windows

[Security Technician]

i would appreciate your info and thoughts please chaps, got to reformat the laptop at some point, at the mo i run xp home, but have been given a copy of 2000 proffessional, is this any good? or is xp best option

[amateurandy]

If it runs XP OK then I would advise keeping with XP. It's securer, will be maintained and updated much longer and supports more modern add-ons.

Nowt wrong with 2000, especially if you've got an older, slower machine.

Also, you probably have a valid OEM license for XP, I would doubt if your 2000 copy is legal for transer to another system; very few are if you read the small print.

[Security Technician]

If it runs XP OK then I would advise keeping with XP. It's securer, will be maintained and updated much longer and supports more modern add-ons.

Nowt wrong with 2000, especially if you've got an older, slower machine.

Also, you probably have a valid OEM license for XP, I would doubt if your 2000 copy is legal for transer to another system; very few are if you read the small print. 

41001[/snapback]

fair enough, for that, think il stick to the disks that came with laptop then should be ok, hoping it cures my problem with email i send dissapearing into cyber space when i format

[Alex]

i would appreciate your info and thoughts please chaps, got to reformat the laptop at some point, at the mo i run xp home, but have been given a copy of 2000 proffessional, is this any good? or is xp best option

41000[/snapback]

I am happy with Windows 2000 on my curent laptop (128MB/700Mhz). But I have only installed the Microsoft Office Package and some Access-Control/Intrusionalarm-Setup-Programs I use in my daily work. Windows XP is better for Games and Multimedia but a lot of the settings in XP are either now missing, or hidden. Especially in a network enviroment.

Best Regards,

Alex

[Security Technician]

I am happy with Windows 2000 on my curent laptop (128MB/700Mhz). But I have only installed the Microsoft Office Package and some Access-Control/Intrusionalarm-Setup-Programs I use in my daily work. Windows XP is better for Games and Multimedia but a lot of the settings in XP are either now missing, or hidden. Especially in a network enviroment.

Best Regards,

Alex

41005[/snapback]

mine is also used for setup programs etc and internet access and email etc, play games on main desktop, i know at my last company they preferred 2000 as xp used to loose licence

[Guest]

2000 all the way. XP is OK for arsing around with at home but for a machine that is required to work then it's 2000 Professional every time here. I've had nothing but trouble with XP, but never with 2000. A lot of stuff in XP is automatically turned off and takes some digging to find. It also thinks it's cleverer than you, and I've also found it's less responsive and causes some systems to hang while it ignores you whereas 2000 does (roughly) what you tell it to.

In short, I hate XP with a passion.

AFAIK, the XP licence is usable on 2000, but don't quote me on that.

[amateurandy]

AFAIK, the XP licence is usable on 2000, but don't quote me on that.

41033[/snapback]

I know a fair bit about Microsoft licensing (unfortunately!) and that comment is unlikely to be true unless you're in a very large organisation with a special licensing terms.

Most home users don't bother about such things, and aren't likely to be found out or bothered by anyone about it either, but if it's for business you should stick to the license - it's a contract. If you're audited you could be in trouble.

As for the comments about XP being too clever by half, I sort of agree. Especially when it comes to networking, where 2000 Pro is easier and more reliable, IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. But remember XP comes in Home and Pro editions, so you should compare 2000 Pro to XP Pro which is fine. XP Home is a bit of a pain at times, but it's aimed for less expert users.

[Security Technician]

fot that guys, i will sit down and have a think now

[Guest]

I know a fair bit about Microsoft licensing (unfortunately!) and that comment is unlikely to be true unless you're in a very large organisation with a special licensing terms.

41038[/snapback]

Dunno, as I say it was just something someone mentioned to me once, I've never actually tried it.

As for the comments about XP being too clever by half, I sort of agree. Especially when it comes to networking, where 2000 Pro is easier and more reliable, IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. But remember XP comes in Home and Pro editions, so you should compare 2000 Pro to XP Pro which is fine. XP Home is a bit of a pain at times, but it's aimed for less expert users. 

41038[/snapback]

Yep, I've only ever used the pro versions of both and have had trouble with the networking on XP, as has most people in the UK. There's a couple of newsgroups that get a fair number of basic home networking problems and 90% of the queries there involve XP.

2000 does what it's meant to, XP tries to do it better, and doesn't really but it does get confused in the process and then starts to ignore you. I hate XP, I'm gonna throw something in a minute, I really hate it.