Win2K Pro or WinXP Pro?

[Ray Mitchell]

Hello,

Ignoring any pretty but ultimately useless bells and whistles, does anyone
have a strong opinion on whether I should install Win2K Pro or WinXP Pro on
my new computer? My main concern is with speed and stability.

Thanks,
Ray

 

[Peter Forster [MVP]]

Howdie,

Ignoring any pretty but ultimately useless bells and whistles, does
anyone have a strong opinion on whether I should install Win2K Pro or
WinXP Pro on my new computer? My main concern is with speed and
stability.

In my opinion XP is the better way. It's faster (at least at boot) and has a
nice GUI ;-)

XP is the newer system, why do you want to use an older one?

 

[Rick]

Hello,

Ignoring any pretty but ultimately useless bells and whistles, does anyone
have a strong opinion on whether I should install Win2K Pro or WinXP Pro on
my new computer? My main concern is with speed and stability.

I have a strong bias against Windows Product Activation and
will not install WinXP on any of my systems until Microsoft
drops WPA. My computer hardware is my own, and it's none
of Microsoft's business if or when I change or upgrade it. If
they don't drop WPA by the time Win2K is end-of-life'd I'm
switching to a non-MS operating system, likely BSD or Linux.

But to answer your question, if you can live without system
state restores, ClearType and a built-in firewall, definitely opt
for Win2K over WinXP. Through a slight-of-hand trick XP
does appear to boot faster, but it doesn't really.

Rick

 

[Walter Donavan]

Win 2K, hands down.

Windows Product Activation clinched it for me--no way.

And although I don't have a list in front of me, Windows 2000 is more
guru-oriented. I can do things I can't do with Windows XP. I once had my
list, and I could kick myself for not writing it down.

I just installed my second copy of Windows 2000 so I can do some serious
playing that I don't want to risk with my main copy of Win2K. I am now the
proud owner of a three-way multiboot Win2K-Win2K-WinME system.

As far as speed and reliability, I will say this.

Speed: the two Windows XP systems I have logged extensive cockpit time on
were annoyingly slower than my Win2K system, even though the two computers
were newer and (supposedly) faster than my Athlon 2000+. I admit I keep my
system thoroughly tweaked, and that the two XP users I was helping were
clueless, but I simply could not speed up either machine. Both users
complained of unending slowness.

Reliability: equal. Win2K is bulletproof, but the two XP machines never
crashed either, despite problems including viruses. A Win2K crash means you
have to kill the process, not admire the BSD and reboot--but that's the same
in XP.

Cool tools: nearly every cool tool available for XP is also available for
Win2K.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Why do you object to an anti-theft mechanism? It shouldn't bother
anyone with integrity.

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

 

[Rick]

Greetings --

Why do you object to an anti-theft mechanism? It shouldn't bother
anyone with integrity.

I've been a systems designer for 25+ years, Bruce. I'm not a
12 year-old WaReZ d00d.

Microsoft has been found guilty by not one, not two but three
different courts of illegally maintaining a monopoly, so please
spare me the rhetoric about integrity. As a matter of fact the
reason why I don't use WinXP is entirely based on principle.

As I said before, my hardware is my own, and it's none of
MS's (or any other software developer's) business whether
or when I decide to change or upgrade it. "So don't use
their software", you say, which is exactly what I intend to do
if MS doesn't drop WPA by the time Win2K is EOL'd.

If Microsoft's claims about revenue losses due to casual
piracy were even remotely true, their revenues for WinXP
should have absolutely skyrocketed. They didn't. Not
even a little. So the one and only group who're being
inconvenienced by WPA are the one and only group who
shouldn't be inconvenienced in the first place -- legitimate
customers. I refuse to buy into MS's deception.

Rick

 

[ByTor]

I've been a systems designer for 25+ years, Bruce. I'm not a
12 year-old WaReZ d00d.

Microsoft has been found guilty by not one, not two but three
different courts of illegally maintaining a monopoly, so please
spare me the rhetoric about integrity. As a matter of fact the
reason why I don't use WinXP is entirely based on principle.

As I said before, my hardware is my own, and it's none of
MS's (or any other software developer's) business whether
or when I decide to change or upgrade it. "So don't use
their software", you say, which is exactly what I intend to do
if MS doesn't drop WPA by the time Win2K is EOL'd.

If Microsoft's claims about revenue losses due to casual
piracy were even remotely true, their revenues for WinXP
should have absolutely skyrocketed. They didn't. Not
even a little. So the one and only group who're being
inconvenienced by WPA are the one and only group who
shouldn't be inconvenienced in the first place -- legitimate
customers. I refuse to buy into MS's deception.

Amen! ;0)

http://www.bitstorm.org/gates/creamedgates.mpg

 

[Alias]

Amen! ;0)

http://www.bitstorm.org/gates/creamedgates.mpg

Hear, hear!

Alias

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Microsoft has been found guilty by not one, not two but three
different courts of illegally maintaining a monopoly, so please
spare me the rhetoric about integrity. As a matter of fact the
reason why I don't use WinXP is entirely based on principle.

So, because Microsoft is perceived as having committed illegal
business practices, its customers are all hereby exempted from obeying
copyright laws and/or abiding by legal contracts? Two (or more)
"wrongs" make a "right?" Personal integrity is out because someone
else broke the rules first? I'm glad I don't have to do any business
with you directly; it's clear from your reasoning that you are not to
be trusted.

As I said before, my hardware is my own, and it's none of
MS's (or any other software developer's) business whether
or when I decide to change or upgrade it.

But what does this have to do with Product Activation? The
process tells Microsoft _nothing_ about your specific hardware.
You've apparently been listening to someone's paranoid delusions.
Here are the facts pertaining to activation:

Piracy Basics - Microsoft Product Activation
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

Windows Product Activation (WPA)
http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm

WPA is a copy-protection method, and nothing more. It's certainly
a lot less inconvenient and intrusive than many other methods in use
by some other software manufacturers. Perhaps you prefer the hardware
dongles that must be attached to the parallel port to enable an
application to work? Or how about having to fax a document signed by
a company officer certifying the number of installations before being
sent a code to enable the software? Or would you prefer
performing the application installations at bizarre hours of the night
because you have to call another time-zone during the installation in
order to obtain the necessary registration code from a company
representative?



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

 

[Rick]

Greetings --



So, because Microsoft is perceived as having committed illegal
business practices, its customers are all hereby exempted from obeying
copyright laws and/or abiding by legal contracts?

Of course not. The point is that Microsoft is guilty of breaking
the law, whereas I am guilty of breaking no law. So if you want
to question someone's integrity it's not me you should be talking to.

Two (or more)
"wrongs" make a "right?" Personal integrity is out because someone
else broke the rules first? I'm glad I don't have to do any business
with you directly; it's clear from your reasoning that you are not to
be trusted.

You're completely missing the point. If I had no integrity I'd do
what everyone else I know is doing -- I'd buy a copy of WinXP,
apply a crack for WPA and not waste my time debating the issue
in a public forum.

But what does this have to do with Product Activation? The
process tells Microsoft _nothing_ about your specific hardware.

That's not the issue. WPA amounts to having to get Microsoft's
permission to change or upgrade my own computer hardware.

Have you read Microsoft's roadmap for computer design? Their
eventual goal is to make systems completely sealed -- no user
upgradeable components. Want a new video card? Buy a new
system. Motherboard upgrade? Buy a new system. Windows
upgrades? Sorry, you'll need to buy a new system. WPA is just
one step on a very big Microsoft ladder. I will not support this.

WPA is a copy-protection method, and nothing more.
It's certainly
a lot less inconvenient and intrusive than many other methods in use
by some other software manufacturers. Perhaps you prefer the hardware
dongles that must be attached to the parallel port to enable an
application to work? Or how about having to fax a document signed by
a company officer certifying the number of installations before being
sent a code to enable the software? Or would you prefer
performing the application installations at bizarre hours of the night
because you have to call another time-zone during the installation in
order to obtain the necessary registration code from a company
representative?

They're all variations on the same theme. All copy protection
schemes have been and will be unqualified failures, because
they address a problem that doesn't exist in the first place,
and inconvenience no one except legitimate customers.

Rick

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

They're all variations on the same theme. All copy protection
schemes have been and will be unqualified failures, because
they address a problem that doesn't exist in the first place,
and inconvenience no one except legitimate customers.

So, what you're saying is that since the deterrent isn't 100%
effective, Microsoft and other software vendors shouldn't bother
trying to reduce software piracy. By the same line of reasoning, I
imagine that you'd prefer that all prisons be torn down and the
criminals set free, because the existence of prisons hasn't worked
(There's still crime, after all.) and the prisons are only costing
honest taxpayers money, to no good end. It's really sad to see
someone completely surrender to the dregs of society, as you have
apparently done.

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

 

[Rick]

Greetings --



So, what you're saying is that since the deterrent isn't 100%
effective, Microsoft and other software vendors shouldn't bother
trying to reduce software piracy. By the same line of reasoning, I
imagine that you'd prefer that all prisons be torn down and the
criminals set free, because the existence of prisons hasn't worked
(There's still crime, after all.) and the prisons are only costing
honest taxpayers money, to no good end. It's really sad to see
someone completely surrender to the dregs of society, as you have
apparently done.

Crime is a proven problem. Lost revenue due to software
piracy, at least as far as anyone has been able to prove, is a
fallacy. Or, if you can reference a single case where revenues
of a software developer have increased after implementation
of a copy protection scheme, I'd love to hear about it.

Rick