Win2K or WinXP?

[Victor]

I need to upgrade a business computer from Win98SE. I'd like to think that
Windows 2000 is the best way to go, but Microsoft's website seems to be
treating it like yesterday's news and is touting WinXP.

Amongst other things, I need something with an Administrator access normal
access so that I can restrict access to files.

Any advice?

Victor

 

[David H. Lipman]

WinXP SP2 -- However don't perform an insitu upgrade. Perform a clean upgrade to WinXP SP2.

--
Dave




| I need to upgrade a business computer from Win98SE. I'd like to think that
| Windows 2000 is the best way to go, but Microsoft's website seems to be
| treating it like yesterday's news and is touting WinXP.
|
| Amongst other things, I need something with an Administrator access normal
| access so that I can restrict access to files.
|
| Any advice?
|
| Victor
|
|

 

[Victor]

So, if I'm an advanced computer user, what does your advice say about
Windows 2000?

I'm presently browsing the net looking for a good comparison of Win2K vs.
WinXP SP2.

 

[Ken B]

2000 is scheduled to reach the end of it's 'supported life' at the end of
the year, I believe. Best to go with XP if you are looking for the
long-run. That, and the pretty colors most users are dazzled by. (Note,
I'm not trying to imply you're a common user)

:link plink::

Ken

 

[Victor]

http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/3076

InfoWorld: WinXP much slower than Win2K

InfoWorld has taken a long look at Microsoft's XP (both the OS and Office),
from a business standpoint. (Thanks to missense for the tip.) They asked,
"How fast is the new software compared to the previous generation?" and paid
particular attention to multitasking. And they made graphs.

They didn't like what they found. WinXP ran much slower than Windows 2000,
even when they turned off much of the eye candy on both (the default XP
interface is a bit processor-hungry all by itself, and even W2K's will chew
through some cycles):

Our tests of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000
demonstrated that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows
2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario,
our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as
did the Windows 2000 client...
Except for a few instances, Windows XP increasingly ate the dust of Windows
2000 as load ramped up, regardless of machine specs or Office version...

Overall we are quite disappointed with Windows XP's ability to pull serious
weight when compared to Windows 2000.

They paired Office in both generations with the OSes and it got even worse:

Finally, our cross-generational testing, which measured the performance of
Windows XP and Office XP directly against that of Windows 2000 and Office
2000, found that once again, newer means slower. In every one of our
scenarios the combination of Windows XP and Office XP took noticeably
longer-from 35 percent to 68 percent longer-to complete the script than
Windows 2000 and Office 2000.

 

[David H. Lipman]

So ?

Win2K was slower than Win95 which was lower than Win3.1x

As Ken indicated, Win2K is reaching its EoL.
No more Service Packs will be issued (at best a Security Rollup is expected).

BTW: I am posting this on a Win2K SP4 platform.

--
Dave




| http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/3076
|
| InfoWorld: WinXP much slower than Win2K
|
| InfoWorld has taken a long look at Microsoft's XP (both the OS and Office),
| from a business standpoint. (Thanks to missense for the tip.) They asked,
| "How fast is the new software compared to the previous generation?" and paid
| particular attention to multitasking. And they made graphs.
|
| They didn't like what they found. WinXP ran much slower than Windows 2000,
| even when they turned off much of the eye candy on both (the default XP
| interface is a bit processor-hungry all by itself, and even W2K's will chew
| through some cycles):
|
| Our tests of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000
| demonstrated that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows
| 2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario,
| our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as
| did the Windows 2000 client...
| Except for a few instances, Windows XP increasingly ate the dust of Windows
| 2000 as load ramped up, regardless of machine specs or Office version...
|
| Overall we are quite disappointed with Windows XP's ability to pull serious
| weight when compared to Windows 2000.
|
| They paired Office in both generations with the OSes and it got even worse:
|
| Finally, our cross-generational testing, which measured the performance of
| Windows XP and Office XP directly against that of Windows 2000 and Office
| 2000, found that once again, newer means slower. In every one of our
| scenarios the combination of Windows XP and Office XP took noticeably
| longer-from 35 percent to 68 percent longer-to complete the script than
| Windows 2000 and Office 2000.
|
|
|
| | > So, if I'm an advanced computer user, what does your advice say about
| > Windows 2000?
| >
| > I'm presently browsing the net looking for a good comparison of Win2K vs.
| > WinXP SP2.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | > > WinXP SP2 -- However don't perform an insitu upgrade. Perform a clean
| > upgrade to WinXP SP2.
| > >
| > > --
| > > Dave
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > | > > | I need to upgrade a business computer from Win98SE. I'd like to think
| > that
| > > | Windows 2000 is the best way to go, but Microsoft's website seems to
| be
| > > | treating it like yesterday's news and is touting WinXP.
| > > |
| > > | Amongst other things, I need something with an Administrator access
| > normal
| > > | access so that I can restrict access to files.
| > > |
| > > | Any advice?
| > > |
| > > | Victor
| > > |
| > > |
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|

 

[Victor]

So ?

Win2K was slower than Win95 which was lower than Win3.1x

Aren't you're referencing OSs that had significant advantages over the
previous in terms of PRODUCTIVITY?

I went from Win3.1 to Win95 because I needed the 32-bit apps. I upgraded
from Win95 to Win98SE because I needed the larger disk access and Office
2000.

For a working man, where multimedia is not important, WinXP seems to have no
working advantages over Win2K, does it?

I don't need the "pretty colors most users are dazzled by".

As Ken indicated, Win2K is reaching its EoL.
No more Service Packs will be issued (at best a Security Rollup is

expected).

So? End of Life doesn't mean the OS is no longer servicable, does it?

As far as security, there's a firewall, anti-spyware, and anti-virus. This
hasn't hampered the present Win98SE system.

Performance and efficiency is more important than eye candy.

 

[John John]

Regardless of what others say just make sure that the pc has the guts to
run XP properly. With a w/98 era pc's that can be a bit iffy at times.
You won't be a happy camper if your XP runs like molasses in January
on that 6-7 year old pc. A new pc may also be in order...

Windows XP Upgrade Advisor
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/advisor.mspx

Windows XP Professional Upgrade Center
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/default.mspx

John

 

[Victor]

I'm running a ThinkPad 600X laptop. It's got a terrific form factor -
probably the best of any laptop I've seen since. So, a P3/650MHz with 576M
RAM is more than fast enough for me.

The only reason I don't upgrade is that I can't find another laptop that
squeezes in so many INTERNAL options in such a small size. It's utility is
just amazing.

 

[David H. Lipman]

I have installed WinXP SP2 on IBM 600e w/o any problems, just that it was slow.

--
Dave




| I'm running a ThinkPad 600X laptop. It's got a terrific form factor -
| probably the best of any laptop I've seen since. So, a P3/650MHz with 576M
| RAM is more than fast enough for me.
|
| The only reason I don't upgrade is that I can't find another laptop that
| squeezes in so many INTERNAL options in such a small size. It's utility is
| just amazing.
|
|
|
| | > Regardless of what others say just make sure that the pc has the guts to
| > run XP properly. With a w/98 era pc's that can be a bit iffy at times.
| > You won't be a happy camper if your XP runs like molasses in January
| > on that 6-7 year old pc. A new pc may also be in order...
| >
| > Windows XP Upgrade Advisor
| > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/advisor.mspx
| >
| > Windows XP Professional Upgrade Center
| > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/default.mspx
| >
| > John
| >
| > Victor wrote:
| >
| > > I need to upgrade a business computer from Win98SE. I'd like to think
| that
| > > Windows 2000 is the best way to go, but Microsoft's website seems to be
| > > treating it like yesterday's news and is touting WinXP.
| > >
| > > Amongst other things, I need something with an Administrator access
| normal
| > > access so that I can restrict access to files.
| > >
| > > Any advice?
| > >
| > > Victor
| > >
| > >
|
|

 

[John John]

Then check to make sure that XP drivers are available for the laptop
hardware.

John

 

[GO]

Win2k and WinXP are virtually identical (imo). XP offers a prettier
interface (you can revert to the classic interface if desired) and a few
more bells and whistles. I am running both here at home and still much
prefer Win2k, but I think that's only because there is so much more
tinkering involved to disable/remove all of XP's excess "junk". But as
others have already mentioned, Win2k is reaching it's end of life, so if
updates are important to you then it is something to consider.


Greg

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I need to upgrade a business computer from Win98SE. I'd like to think that
Windows 2000 is the best way to go, but Microsoft's website seems to be
treating it like yesterday's news and is touting WinXP.

Win2K is 5 years old. Translated into a human time span, that's 2½
generations. Further, Win2K is approaching its end-of-life:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

For this reason, and quite a few others, if the PC is capable of
supporting it, WinXP is the better choice.

Compare Windows XP Professional to Prior Versions of Windows
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsXP/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/compare.asp

Amongst other things, I need something with an Administrator access normal
access so that I can restrict access to files.

Have you made sure that your PC's hardware components are capable
of supporting Win2K and/or WinXP? This information will be found at the
PC's manufacturer's web site, and on Microsoft's Windows Catalog:
(http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx) Additionally, run
Microsoft WinXP Upgrade Advisor to see if you have any incompatible
hardware components or applications.

You should, before proceeding, take a few minutes to ensure that
there are Win2K/WinXP device drivers available for all of the machine's
components. There may not be, if the PC was specifically designed for
Win98/Me. Also bear in mind that PCs designed for, sold and run fine
with Win9x/Me very often do not meet Win2K/WinXP's much more stringent
hardware quality requirements. This is particularly true of many models
in Compaq's consumer-class Presario product line or HP's consumer-class
Pavilion product line. WinXP, like WinNT and Win2K before it, is quite
sensitive to borderline defective or substandard hardware (particularly
motherboards, RAM and hard drives) that will still support Win9x.

HOW TO Prepare to Upgrade Win98 or WinMe
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q316639

Upgrading to Windows XP
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpupgrad.htm


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Victor]

I have installed WinXP SP2 on IBM 600e w/o any problems, just that it was slow.

Thanks, Dave!

 

[Victor]

Win2K is 5 years old. Translated into a human time span, that's 2½
generations. Further, Win2K is approaching its end-of-life:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

So what?

For this reason, and quite a few others, if the PC is capable of
supporting it, WinXP is the better choice.

It's a much worse choice if Windows XP is much, much slower than Windows
2000, especially if those "quite a few others" reasons don't matter to me.

Compare Windows XP Professional to Prior Versions of Windows
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsXP/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/compare.asp

C'mon, have you ever known Microsoft to tell you "stick with the previous
version, it's faster"? They even stuck by Windows ME, and that just sucked!
Please don't expect me to find an unbiased opinion on Microsoft's website.

I found this:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/featurecomp.mspx

and XP doesn't have any additional features I can't get with 2000 and a good
firewall. The matrix has silly features like "increased application
compatibility". And some of the entries are just wrong.

 

[nobody]

Win2k and WinXP are virtually identical (imo). XP offers a prettier
interface (you can revert to the classic interface if desired) and a few
more bells and whistles. I am running both here at home and still much
prefer Win2k, but I think that's only because there is so much more
tinkering involved to disable/remove all of XP's excess "junk". But as
others have already mentioned, Win2k is reaching it's end of life, so if
updates are important to you then it is something to consider.

When is MS planning on stopping the updates? AFAIR they had extended
the W98 support, so I wouldn't be surprised if they do so for W2K too.

 

[John John]

For business software the support is usually 10 years, 5 years main
support and 5 years extended support, extended support is for security
updates only, see:

Microsoft Support Lifecycle Policy FAQ
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy

Product Lifecycle Dates - Windows Product Family
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[ln];LifeWin

John

 

[Lars]

I'm running a ThinkPad 600X laptop. It's got a terrific form factor -
probably the best of any laptop I've seen since. So, a P3/650MHz with 576M
RAM is more than fast enough for me.

W2K runs *very* well on a 600X with maxed memory and a
fast HD. On installation you'd almost think that they were
built for each other.

XP is slow and ugly and treats you like an idiot. It is an
offence to a fine machine like the 600x to put XP on it.


Lars
Stockholm

 

[David H. Lipman]

| On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:28:07 -0500, "Victor"
|
| W2K runs *very* well on a 600X with maxed memory and a
| fast HD. On installation you'd almost think that they were
| built for each other.
|
| XP is slow and ugly and treats you like an idiot. It is an
| offence to a fine machine like the 600x to put XP on it.
|
|
| Lars
| Stockholm



I disagree with you. If WinXP SP2 runs well on a 600e which is a PII 400MHz NB, then it
will run just great on the 600x. Just like WinXP SP2 on; A21m, A22m which I installed and
had no probplems and is was not slow and not "ugly" as you put it.

I should add that prior to installing WinXP SP2 it would be a good idea to upgrade the 600x
NB BIOS.

 

[Victor]

When is MS planning on stopping the updates? AFAIR they had extended
the W98 support, so I wouldn't be surprised if they do so for W2K too.

I'm still getting IE6 updates for Win98SE, so I'm not concerned about Win2K.
As long as you've got a good firewall, antivirus, and anti-spyware, you
really shouldn't be concerned. Because if after five years of updates
someone is frightened by End of Life, then you can't think too highly about
Microsoft, can you?