M
Mac
Is there an upgrade from 2000 pro (upgrade) to XP pro?
How much?
How much?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
Bob I
Yes, check with your preferred reseller.
J
Jud
Bob I said:Yes, check with your preferred reseller.
Before doing it though, ask your self what does XP have that's better than
2K, and why bother to upgrade.
C
copyman46
Upgrade from the XP CD, and are your installation is default settnings?
C
copyman46
XP is better than 2000, extended support phase for 2000, more patches
and fixes, better GUI appearance...
and fixes, better GUI appearance...
B
ByTor
XP is better than 2000, extended support phase for 2000, more patches
and fixes, better GUI appearance...
Support? Of what?
More patches & fixes one would question stability.....
Appearance? Now there's a great reason..........
G
GO
XP is better than 2000, extended support phase for 2000, more patches
and fixes, better GUI appearance...
More patches is good thing? More patches mean more vulnerabilities. Win2k
has a two year lead on XP, meaning that all of the bugs have been worked
out.
To the OP....as others have mentioned, why do you wish to upgrade? Win2k
can do anything XP can do. If your current Win2k system is running fine and
stable why risk installing a new OS to lose that?
G
Guest
More patches is good thing? More patches mean more vulnerabilities. Win2k
has a two year lead on XP, meaning that all of the bugs have been worked
out.
Obviously more patches signify lesser stability to begin with, but the
support issue is relevant I guess. New problems that see the day with W2K
will not have patches available when MS quits supporting it for good. And It
seems that is what is about to happen now. Didn't MS already try to pull the
plug on it a year ago as well but then extended the support period? I just
read on ZdNet the other day about a new Windows vulnerability affecting Win2K
at 'kernel level' or or something serious like that, for which there was no
present knowledge about how to cure. Something about IP insecurity, a foreign
company found it out and reported to MS but none will tell more until they
know how to go about fixing it.
So continued support is kind of relevent I would guess.
Then I think a couple of you underestimate the importance some of us users
give to appearance... I know you'll probably think that's really nerdy,
what's important is how well it works. Yes, but since XP is far from crashing
all over the place all the time, it's a bit too simple just to say stability
is the most important thing. Some of us may prefer too work in a more
aesthethic environment that we customized ourselves to the price of slight
occasional instability. Not everyone is running servers, and need to keep
100% functioning systems, you know.
That's my 2 cents.
/p
G
George Hester
The user has been infected with upgrademania. It's a common affliction.
One that is very much supported by software makers. They don't get it right
the first time and they make believe for users that they have this time.
Then it all starts over again round and round.
One that is very much supported by software makers. They don't get it right
the first time and they make believe for users that they have this time.
Then it all starts over again round and round.
G
GO
Peter said:Obviously more patches signify lesser stability to begin with, but the
support issue is relevant I guess. New problems that see the day with W2K
will not have patches available when MS quits supporting it for good. And It
seems that is what is about to happen now. Didn't MS already try to pull the
plug on it a year ago as well but then extended the support period? I just
read on ZdNet the other day about a new Windows vulnerability affecting Win2K
at 'kernel level' or or something serious like that, for which there was no
present knowledge about how to cure. Something about IP insecurity, a foreign
company found it out and reported to MS but none will tell more until they
know how to go about fixing it.
So continued support is kind of relevent I would guess.
Then I think a couple of you underestimate the importance some of us users
give to appearance... I know you'll probably think that's really nerdy,
what's important is how well it works. Yes, but since XP is far from crashing
all over the place all the time, it's a bit too simple just to say stability
is the most important thing. Some of us may prefer too work in a more
aesthethic environment that we customized ourselves to the price of slight
occasional instability. Not everyone is running servers, and need to keep
100% functioning systems, you know.
That's my 2 cents.
/p
You do make some good points, and yes, continued support is definitely a
nice thing but I think if people always didn't feel the need to upgrade
support for Win2k would have continued for much longer (and MS may change
their mind yet and continue supporting 2k as there are a LOT of businesses
[and home users] still using it). And I realize some people to want/like a
prettier interface, and that's fine, but I wouldn't want to risk losing a
perfectly stable machine just for appearances, but obviously some may. But
if the only reason to upgrade is for appearances there are third party
alternatives to do so, some of which are free (Stardock is one of the better
known and there are also several shell replacement apps out there).
N
no_one
XP is better than 2000, extended support phase for 2000, more patches
and fixes, better GUI appearance...
Mmmmm, not here. XP Pro is the one in out network that gives me the
fits. The WIN 2000 units run fine in the network. Better interface,
ya if you like Disney cartoons. As far as I am concerned XP is the
only know virus with mouse control.