Student License: Windows 2000 or XP?

Red Moose · 06-12-2001 02:58AM #1

OK the various pros and cons of both OSs have been discussed all over the net, but I am wondering whether to get Win2k or XP?

Both can be got for around £45 inc VAT from the UK with a Student license.

As for the Cd burning, Windows Media stuff, and just about everything XP seems to have "extra" I don't need (I rather Nero, WinAmp, my own choice of apps).

So in terms of actual usability/stability - are XP and 2k on an equal footing? Is XP just Win2k with bells and whistles such as those above that I can do without and not lose out?

In short so - what would I lose out on, besides the extra "integrated" apps and GUI - all of which can be replaced by better alternatives and would be straight away if I had XP - by going with Windows 2000?

Personally speaking I am siding with 2k because I hate teh notion of reactivating an OS or whatever at 4am if I am reinstalling, it's pissu and I don't like it - but is there something about XP I am missing that means it better to get as an upgrade from WIndows 98SE.

Loads of RAM and CPU so they're not an issue.

sceptre · 06-12-2001 07:40AM

I'd go with XP.

Why?
Because it's new and better in a "compatibility for games" sort of way.

You've no problem with PC specs -in any case it currently works fine on my p3-450 laptop, though I do need another 128meg stick.

The activation problem isn't an issue unless you really are trying to install it on more than one machine - unless you go upgrading components like crazy it'll activate itself over the net with no problems. (don't forget you have that 30days window all the time)

I still use Nero on XP because it is better

The compatibility thing really won me over though - not I can run Maya and Sega Rally on the one machine if I want to (as it happens I don't want to but you do get the stability and compatibility rolled into one package.

On the other hand:
Win2k is more likely to be faster unless you've got an ass-kicking spec (but boot times will be slower if that drives you nuts).

XP doesn't have driver support like Win2k yet (the lack of proper support for my SBLive is holding me back on switching the desktop) - might be an issue for you

flamegrill · 06-12-2001 08:35AM

I got windows XP a month back to test it on my machine, I installed it along side win2k and debian so i could always go back to what ever os i prefered. After a day or 2 of using Windows XP i found it to be less reliant than Windows 2000. Windows 2000 for me runs very stabaly and also with the added help of the "hibernate" mode, boot times are under 30 seconds. The only down side to this is hibernate doesnt always work, and ill have to power the machine off. that mite happen once a week, i can live with that. Also i found that any game i have will work fine on Windows 2000. Actually Colin Mc Rae2 only works on windows 2000 for me and wouldnt work on *cough* WinME *cough*

XP i found was quite bloated and despite the optimised boot code it still didnt load much faster than windows 2000 and it could never beet WinME. Also all this nice fancy built in software is probably cool and all, but i didnt use it at all. Actually to be honest after a day or 2 i found myself back in Windows 2000 and after about a week i just deleted Windows XP.

So in closing, id Say go for Windows 2000. As said previously Windows 2000 driver support is so far better than XP so if you have all the latest gadgets stick with windows 2000. i didnt have a prob with my SBLive! but i didnt really test it.

Go Windows 2000.

Red Moose · 06-12-2001 04:34PM

Hmmm...two totally different recommendations

lol!

I am going to go for WIn2k I think - gaming isn't much of a problem because all the latest stuff runs on 2k anyway according to the boxes, and I can keep 98 or 95 around on an old machine for old games (nice in theory to be able to use them in XP but I am thinking of the last time I loaded up some abandonware and it's been a while).

Thanks.

Stephen · 06-12-2001 07:47PM

I prefer windows 2000 myself. I've been running it for ages on my machine and its been solid as a rock. I tested windows XP for a week or so a little while ago, and I can't say I found it better. It looked to me like windows 2000 with a load of tacky, useless bells and whistles. Sure win2k takes longer to boot, but any OS takes ages to boot on my machine because the SCSI bios loaded before the OS takes ages by itself

I always used to hibernate the machine rather than shut it down fully, but I've started shutting it down fully since I got a TV card 2 weeks ago. Its nothing serious - the TV card image just gets garbled after restoring the machine from hibernation. Works fine after a proper boot.

Win2k plays most games bar some older ones, such as final fantasy VII (which is notoriously buggy anyway).

go win2k

Boston · 06-12-2001 09:11PM

as you know, windows Xp has its own burning software,

this can be a bitch, i havent been able to get it to work, and the paranoid me thinks that its the reason i cant install nero 5

Stonemason · 07-12-2001 05:53AM

Flamegrill xp pro has hibernate its just hidden all you do is go to shut down youll see 3 options log off/shutdown/and restart point at log off press shift and hey presto hibernate option appears

. Personaly i had 2k pro (not patched)and i found it more unstable than windows 98se so im happy with xp btw ive been using xp for the last couple of months and i havent had one crash and as many have said driver issues are far less on xp.The cherry on the cake for me was it spotted my unbranded 19" monitor as a hansol 910al which i knew put sure as hell never figure windows would spot

Stone:D

Student License: Windows 2000 or XP?

Comments