Windows 2000 rocks

[test user]

Does anyone notice that Windows 2000 has the least amount of problems amongst all the Windows operating systems (at least in this forum)? In my opinion it is the most stable OS, yes, even more stable that XP. Anyone care to comment?

[bboysatch1]

I think it has the least amount of problems because least amount of people have windows 2000, most of them have windows xp!

[Blamm]

Originally posted by bboysatch1
I think it has the least amount of problems because least amount of people have windows 2000, most of them have windows xp!

Most people think Burger King makes a good burger = stupidity

2000 Pro is the ONLY good OS microgeeke ever created but the gameboys din't like it cause they couldnt run some kiddie toys.
NT4 is 10 times better than 98 SE but allot of people suffered (and still do ) with 98..
There is plenty of businesses running 2000/2000 server but yes... Very , very few problems with it

[netsurf]

yes, windows 2000 rocks, indeed! i am the fan of windows 2000, been running 2k PRO for 2 years now, haven't encountered any serious problem. but running win2k requires a bit of the knowledge, be able to troubleshoot its problem, and i am sure those (or most of) who have win2k are those who know about computers, and only those who have knowledge about computers would choose win2k over winXP. most people like winXP just because it looks colorful and has some cool features, but speaking of stability, win2k is the winner. that's why some corporates are still running win2k systems. i know some for a fact.

[chr1s]

I haven't found any stability differences between Windows 2000 and Windows XP. I've experienced good stability with both of them. However, from a user point of view I prefer XP for various little things like multiple file renaming in Explorer/ Image resizer power toy - it's the little things that help....

[boristhemoggy]

I would agree. Win XP is so slow I make a cup of coffee while I wait for it to boot. Same on shutdown while it goes through that infernal 'saving settings'.
I now run all four machines at home with Win 2K and you wouldn't shift me with wild horses!

[netsurf]

that's the thing about that stupid XP. it would operate at its full speed (so to speak) if you had a system with at least more than 1Ghz. if you ran both winXP Pro and win2k on a 500Mhz system, you would see the difference. winXP seems sluggish while win2k responds much quicker.

[gazpeters]

As a networked OS Windows 2000 is the daddy. For home use i choose Windows XP because i don't have to worry about performance, security and getting policies to stick! and it looks good.
XP Home is pants. I can't see any use for it apart from using the box as a door wedge. It's really dropping in price though.
I see a touch of Mac coming into Windows these days.
I've only just starting to play with OSX and I always said whats the point of it. How wrong I was.

[cartier]

I think so too ! Or at least Win 2k performs very well and even much better without so many registry tweaks as I had to go through.
Michelle.

[Dr Forinor]

IMHO, Xp is stable but not as stable as 2k. I know quite a but about PCs and would still prefer XP over 2k (even though 2k is definitely a more solid OS).

There are just many little things in XP that makes it good to use, I can't remember off-hand what they are (because it has been a while since I used 2k) but they make it worthwhile, for me anyway.

But, XP does have a lot of problems that need solving, all of which are never present in 2k, such as slowing down, such as some software (eg IE or even Explorer) hogging 100%CPU whenever it feels like, such as the lag (turbo-lag?) when you right click on the desktop or wait for the context menu to appear while it loads into memory. I could go on but I take it you get the idea.

2k never has any of these problems, it is as solid as Volvos (debatable?) , BUT, on the other hand, once 2k starts to mess up (admittedly takes a while to happen), it is a B!TCH to sort out, casues lots of problems (which is why I resorted to trying out XP).

Anyway, thats my 2cents.

[Ang3L]

2K Pro is most defaintly the best stabillity wise. It has gotta be one of the most amazing OS' i have used.

I tried XP for .. well.. a month maybe. All i got was error after error after error. Awful. just plain awful.

Anyways, like Forinor says, 2K can sometimes be a bit of a problem child if it gets started. But ive always managed to rememdy the problems pretty speedily. And without too much of a headache

[cX_GX]

yes, too bad you can't get a new laptop with Windows 2000 anymore, they all come with worthless laggy XP

[wozza]

XP could have been so much more it had the potential to be amazing built using the 2000 architecture yet with more features. but as usual M$ decided to mess things up and release buggy patches etc and buggy versions fo the software.

XP suffers from a lot of memory leaks etc as well hence why it is slower also the interface eats up memory and more processor clock cycles its a lot more hardware hungry.

also 2000 will run more software i have found so many programs that run under 2k but not under XP my gaming machine uses 2k PRO and i would never change to another OS over 2k except maybe 2k server or advanced server if i was to upgrade to a higher end dual cpu system as the few extras features i could use.

and all the features people talk about under XP 2k doesnt have SP4 and a few registry fixes and you have all the features of 2k without all the annoying bits like the desktop cleaning wizard etc just cause i dont use a program one week means i want it removed that thing just annoys me.

i also find XP runs slower during game performance in comparison to 2k even when you optimize XP. basically 2k is a superior system and everything about XP sucks IMHO

but windows 2k even now is prefered to run server side applications in comparion to XP pro as xp does have memory issues that cause it to have a lot more downtime other variables account towards this as well but the fact is in comparison XP is pants.

also the powertoys etc can all be taken from xp and used on 2k due to them sharing the same common architecture just thought id tell you guys thats in case you didnt know i have pulled some useful things off the XP disk for 2k

[cX_GX]

well as long as you are saying that 2000 is better than XP, I will add on that 98 would be better than both of them if they took 5 minutes to fix the resources issue which is limited to 128k of ram while win2k is limited only by the amount of physical memory it has. That is why 2k is more stable and doesn't require rebooting every single day. Because the memory leaks are exagerated by the fact that even with a machine with 128M ram, it can only use 1/1000th of that ram while 2k can use it all. Remember those days when you closed everything on win98 and were still left with only 20% of your resources free and in the exact same condition when you booted up, you had 97% (Unless you didn't tweak it, some proprietary systems like HP or compuke with useless stuff eating memory would lower it as low as 68% on boot.) Is anyone able to get the source to recompile the win98 kernel? .. or would you have to shoot bill gates and pry it from his cold dead greedy hands?

[wswartzendruber]

First point, I think it's impossible to get Windows 98 up with Windows 2000 due to the lack of NT in 98.

Second, there's been no mention of Linux here. Someone comment on Windows 2000 vs Linux.

My Personal Opinion: Windows 2000 Commands Linux to Kneel

I really like the idea of NT-based operating systems having the GUI integrated with the rest of the system, unlike Linux which makes starting and shutting down something for while you sleep.

Concerning XP, I think Microsoft sacraficed reliablility for compatibility.