What do you think is better? I'm considering a reformat, Windows XP with SP2, or Windows 2000 with SP4?

XP.

I like 'em both, but personally run XP. There's nothing wrong with either of them really - anyone who moans that XP is 2k with bells and whistles can just do what I do, turn 'em off!

Apart from the XP networking, which is fuelled by ancient dark magic.

SpoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoooky.....

oh sorry.

Forget Service pack 2, go with SP1 on XP.

I just got XP and have made it exactly like 2000 except for the new search system; a registry hack can even make that exactly like 2000's, too. But Win9X's search was much better; it opened up a new window, rather than ruining the explorer window I currently have open.

I disabled the firewall and all that pointless junk.

Actually, the other difference is a high colour windows symbol on the start button...

*cough* easy. Win2k. Faster, more stable, less crap to put up with.

Exactly.

More stable? I constantly blue screened with 2k. Don't BSoD (no, not even the XP auto-reboot ones) anymore at all. In fact, XP installs I find are by far the most stable.

Yea, I've yet to get the BSoD with XP. I've totaly forgetten about it's evilness. Now you remind me, I only think how I don't get it.

I was pretty Anti-XP at first. I defended 98 (I owend it) and 2k as the better operating system.

I can now easily say XP beats the crap out of 98.
My experience of 2000 is pretty limited, but for the average person who actually knows how to use a computer, I'd say they would be better off with it. XP slows down alot on me, opening folders and stuff. It trys to put in too much fancy crap.

Which is weird, I can run HL2 etc, fine, but I always lag when I try to open folders or some crap like that, it can't load the files in it fast enough or sommething.

XP does require a semi-beastly system, but if you meet some basic requirements, you're really good to go.

I haven't used 2000 that much so I can't really say anything, but I've been running XP for almost 3 years now and I've no no trouble with it at all.

I use both. I prefer 2000 because it has a more clean, polished feel. XP feels sluggish sometimes. Though it could be due to the fact that I'm using it on a laptop.

I've BSoD'd with XP, never with 2000. Though in 2000 I keep getting some "memory could not be read" and hex number errors when exiting Firefox. Though to be honest, I get the same when I exit Trillian on XP occasionally. I may ask for help in getting rid of it someday, but the messages don't do anything other than pop up. They don't affect system performance, so it doesn't bother me too much.

Yeah, I had xp running tolerably on a AMD 533 mhz comp, which is pretty slow by todays standards.

I've had XP running for weeks on a PII 350 system that I set up as a fileserver, no problems

Well I did some resurch from the company I bought the computer from and they actually recommend Windows 2k for the system I'm running so I think I'm gonna go with that.

... Bad install perhaps?

I'm running 2k. My computer is on right at 98% of the time. Up until 12 days ago, I had a running uptime of a month (I hit the reset button with my toe. damnit!). Those being the facts, it should be pretty easy to tell that I've never BSoDed. In fact, I can't EVER recall seeing a Blue Screen while running 2k. I think it's slightly more likely that you had a bad install or something else. The last Blue Screen I remember, was running WinME almost 3 years ago now.

Well, who did you buy the computer from? Somebody might know whether its a good idea to listen to them or not.

XP has a Blue Screen?

Hmm...

I'm running XP on my home computer and my school computer, and my school computer has never BSOD'ed me at all. At home, well, this computer sucks, so one or two wouldn't be completely unexpected. Probably just ghosts from the previous OS (Windows Me) anyways.

Used both extensively and still used both. There's not really enough difference in the two to recommend one over the other. At the core, they're the same OS after all.

SP2 has never given me any problems. Then again, it's not really added anything worthwhile either except a few security updates (that can be installed individually if I'm not mistaken). 2000 performs faster out of the box, but after turning stuff off in XP, it's roughly the same thing.

About the only feature XP has over 2k that I actually use is its native wireless support.

Compaq is on the box but it's an HP now I guess.

You are all wrong, XP is the best operating system from Microsoft. It is frequently better than 2K at just about everything, and if you have knowledge you can slim the footprint to under 80 mb pagefile at boot, just like 2K

i'll agree with oS, XP Pro, if you can get it, runs like a very good windows installation, and you can DEFINITELY slim the puppy down without too much of a situation.

I'll disagree with anyone who dislikes SP2 for XP. Microsoft simply kicked out the problems that were rampant in networking and made the system stable and protected in most cases.

Also, I'm very glad no one has mentioned Linux in this case.

That is all.

I agree with oS. 2K is not faster unless you're a fan of placebos. I flip-flopped between 2K and XP a lot on identicle machines. 2K is slower to boot and slower to use as a desktop operating system. And no, it's not a bad install, I had dozens over several machines. Server wise I didn't have much luck with 2003 Server, which is really based on 2K anyway, but XP is a lousy server.

I haven't noticed any stability differences, I get BSODs with both but only because I tinker deep inside Windows' netheregions.

Edit: Any aside from XP SP2 breaking some people's machines (like I've heard especially with AMD64) what is wrong with it? The security center? In all your anti-Microsoft rage you probably didn't notice the little link that lets you shut it off. Just like how there was all this big news on Slashdot and other sites when SP1 came out about automatic updates, how it could "take control of your PC and install stuff without telling you!" Yet if I remember correctly, it's easily disabled and by default does not install, only download or perhaps even ask you to. Infact I don't think you can even make it auto install if you wanted to. Personally, the popup blocker and added security features are welcome, even if I am not using them 95% of the time.

Two of my machines are Athlon64 3000+ and have no problem with XPSP2

Ahh.... fresh install of XP Pro - I love the feeling of speed and unclutter after a big format. I do need an external drive asap because I spent two hours burning all my mp3's to CDs...

...Ah and I need to activate Cleartype - my eyes are hurting!

[EDIT: It always looks so blurry for a while before you get used to it!]

Oh, yes, we are ALL wrong just because we have an opinion. Get off your high horse.

XP is annoying as hell because there is SO MUCH crap you have to disable just to get it like Win2k. Question: Why bother making XP like Win2k? Just use Win2k in the first place!

It's like the people who install Linux with the hope of having it run like windows. It AIN'T windows, so quit trying to make it something it's not!

Anyway, BSODs seem to be a tossup. I have absolutely no BSODs on my computer (probably for at least 6 months, or more), and I've yet to format. My friend who uses XP formats every 2 weeks, and trust me, its not because he likes to. He switched to Win2k, and hasn't formatted since (been about 6 weeks now).

Speed: Definately faster right out of the box. It loads less stuff than XP. A LOT less. Also, to assume that XP can be faster is being ignorant. How the hell can an OS which loads more stuff end up faster than the OS it is (VERY HEAVILY) based off of? Win2k == XP, just with a TON of crap added to it that makes it less stable and slow. Sure you can turn this stuff off, but even if you do, you're only going to be as fast as the core kernel, which hasn't changed since Win2k. (Not to mention that this brings up the Why Bother? argument)

And Os: to your pagefile part: Uhh who cares and why bother? If you want to talk small page files, then go back to Win95, which had no problem with virtually no virtal memory at all. If you want really good pagefile handling (as in, it isn't used at all unless ram is CRITICALLY LOW), go to linux :p

And finally, Os, instead of just outright saying we are all wrong, put some facts out there. Prove us wrong. The other people have.

XP auto reboots on BSOD's by default whereas 2K does not, I believe. Which is annoying, since you'll never even know you had a problem unless you think to check event viewer.

I know, and I've never had one of those

And christ people, this is getting bloody. XP SP2 I don't reccommend because it randomly decides to work. Some people install it just fine, and run everything just fine afterwards. Other people go through hell trying to get it working. It's not worth it for a few security updates.

I dislike 2k because it DOES boot slower. If you have the system to use XP (I'd suggest 1.5ghz or equivalent and 512mb of RAM) then use it, there's no reason not to unless your some pretentious idiot who thinks that XP is inherently evil and cluttered. It's not. There's a bit of clutter that's turned off in the span of 30 minutes, and it's more secure and more compatible with software. Much better for a desktop you use at home.

Either way, it doesn't matter all that much. It's still just an operating system.

Lets just say, I can tweak Win2k to have 220MB free out of 256 on bootup (500Mhz PIII with 256MB PC100) thats quite the feat IMO. I've also had XP on that machine also, and having over 200+ MB free at boottime.

ANYTHING that I don't want on a system, is removed, right down to core .dll files and hidden system features, they're all gone. That equals 650+ MB free on my main machie out of 768MB. Not bad. Could be more if I didn't need IE installed for my father.

Would anyone like to explain a possible way to fix my folder opening crappyness? Often the folders will even crash lol.
I really have crappy luck with folders on this computer.

They lag so much. I mean.. I'm used to it being instant on 98, and now I'm waiting like a second or couple seconds on XP. It's really annoying.

right click my computer - go to properties - go to the performance tab, and tell the pc to run for best performance, not for best prettyness

Awsome! Thanks.

For benchmarking (3DMark, etc), Win2k is faster, no questions asked.

Is there something like that available for CRT's by some (miraculous) chance?

Google for M$ powertoys, and download their cleartype tuner - it lets you set it how you like it!

It should work!

surprised no one has said "omg m$ = evil" or something along those lines

win2k has compatibility problems and is more prone to vulnerabilities. its mildly faster and lacks many of the more refined parts of XP such as the precaching everyone keeps talking about.

XP is better.

Well, I liked 2000.

Am I the only person who doesn't have troubles with Windows?