I know that both Win XP and Win 2000 Pro use NTFS. Yet both of these
O/Ses seem to have very few differences, and both lack important
features (for example comparing two files). So, how does one justify
upgrading to WinXP from Win 2000 Pro? I have yet to find an
application that won't run on Win 2000.

Ease of use XP, added ability xp (burn to cd) not native to 2k, more built in
drivers.
etc etc etc

"Phisherman" wrote:

> I know that both Win XP and Win 2000 Pro use NTFS. Yet both of these
> O/Ses seem to have very few differences, and both lack important
> features (for example comparing two files). So, how does one justify
> upgrading to WinXP from Win 2000 Pro? I have yet to find an
> application that won't run on Win 2000.
>

Phisherman wrote:
> I know that both Win XP and Win 2000 Pro use NTFS. Yet both of these
> O/Ses seem to have very few differences, and both lack important
> features (for example comparing two files). So, how does one justify
> upgrading to WinXP from Win 2000 Pro? I have yet to find an
> application that won't run on Win 2000.

Built-in firewall (turned on by default in SP2 version).
You can have IE7 and Windows Media Player 11, if you want them.
Boots much faster than Win2k.
The default themes are prettier (if you care).
Two kinds of Start Menu to choose from.
Grouping of taskbar buttons, which helps avoid clutter, especially if
you often have a dozen or so open windows. I do this all the time at
work; less so at home.
System tray icons are automatically hidden when inactive, which frees up
space on your taskbar.

sgopus wrote:
> Ease of use XP, added ability xp (burn to cd) not native to 2k, more built in
> drivers.
> etc etc etc
>
> "Phisherman" wrote:
>
>> I know that both Win XP and Win 2000 Pro use NTFS. Yet both of these
>> O/Ses seem to have very few differences, and both lack important
>> features (for example comparing two files). So, how does one justify
>> upgrading to WinXP from Win 2000 Pro? I have yet to find an
>> application that won't run on Win 2000.


XP is easier to use in many ways and more drivers are a big help but the
burn capability is of very limited use. No doubt if you have a CD/DVD
burner you jumped that hurdle long ago. One plus is that XP will be
supported with updates for a considerably longer period of time.

But in the end if W2K serves your purposes for now why spend the bucks?
After all a new comp will eventually be needed and Vista (not XP) is the
new guy on MS's block. I would let the Vista thing shake itself out as
it doesn't look all that tasty right now.

John

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...

> I know that both Win XP and Win 2000 Pro use NTFS. Yet both of these
> O/Ses seem to have very few differences, and both lack important
> features (for example comparing two files). So, how does one justify
> upgrading to WinXP from Win 2000 Pro? I have yet to find an
> application that won't run on Win 2000.
>

In all honesty you should also ask this question in the win2000 group, I
think you would getter a better view also from the opposite side and not
a side that would favor XP.....In my experience with the 2 OS's I'd say
it all depends on what you need it for. Sure, if basic email, surfing
the web, new browser, media player (whoooopeeee) and silly looking
desktops is what you think is important than the eye candy is there in
XP. I for one am not impressed with its cd burning or built in Firewall
& driver database.
To a very average user this may all be impressive in XP and I don't
knock it but to establish a real comparison I think the level of your
windows experience & usage should also be noted. I for one still use
Win2K Pro & find it **rock** solid in all areas I use it for. Relience
on 3rd party software is heavy in my arena of use & so far everything I
have thrown at Win2K works exceptionally well, my XP install on the
otherhand had a meltdown & I have no time for stupid searching of fix
solutions. Win2K has rarely, if ever, given me any trouble in the
stability department and I run the latest softwares & hardware and build
my own machines....

Anotherwords, to each his own.

GateKeeper wrote:
> Phisherman wrote:
>> I know that both Win XP and Win 2000 Pro use NTFS. Yet both of these
>> O/Ses seem to have very few differences, and both lack important
>> features (for example comparing two files). So, how does one justify
>> upgrading to WinXP from Win 2000 Pro? I have yet to find an
>> application that won't run on Win 2000.
>
> Built-in firewall (turned on by default in SP2 version).
> You can have IE7 and Windows Media Player 11, if you want them.
> Boots much faster than Win2k.
> The default themes are prettier (if you care).
> Two kinds of Start Menu to choose from.
> Grouping of taskbar buttons, which helps avoid clutter, especially if
> you often have a dozen or so open windows. I do this all the time at
> work; less so at home.
> System tray icons are automatically hidden when inactive, which frees up
> space on your taskbar.


True but W2K shuts down a zillion times faster than XP and generally on
older slower hardware ... go figure? At this late date you probably know
your way around W2K very well. If there is some application that you
need that doesn't run on W2K then go for an OEM XP deal if you really
need it but don't jump for glitz as there isn't much, and ease of use is
in the eye (or expertise) of the user. I use XP pro at home and W2K pro
at work. They both have their strong points and I would say each is
ideally suited to my current usage.

As for new stuff I intend to wait for Vista to take a form worth
investing in or look elsewhere.

John