory of relativity:
"Put your hands on a hot pan, a second can seem like an hour. Grab hold of a hot woman, an hour can seem like a second... it's all relative!"

Sound Advice:
"You shouldn't take life too seriously.  You'll never get out alive!"
freak
Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9021

2


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2002, 07:01:25 PM »

as I have expressed many a time when so prompted, I think that WXP is a better OS than W2K, but on the other hand, I think that the W2K test was a lot more fun than the WXP one!

Sounds like a politician's answer, I know, but it truly is what I think...
Logged

Freak, MA, M.Ed., Net+,I-Net+, Security+, CEH, CEI, CCA, CCNA, MCP+I, MCSA, MCSE NT, MCSE 2K, MCT

iCertify dot net
: Free Forum, quizzes, study guides...

FreakNotes.com: free subnetting, DHCP, Network Security study guides! Also 120-page Security+ book and 100+ page Network+ book!

InfoSecWeb.com
PotatoHead
You can call me Spud
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3206

2


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2002, 07:18:43 PM »

2k to me is much better, though I do like some of the XP additions
Logged

Peace Out
-=PotatoHead=-
     A+, CNA, MCP, MCSA, Net+
chodan
Senior Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1576

0


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2002, 09:29:17 PM »

I haven`t even used XP.
 From what I know of it, it is a redundant OS,
pretty much win2k with eye shadow and lipstick.
  plus a few extra features that will probably show up in a win2k service pack before to long.
Logged

Check out my music at
www.chodan.com
Rural Development in Eastern Ky.
www.centertech.com
 "It is our decisions that show us what we truly are in life, not our abilities."
cross36
Call me Cris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3444

2


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2002, 01:27:18 AM »

I like XP because of the GUI.
But my love falls for Windows2000 Professional. the best OS compared to everyone out there.
Logged

Riding the endless light of fortunes...

http://www.darkroads.com
necrophantasm
Senior Member
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372

0


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2002, 05:52:36 PM »

2K is the non fluff version of XP. Sure, XP has some nice new features, but I have found most of them to be geared towards home users. For business, 2k is a much better (and more efficient) OS in my opinion.
Logged
tlutz
Junior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7

0


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2002, 09:32:25 AM »

I know, I know, never spread a rumor...

XP is what 2K was supposed to be.

My personal preference in XP...
Logged
nitemanrdv
Junior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2

0


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2002, 11:58:19 AM »

I ran a test to find out which was faster. I gave 2000 and XP the same job and tried to determine which would give me the faster result. All things being equal, I discovered that 2000 performed the job faster (this test was conducted three different times with the same result. In hindsight, Xp just had too much unecessary garbage running in the background that hindered and slowed down the system.
Logged
Teck Shark
Caffeine Fueled Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713

2


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2002, 12:12:13 PM »

Looks like W2K Pro has a decent lead at this point!  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

This may sound like a political answer, but I really like both OSes.  W2K is still my first love, been running it since the first beta!  But XP has it's perks, mostly the fast boot process!   I also like the driver rollback, use that one a lot.  Don't care for the remote desktop feature, since we use PC Anywhere, and the built in firewall leaves much to be desired, although it's better than nothing I suppose.  

In case you were wondering why XP boots so much faster, I ran into this article:  
http://www.serverworldmagazine.com/monthly/2002/03/fastboot.shtml
Logged

Tech Shark
MCSE 2000
MCSA 2000 Charter Member
A+, Net+


Words to Live by:
"No! Try not.  Do, or do not.  There is no try!"

Einstein's theory of relativity:
"Put your hands on a hot pan, a second can seem like an hour. Grab hold of a hot woman, an hour can seem like a second... it's all relative!"

Sound Advice:
"You shouldn't take life too seriously.  You'll never get out alive!"
rykerabel
Junior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6

0


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2002, 01:44:26 AM »

Well, from a home user perspective, XP rocks.  I love installing games for may family and having them work the first time.  But, my Win2k never hung, crashed, or blue screened me, while XP does do these on occasion (though not too often).

Next, from a tech position.  Try installing a Wireless card for the home network with internet connection sharing for an ethernet card to a cable modem that falls back to a good old 56k modem while using the built in firewall.  He he he, talk about fun.  XP would not take any of my manual configurations, so I had to go through the ICS wizard for every setting.  What a pain.

So... XP rocks for games and a fancy GUI.  Win2k rocks for everything else(just add the optional terminal services and compatibility tools included on the CD).

Win2k wins for me Cheesy
Logged

Ryker Abel
ryker@ryker.com
www.ryker.com

The object-oriented model makes it easy to build up programs by accretion. What this often means, in practise, is that it provides a structured way to write spaghetti code. --Paul Graham
Deja-vue
Challenge Everything
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3254

2


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2002, 10:37:43 PM »

I have been running XP since the first Beta out and i am telling you,it is by far more stable.
It will run almost any Application, you throw at it,and has (almost) never Blue-screened on me.
Windows 2000,however,had Servicepack 1 out before the official Release of the OS.Still unstable,after patches and updates, it crawls along (i am referring to the Professional version,NOT Server)and Blue-screens once a Day somewhere on your Network!
For me: XP Professional is the Way to go.
By the Way: after the first Install of XP,you go to Windows-Update and find about 21 MB of Patches for the OS.
Sounds like a Servicepack to me.

Can't wait for .NET Server !!!
Logged

onoski
Determined IT Hussler
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 775

2


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2002, 04:15:50 AM »

I think both OSes are good in terms of functionality and operability, however my preference is for Win2k pro.  Just my preference as I truly believe it all boils down to preference at the end of the day. I would not really use the analogy that XP is better than Win2k pro or vice versal.
Logged

Are you still wondering if heaven or hell is real? Well it is and to avoid that Jesus christ is the way, please make the right choice and stop playing games with the devil. The world is messed up, just look around you.
Teck Shark
Caffeine Fueled Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713

2


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2002, 12:01:07 PM »

I use XP Pro mainly on my Laptop because it is a bit older (450mhz P2).  I had W2K Pro loaded on it prior & I can tell you XP is a lot faster.  But my main desktop PC is a monster (Just built it!) and that runs W2K Pro to absolute perfection.  I also run W2K Pro at work.  It is much more stable!  I've never received any BSOD's, lockups, etc.  I've also received very few application errors, but it closes it out & I can open it right back up with no problems.  Win XP seems to throw up a lot of stop errors, and other general errors.  It is still relatively stable though.  Usually happens when adding hardware, trying to run somewhat older applications, and even when upgrading.  Especially when doing upgrades from Win9x.  

But all in all it is a great OS, a bit faster than W2K, but far less stable(sadly).  Especially when adding CD-ROM drives (mainly DVD & CD Writers).  Boy can that make the XP OS Hiccup!
Logged

Tech Shark
MCSE 2000
MCSA 2000 Charter Member
A+, Net+


Words to Live by:
"No! Try not.  Do, or do not.  There is no try!"

Einstein's theory of relativity:
"Put your hands on a hot pan, a second can seem like an hour. Grab hold of a hot woman, an hour can seem like a second... it's all relative!"

Sound Advice:
"You shouldn't take life too seriously.  You'll never get out alive!"
tlutz
Junior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7

0


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2002, 12:16:35 PM »

I have not had any stability issues with XP.  Actually, I found in a production environment it has better memory management.  I should also say that I usually do not install any frills (eg. Messenger) for the users.  [Well, I do install the games for the travellers so they have something to do in they're downtime (stuck in airport).

I think both packages are stable because they both use the same underlying code.  It's some of the extra's (and assumptions) that I don't like about XP.

In the end, I'd still choose XP over 2K...
Logged
The VMS Kid
DecHead
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1009

2


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2002, 02:54:22 PM »

I don't see much difference except for the GUI.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!