Win 2000 Pro vs Win XP Pro

[Mario Gagnon]

I want to know whith one is best or more stable. I have a P3 , 1.3 Khz , 512
Ram and i have a home Network of 2 PC. Should i run them on 2000 or XP.

 

[Richard Moreno]

Hi Mario-

I would personally say go with XP. It's proven more stable for me and with
the added features (especially for your notebooks) you can't go wrong. Plus
your hardware's got enough muscle to handle it too.

--
Thanks,
Richard Moreno
MCSE, MCSA, Server+, Network+

*This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

I agree - I also recommend disabling the default XP "Fisher Price" interface
and using Windows Classic - easier to use and also less resource-consuming.

 

[Colon Terminus]

I'm in complete agreement with zaser. A P3 ain't a good candidate for XP,
it'll run 2000 much better. I'll also have to agree with zazer's stance on
networking as well. 2000 is easier, well maybe not easier, but much less
hassle to troubleshoot when/if you have a problem.

Windows 2000 professional sounds like the best choice for the OP.

I don't agree on that, you have a P3 so I would recommend W2K. If you had

a P4, then XP would be a better choice, since XP is optimized for use with a
P4. As far as reliability goes, W2K is the best choice. After a while, XP
gets sluggish and start acting up and giving you problems. From the
experience I've had, W2K is much easier to network than XP

 

[George Hester]

I believe they are equivalently stable. But there are "things" in these Op sys's that are available in one and not in the other. For example there is no Java Virtual Machine in XP unless you can find the old installer for it for Windows XP.. It came with Windows 2000. But then the Windows Scripting Host in Windows 2000 is not as advanced as the one that came with Windows XP. So in my estimation the best answer depends on what you want to do? If all you want is an op sys that don't crash both are about the same.