Dismiss Notice

Psst... Ready to join TalkBass and start posting, make new friends, sell your gear, and more?  Register your free account in 30 seconds.

windows xp pro or windows 2000

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by soundoholic, Dec 4, 2003.


  1. Windows XP Pro

    27 vote(s)
    77.1%
  2. Windows 2000

    8 vote(s)
    22.9%
  1. I'm going to buy a new OS for some computers that I will be networking for my house roommates cpu's and my cpu's. I have used 2000 and XP pro a lot but would like some of your opinions. I'm sure some of you are going to suggest that I get a Mac OS or run linux but I'm a windows guy. I enjoy being compatible.
     
  2. IME, XP sucks at networking.

    Work= Network with 2000 = Fast

    School(Work#2)= Network with XP = Slow as F
    It takes like 3-4 minutes to log on. It could be stupid administrators though.
     
  3. LiquidMidnight

    LiquidMidnight

    Dec 25, 2000
    Both are excellent OS's but I've never used XP in a Peer-to-Peer situation.
     
  4. I dunno, I'm running a network with XP and it takes care of itself.
     
  5. Eh, still could be the administrators.
     
  6. xp pro is nice,

    Dee, you're prolly right, it most likely is the admin.

    My house network (7 machines) is xp/linux. Setup was really easy, and security setup was a breeze.
     
  7. Josh Ryan

    Josh Ryan - that dog won't hunt, Monsignor. Staff Member Supporting Member

    Mar 24, 2001
    xp can be networked as easily as 2000. And you can play more games.
     
  8. JMX

    JMX Vorsprung durch Technik

    Sep 4, 2000
    Cologne, Germany
    XP Pro, hands down.
     
  9. embellisher

    embellisher Holy Ghost filled Bass Player Staff Member Supporting Member

    For me, 2K. I have had both loaded on my machine at home. Never had a problem with 2K. XP crashed all the time. I tried a format reload twice, and finally went back to 2K. All of the problems went away. And yes, I had the correct drivers for all of the hardware. My wife had the same problems with her PC. After 3 format reloads, she went back to 2K. No problems since.
     
  10. JayAmel

    JayAmel Moderator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Mar 3, 2002
    Aurillac, France
    My two PC's are under XP Pro. Very reliable, and no problem on networking.

    (I also have an iMac with OS X, but shhhhh.....)
     
  11. Marley's Ghost

    Marley's Ghost Gold Supporting Member

    Feb 9, 2002
    Tampa, FL
    XP pro is geared towards the HAN (home area network)and personal use, 2000 is much more of a corporate os, imo.
     
  12. What you smoking? I mean, honestly Windows is probably one of the worst products out there in the operating system market. For example, MacOS is much more stable and is easier to use. Linux is more stable and free, but less user friendly. The only thing windows has going for it is compatibility, for pretty much every game, but that's about it.
     
  13. JMX

    JMX Vorsprung durch Technik

    Sep 4, 2000
    Cologne, Germany
    It takes so long because XP waits that your network card is given an IP number.

    Assign it a fixed IP, e.g. 169.254.208.255 and it'll boot a lot faster.
     
  14. unharmed

    unharmed Iron Fishes

    May 19, 2003
    London, England
    I suspect not actually. What you are referring to is DHCP or the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. It is an extension of BootP (Bootstrap Protocol) and it automagically assigns IP addresses (plus a whole lot of other stuff) to remote workstations so your administrator doesn't have to statically configure them. DHCP is a standard part of the TCP/IP stack. Win2K and XP Pro can both use it. If your network has more than 5 or so machines then I'll wager that you are almost definitely making use of it. I doubt it's responsible for your slow boot times though. An average DHCP transaction with a server on a local segment would be measured in milliseconds.

    Wow. Holy long-winded response. Sorry guys.
     
  15. LiquidMidnight

    LiquidMidnight

    Dec 25, 2000
    :rolleyes:

    First off, don't be such a smart ass. Last time I checked, I have worked in the IT industry. So I think that qualifies me for being able to make lucid decisions on what OS to use. I have no idea if you have ever been in the computer industry, but with ad hominem remarks such as "What are you smoking", I'm not going to take you seriously.

    Second, I agree that Mac's are easier to use, but their cost and difficulty to upgrade doesn't make them attractive for every single solution. Linux is good, but I doubt I would use Linux as a workstation unless the users were familiar with the Linux system. Of course, you could train the users, but that would cost the company more money. Again, coming to a solution with a company is comprimise.

    Again, I've used 2000 and XP extensively and have had great success with both. (though I'd like to smack who ever came up with "Active Directory")

    BTW: I'm not pro or against any OS. I believe in using the OS that provides the best solution.
     
  16. Josh Ryan

    Josh Ryan - that dog won't hunt, Monsignor. Staff Member Supporting Member

    Mar 24, 2001
    Hi, welcome to the present, windows works fine now.

    As Liquidmidnight said, each OS has it's pro's and con's, choose the best fit for your situation. There is no OS that is so much better or worse than the others that it's always or never the choice given a particular situation.
     
  17. i triple boot with xp pro, win 2k, and mandrake linux.

    xp is the way to go. there is no fuss. i dont know what you guys are talking about. xp is easy, its as stable as 2k, and a lot more advanced. xp pro has many, many more networking features than home edition. i would go with xp pro hands down, unless youre hosting something, such as a web server.
     
  18. Dream Works

    Dream Works

    Dec 5, 2003
    Toronto
    Ugh! They both are horrible!
    After one month of using xp, I couldn't download stuff, and I can't play any of my online games!

    But really, I really depends on situation.

    For work it should be xp PROFESSIONAL (hence professional)
    But for house, just use 98 and get a good networking program(I suggest sygate).
    Because you are at home, this is your PC, your prolly going to be download stuff and playing games.
     
  19. Josh Ryan

    Josh Ryan - that dog won't hunt, Monsignor. Staff Member Supporting Member

    Mar 24, 2001

    -You guys saying XP pro crashes, doesn't work etc.



    pebcak

    no offense. ;) :D
     
  20. nonsqtr

    nonsqtr The emperor has no clothes!

    Aug 29, 2003
    Burbank CA USA
    We need more information here. Is the networking aspect the primary way the computer will be used, or what else will it be used for? If it's for music, for example, like digital recording, the answer might go one way. But if it's for general purpose use the answer might go another way. If it's just for networking and games, my feeling is one OS is as good as another, take your pick. In that case the bundled applications and games may be more important to you than the operating system itself. I'm not sure any operating system (Win, Mac, Unix) is better or worse than any other. My experience has been, they ALL crash. They're ALL horribly unreliable. That's why we take daily backups. In my personal experience with home computing, I use Win2K exclusively, I find it to be the most reliable Windows operating system I've ever used (and I've used 'em all). I would definitely stay away from '95, '98, and especially ME. I shied away from XP initially because of all the MS-propaganda that comes with it, but I'd probably get over that if I had a specific need for XP (which thankfully I don't at this point). Whichever OS you choose, I would make sure that a good Internet security suite is available for it (firewall, antivirus, etc). There are some good things to check out "ahead of time" so you don't have to live with the consequences.