Windows 2000 vs. XP Home Edition ?

[Crazy Horse]

previous post attempt failed - may be a double-post - if so, sorry

---------------------------------

Geez, I hate when I do this... but I think I've just made an fool of
myself in a discussion with a friend...

I was insisting that Windows 2000 came out in two flavors for client
workstations: Professional and Home edition; he contends that there is
(and always has been) only one version: Professional. Having just
looked at Microsoft's website:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx it appears that I
was mistaken and my friend was correct. I find this particularly
disconcerting (and embarrassing) since I (unlike my friendB9) have a
background in I/T and was so confident in the truth of my conviction.

This discussion came about in the following context: I had mentioned
that I recently wiped WinXP-Home off of my new laptop in favor of
installing Windows 2000 Professional. My impression is that *he* seemed
to think that doing this amounted to downgrading my operating system. And
of course, my intent was to *upgrade* the quality of my OS.

Well, for the moment anyway, I no longer feel the strength of my
convictions on the answer to this question: which is the "better"
operating system -- Windows 2000 Professional -or- Windows XP Home
Edition? Therefore, I thought I'd consult a newsgroup whose members
could provide an authoritative response.

So... what say you? Which *is* the "better" operating system?

NOTE: for the purpose of this discussion, I'd like to define "better" in
terms of basic technical attributes and *not* in terms of (what I would
consider to be) more superficial attributes such as cosmetic appearance
or ease-of-use characteristics. I'm more concerned with things like
robustness of technical features and capabilities, reliability and
stability, etc. In other words, which is "better" from the perspective
of a someone with an I/T background vs. a typical, non-technical end-
user?
_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
________________________
1. My friend is a lawyer... and, as we all know, *they* are always
confident about everything! ;-)

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

previous post attempt failed - may be a double-post - if so, sorry

---------------------------------

Geez, I hate when I do this... but I think I've just made an fool of
myself in a discussion with a friend...

I was insisting that Windows 2000 came out in two flavors for client
workstations: Professional and Home edition; he contends that there
is (and always has been) only one version: Professional. Having just
looked at Microsoft's website:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx it appears
that I was mistaken and my friend was correct. I find this
particularly disconcerting (and embarrassing) since I (unlike my
friendB9) have a background in I/T and was so confident in the truth
of my conviction.

Well, we all get egg on our faces sometime.

This discussion came about in the following context: I had mentioned
that I recently wiped WinXP-Home off of my new laptop in favor of
installing Windows 2000 Professional. My impression is that *he*
seemed to think that doing this amounted to downgrading my operating
system. And of course, my intent was to *upgrade* the quality of my
OS.

You did downgrade - to an earlier version of Windows.

Well, for the moment anyway, I no longer feel the strength of my
convictions on the answer to this question: which is the "better"
operating system -- Windows 2000 Professional -or- Windows XP Home
Edition? Therefore, I thought I'd consult a newsgroup whose members
could provide an authoritative response.

So... what say you? Which *is* the "better" operating system?

You can use either one - "best" really depends on what you need, or like.
You can turn off the XP "Fisher Price" (aka Teletubbies) interface & use
classic mode for display - looks & tastes nearly like W2k then.

Most (not all) of the differences are cosmetic. WinXP is built on the same
kernel as W2k. XP has better built in support for graphics files, wireless
networking, etc - and has a firewall. I prefer XP for a lot of reasons (but
I use XP Pro, not Home, as Home is somewhat crippled & doesn't suit my
purposes - it can't join a domain, for one, and doesn't have remote desktop,
for another).

NOTE: for the purpose of this discussion, I'd like to define
"better" in terms of basic technical attributes and *not* in terms of
(what I would consider to be) more superficial attributes such as
cosmetic appearance or ease-of-use characteristics. I'm more
concerned with things like robustness of technical features and
capabilities, reliability and stability, etc. In other words, which
is "better" from the perspective of a someone with an I/T background
vs. a typical, non-technical end- user?
_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
________________________
1. My friend is a lawyer... and, as we all know, *they* are always
confident about everything! ;-)

Well, so were you, it seems. ;-)

 

[Crazy Horse]

LW-

Thanks for your quick reply.

So... what say you? Which *is* the "better" operating system?

You can use either one - "[better]" really depends on what you
need, or like.

------------------------------
Not meaning to put too fine a point on it... but...
I'd like to define "better" in terms of basic technical attributes and
*not* in terms of (what I would consider to be) more superficial
attributes such as cosmetic appearance or ease-of-use characteristics.
I'm more concerned with things like robustness of technical features and
capabilities, reliability and stability, etc.

XP has better built in support for graphics files, wireless
networking, etc - and has a firewall.

------------------------------
But one can get equivalent functionality via add-on software, right?

I prefer XP for a lot of reasons (but
I use XP Pro, not Home, as Home is somewhat crippled & doesn't suit my
purposes - it can't join a domain, for one, and doesn't have remote desktop,
for another).

------------------------------
Is XP-Home "crippled" in these same ways relative to 2k-Pro? I know, for
example, 2k-Pro can join a domain; does 2k-Pro also support remote
desktop?

If my overriding concern is for basic stability and reliability, which
would you say is better -- 2k-Pro or XP-Home? Or are they equivalent in
terms of these characteristics?

Thanks again for your feedback.
_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

LW-

Thanks for your quick reply.

So... what say you? Which *is* the "better" operating system?

You can use either one - "[better]" really depends on what you
need, or like.

A Dickens fan, eh?

but...
I'd like to define "better" in terms of basic technical attributes and
*not* in terms of (what I would consider to be) more superficial
attributes such as cosmetic appearance or ease-of-use characteristics.
I'm more concerned with things like robustness of technical features
and capabilities, reliability and stability, etc.

That's what I'm saying - they really aren't much different in that regard.
Built on the same kernel, for all intents and purposes.
Nope - only WinXP Pro (or a server OS) can act as a remote desktop host
without third party software.

If my overriding concern is for basic stability and reliability, which
would you say is better -- 2k-Pro or XP-Home? Or are they equivalent
in terms of these characteristics?

Just for stability/reliability - doesn't really matter. Keep your OS patched
via Windows Update no matter which you choose. Note that W2k is going to hit
"end of life" before WXP does, but that won't be for a while yet. I'm
sticking with WinXP Pro on all my computers....

 

[Jason Hall [MSFT]]

--------------------

From: Crazy Horse <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 vs. XP Home Edition ?
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:21:45 -0400

LW-
Thanks for your quick reply.

So... what say you? Which *is* the "better" operating system?

You can use either one - "[better]" really depends on what you
need, or like.

------------------------------
Not meaning to put too fine a point on it... but...
I'd like to define "better" in terms of basic technical attributes and
*not* in terms of (what I would consider to be) more superficial
attributes such as cosmetic appearance or ease-of-use characteristics.
I'm more concerned with things like robustness of technical features and
capabilities, reliability and stability, etc.

XP has better built in support for graphics files, wireless
networking, etc - and has a firewall.

------------------------------
But one can get equivalent functionality via add-on software, right?

I prefer XP for a lot of reasons (but
I use XP Pro, not Home, as Home is somewhat crippled & doesn't suit my
purposes - it can't join a domain, for one, and doesn't have remote desktop,
for another).

------------------------------
Is XP-Home "crippled" in these same ways relative to 2k-Pro? I know, for
example, 2k-Pro can join a domain; does 2k-Pro also support remote
desktop?
If my overriding concern is for basic stability and reliability, which
would you say is better -- 2k-Pro or XP-Home? Or are they equivalent in
terms of these characteristics?
Thanks again for your feedback.
_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯

If I may.....
Windows 2K Pro does NOT have support for "remote desktop", this is a
feature new to XP Pro

In terms of basic stability and reliability, I have the following
components.....
- XP is build on the same "rock-solid" NT kernel that 2K is built-on, any
"instability" or "unreliability" that is new to XP is only present due to
all the amazing new features that have been included.
- Don't forget, with the soon-to-com release of XP SP2, you will have the
benefit of all the hotfixes that have been created to maximize the
stability and reliability of the OS.
- So, overall, I would say the XP is the "best", given it balance of new
features and increased stability....and will only get better


--
~~ JASON HALL ~~
~ Performance Support Specialist,
~ Microsoft Enterprise Platforms Support
~ This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
~ Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
~ Note: For the benefit of the community-at-large, all responses to this
message are best directed to the newsgroup/thread from which they
originated.

 

[Crazy Horse]

LW-

Thanks again for the quick reply...

A Dickens fan, eh?

------------------------------
Yes, but didn't really know about the literary connection. I think I
should have left out the word, "meaning"! ;-)

That's what I'm saying - they really aren't much different in that regard..
Built on the same kernel, for all intents and purposes.

------------------------------
I guess I was under the mistaken impression that XP-Home had inherited
some nasty attributes from Millennium Edition in additon to the good
attributes from W2k.

Nope - only WinXP Pro (or a server OS) can act as a remote desktop host
without third party software.

Just for stability/reliability - doesn't really matter.

------------------------------
So, it sounds like you're saying that aside from LAN-domain-related
considerations, there's no good reason to opt for 2k-Pro over XP-Home;
while conversely, there are plenty of (albeit, perhaps mostly
convenience-related) reasons to opt for XP-Home over 2k-Pro. Is this
what you're saying? Note that my interest in your answer is more than
academic, since I have licensed CD's for both OS's and have my choice as
to which to install.

Thanks again for all your help.
_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Crazy Horse]

Jason-

Thanks for your quick reply.

If I may.....
Windows 2K Pro does NOT have support for "remote desktop", this is a
feature new to XP Pro

--------------------------
Well, if there's any confusion here, it's probably my fault... but I
don't think anyone was saying that W2k has built-in remote desktop
support. Still, I'm assuming that W2k *would* support the installation
of 3rd-party software that would provide remote desktop capability.
Would you agree?

In terms of basic stability and reliability, I have the following
components.....
XP is build on the same "rock-solid" NT kernel that 2K is built-on, any
"instability" or "unreliability" that is new to XP is only present due to
all the amazing new features that have been included.

--------------------------
As I'm still trying to decide which OS to install, if you have the time,
would you be able to mention which of XP's "amazing new features" you
find most useful?

Don't forget, with the soon-to-com release of XP SP2, you will have the
benefit of all the hotfixes that have been created to maximize the
stability and reliability of the OS.

--------------------------
Does anyone know *how soon* XP SP2 will become available?

So, overall, I would say the XP is the "best", given it balance of new
features and increased stability....and will only get better

--------------------------
Until it's sunsetted in favor of Longhorn! ;-)

Thanks again for your help. I do appreciate it.
_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

LW-

Thanks again for the quick reply...

So many "useless liberal-arts degrees" in the world of IT...sigh. Of course
I have one myself.
Oh no, lordy, no. ME is 9x trying to act like XP. ME stinks. XP has some of
the same features - system restore, etc., but it's not based on DOS, which
ME, 9x are.

------------------------------
So, it sounds like you're saying that aside from LAN-domain-related
considerations, there's no good reason to opt for 2k-Pro over XP-Home;
while conversely, there are plenty of (albeit, perhaps mostly
convenience-related) reasons to opt for XP-Home over 2k-Pro. Is this
what you're saying? Note that my interest in your answer is more than
academic, since I have licensed CD's for both OS's and have my choice
as to which to install.

I'd say, go for XP if your hardware will support it. If you don't need to
join a domain or use offline files, or remote desktop, Home should be fine.
As I said, you can turn off the annoying, shiny, colorful, juvenile XP
interface and use Windows Classic.

Thanks again for all your help.

No prob - hope it was of some use.

 

[Farouk Dindar]

If you have time (at some point) and felt like elaborating a bit on why
"Product activation is another major issue" I'd be interested in hearing
more.

My home computer is half play and half work.

I have been trying various imaging programs and recently updated
my motherboard. I really have no desire to call Microsoft when I make
hardware changes.

Farouk

 

[Torgeir Bakken \(MVP\)]

Hi

Nobody knows for sure yet (not even Microsoft), but my
guess is August.


Another thing about the difference for Win2k and WinXP Home:

If you at any point wants to install IIS, you will not be able
to do that on WinXP Home...

 

[Crazy Horse]

Torgeir-

Thanks for your reply.

Nobody knows for sure yet (not even Microsoft), but my
guess is August.

---------------------------
Thanks... that's worth "knowing"... or at least hoping for.

Another thing about the difference for Win2k and WinXP Home:
If you at any point wants to install IIS, you will not be able
to do that on WinXP Home...

---------------------------
Thanks. The chances of me needing/wanting to do this are low for the
foreseeable future, but I have another question regarding the registry
which I'll post in m.p.w2k.registry.

Thanks again for your help.
_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Farouk Dindar]

One advantage to me is that that a installation of Win2k
occupies about 800 megs and WinXP about 1.5 gig

Backups of the whole system which I do with Acronis
would take twice the time of XP

Product activation is another major issues.

I have paid for 2 copies of Home XP with 2 note books
and XP professional with a lab equipment. I have replaced
all of them with Win 2k.

Farouk Dindar

 

[Crazy Horse]

Farouk-

Thanks for your input. So far, yours seems to be the lone voice in favor
of opting for Win 2k over XP. I appreciate getting a different
perspective.

If you have time (at some point) and felt like elaborating a bit on why
"Product activation is another major issue" I'd be interested in hearing
more.

Thanks again for your help.

One advantage to me is that that a installation of Win2k
occupies about 800 megs and WinXP about 1.5 gig

Product activation is another major issues.

I have paid for 2 copies of Home XP with 2 note books
and XP professional with a lab equipment. I have replaced
all of them with Win 2k.

_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[gerryR]

I've actually done the same thing for two main reasons:

1. I wanted to join the domain in work so XP Home doesn't have this ability.
2. XP Home was driving me crazy with trojens, popups etc I even had spybot
installed but why should I have to run spybot everytime I browse the web ??
I think XP SP2 will address that, maybe I'll upgrade when it is released.

But for now it's 2k all the way
hth
gerryR
previous post attempt failed - may be a double-post - if so, sorry

---------------------------------

Geez, I hate when I do this... but I think I've just made an fool of
myself in a discussion with a friend...

I was insisting that Windows 2000 came out in two flavors for client
workstations: Professional and Home edition; he contends that there is
(and always has been) only one version: Professional. Having just
looked at Microsoft's website:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx it appears that I
was mistaken and my friend was correct. I find this particularly
disconcerting (and embarrassing) since I (unlike my friendB9) have a
background in I/T and was so confident in the truth of my conviction.

This discussion came about in the following context: I had mentioned
that I recently wiped WinXP-Home off of my new laptop in favor of
installing Windows 2000 Professional. My impression is that *he* seemed
to think that doing this amounted to downgrading my operating system. And
of course, my intent was to *upgrade* the quality of my OS.

Well, for the moment anyway, I no longer feel the strength of my
convictions on the answer to this question: which is the "better"
operating system -- Windows 2000 Professional -or- Windows XP Home
Edition? Therefore, I thought I'd consult a newsgroup whose members
could provide an authoritative response.

So... what say you? Which *is* the "better" operating system?

NOTE: for the purpose of this discussion, I'd like to define "better" in
terms of basic technical attributes and *not* in terms of (what I would
consider to be) more superficial attributes such as cosmetic appearance
or ease-of-use characteristics. I'm more concerned with things like
robustness of technical features and capabilities, reliability and
stability, etc. In other words, which is "better" from the perspective
of a someone with an I/T background vs. a typical, non-technical end-
user?
_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
________________________
1. My friend is a lawyer... and, as we all know, *they* are always
confident about everything! ;-)

 

[f/f george]

According to MS there are actually 4 versions of Windows 2000
Professional, Server, Advanced Server and Datacenter Server.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/default.asp

Windows 2000 is a downgrade in versions from XP but in alot of peoples
opinion a better platform for most everyday things. It can be
networked but not as easily at XP. In XP networking is a highly
automated process, in 2K it is a step by step process.
XP looks "prettier" to the eye and uses the graphics more but most of
that stuff is the frills.
XP can recover from errors easier and has "restore points" that can be
used to "restore" the system to a known working point after an
operation goes haywire.
2k on the other hand is not as susceptible to the newer desktop
pop-ups and other XP specific problems. Viruses can be targeting in
their manner and XP is an easy OS to target. More and more people are
using XP making it a higher value target. Win95 for instance almost
never gets hit by viruses. Also the newer version of IE can be
targeted, 2K comes with an older version that is less vulnerable to
todays attacks but since most people have upgraded that is not much of
an issue. Basically if you never upgrade your system you will become
less and less of a target for the viruses and worms, etc. because they
are exploiting todays OS, not the OS's of yesterday. That said IF you
are going to compete in todays markey you MUST keep up with the
technology and some software just runs better on XP than 2K!
Your mileage will vary because these are generalisations. This is the
21st Century and things change ALOT! Your system is not built like my
sytem which in turn is different form our neighbors or your friends.
Within XP, the Pro version is a little better than the Home one.
It has less limitations, doesn't require re-registering if you change
too many inards, can network with an unlimited number of computers,
easier to deny/allow others access to your computer, etc.

 

[Crazy Horse]

I really have no desire to call Microsoft when I make
hardware changes.

--------------------
Ahh... this brings it all back now... Digital Rights Management hood
embedded in XP. NOW I remember what my misgivings were say back when I
first started reading about XP:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20031120.html

Recalling this issue (thanks to your post), helped me figure out which OS
to install. Stay tuned for my follow-up post.

Thanks again for your input.
_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Crazy Horse]

2. XP Home was driving me crazy with trojens, popups etc I even had spybot
installed but why should I have to run spybot everytime I browse the web ??
I think XP SP2 will address that, maybe I'll upgrade when it is

released.

I think waiting for SP2 makes a lot of sense... seems to me the more
fixes in place, the more stable the environment... unless, of course, the
solution creates more problems than the problem it addresses.

Thanks for your feedback.
_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Crazy Horse]

XP can recover from errors easier and has "restore points" that can be
used to "restore" the system to a known working point after an
operation goes haywire.

Given the difficulty I'm having with installation and setup, this is the
strong point in favor of XP I've heard so far!

More and more people are
using XP making it a higher value target. Win95 for instance almost
never gets hit by viruses.

I can confirm this from my own eight year experience with '95. For the
last year and a half, I've been running with not AV software (but I do
scan my e-mail before downloading it from the server). And for the
entire time I was running without a firewall.
_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯