Coffeehouse Thread

44 posts

Windows 2k vs. XP Pro vs. 2003

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    themaffeo

    I don't like to consider my self a 'late adopter' but I'll admit, I still use Win 2k.  You really can't blame me, it's simply an incredible operating system and I've found it to be extremly stable - I don't think I've seen a BSOD for a couple years.  Though I've always been a proponent of 'If it ain't broke, don't upgrade it' i've been strongly considering moving my primary dev box to to either xp or 2003. 

    What has been everyone else's experinece moving off of 2k?  (BTW, I normally run IIS, SQL, SpeechSDK, VS2003, and other simlar devloper tools)

    Thanks

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Moving from 2k to 2k is just as simple as moving from 2k to XP.. There is no point/need installing 2003.

    Do you own a legal copy of 2003?

  • User profile image
    themaffeo

    I have leagal copies of 3 different 2003 flavors as well as xp pro.

  • User profile image
    Loadsgood

    I suggest to you upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, or try xp and 2003 somehow and see which one tickles your fancy

  • User profile image
    JParrish

    If you have been attentative to your installation, I doubt there are many factors that would lead you towards 2003 server/XP pro. As a developer I assume your primary concerns are accessibility to the tools/platform you wish to develop on (no problem with w2k) and hopefully security.

    If you patch often, you will most likely not see a real benefit to 2003 server, but just to give credit where credit is due, MS locked down 2003 server so tight it makes me foam at the mouth. Nothing is listening (and therefore the attack surface is reduced) out of the box. A major step for the oS.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    I have used all three..

    Win2k3, this is good.. but you need to do a lot of tweaking to convert it over to a workstation.

    Win2k, very fast, very stable but gets slightly unstable the more patches you apply. So can degrade over 6months~

    WinXP, fastish, very stable.. does not get unstable. Has poor search (compared to 2K), and process lock problems.

  • User profile image
    jamie

    ok - your all not going to like this... but i put win2k in the same camp as WINDOWS ME..and ill tell you why..

    after win98se ( the BEST 16/32 Windows ever released ) they were on Cairo forever and ever.. they needed revenue and popped out 2 - unfinished products: 

    Home:  Windows ME - the WORST thing ms has ever done.. makes MS Bob look brilliant ( actually - i liked the idea behind Bob but thats another topic)

    Business:  Windows 2000
    it was still HALF of what i use to call " Mean NT4 " - un - user friendy, poorly worded errors, over all sluggish feel, all in all not done and no where NEAR the usability and FRIENDLINESS of Win98se.

    I was SO disappointed with 2k - except i bombed A BIT less, and i did like the 30% speed increase - so i used it.

    I thought MS had lost it - but then along comes XP - a perfect blend of 2k's speed, improved stability and ALL THE NICE happy user stuff that was in 98se.

    But.. it was buggy.. ( it was ) UNTIL...
    dum da dum  XP SP1 - which FINALLY equalled 98se usability, richness and feel goodness.

    *side note:  XP SP2 is injecting alot of this NT-ish un-user friendly - demanding stuff back in..

    but you all no how much i love SP2 ;p


    PS - my last comment would to those who defend 2k OVER XP:

    "XP is for babies! looks like fisher price! its not a serious OS like 2k"

    so wrong so wrong

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Wow.. your calling 2K unfinished! Remember that 'unfinished' system is almost completely the bases for XP as shown by XP's version no. 5.1 (2k version 5). If you think 2K is unfinished then you clearly have not compared it to anything older than XP. It blows 98 away!

    I found/find 2K more user-friendly than 98 but you see I don't like restarting every hour and having the OS crash under my feat. If I have a machine with the power to run 2K then it will most certainly not be running 98 any time soon.

    ME is a pile of crap.

    Here is my pecking order as OS's go (workstation):

    -Top-
    XP
    2K
    98SE
    KDE / Linux
    Gnome / Linux
    98
    NT4
    ME
    95
    3.11
    MS Dos

  • User profile image
    jamie

    manip - i said it was faster and bluescreened less
    ( i dont think ive even seen a bluescreen in XP)

    i was saying for a CONSUMER / end user - win2k was a joke ..  it was MEAN .. like those guys at work that run the network
    lol

    ***also - you listed ME above 95 dos and 3.1??

    all three of those bombed less than ME

    WinME was like in Time Bandits
    Ralph Richardson:
    "Dont touch that! its pure evil!"

  • User profile image
    lars

    I'm sorry, but it's pretty hard to take you seriously now Jamie. How you even can begin comparing a NT-based system with 9xME is beyond me.

    /Lars.

  • User profile image
    jamie

    please re-read what i wrote


    "...usabilty and friendlyness..."

    98se had it
    2k didnt

    ( ive said twice 2k was faster and more stable - but the interface was NOT finished - to an END user)

    thank god XP brought both hemispheres back in line

    = why i group ME and 2k together
    both not quite done


    ( i also said "I know you wont like this...) because i know programmers love the geek speak arcane tech of NT4 / 2k )

    Im a designer / user.  Glad my 3 yrs of 2k are GONE

  • User profile image
    jamie


    My impression of Win2k:

    Boot in
    "We cant find a DHCP server. Would you like to see further DHCP Messages?"

    OK  Cancel


    Tongue Out

  • User profile image
    lars

    jamie wrote:
    please re-read what i wrote
    "...usabilty and friendlyness..."


    Yes, and what is that? That is two purely subjective measurements that can be used to prove anything.

    jamie wrote:

    ( i also said "I know you wont like this...) because i know programmers love the geek speak arcane tech of NT4 / 2k )


    Maybe because developers actually know the technical differences and not just which one has the brightest colours? I don't dislike what you say. I just think it sounds like you don't know what you are talking about.

    /Lars.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    NT4 was/is not a nice system to use. I tell you this as someone who has used it for a long period. But comparing NT4 to what was around at the time you start to understand a little better, but by todays standards NT4 is hell. Smiley

  • User profile image
    jamie

    How about this:

    if you were a programmer or network admin 2k was good

    if you were a user - alot of the friendly wording was gone.

    There were alot of vestiges of NT4 - a VERY tech based OS

    So alot of users ended up going to the more "serious" 2k

    It lacked all the stuff that made 98se & XP so great - the cheerful and friendly feel. Plain speak - not geek speak (dhcp?)

    Its not just about bright colours, its the personalality of the OS

    Id rather go for luch with XP than grumpy ol' 2k anyday

  • User profile image
    jamie

    i will say that xp 2003 is a great example of a heavy duty server os - that is still somewhat friendly. Its also great many background services are off by default, and it is VERY VERY VERY fast - compared to XP

    the "Manage your server" window - is great and helps non admins like my self actually run and set up stuff i never new about before.


    so - in answer to first post.. go with 2003
    youll need the multiple user webserver support

    Winxp says it supports 10 users - but it seems to cack out with more than 2 people connected on the site

  • User profile image
    themaffeo

    jamie wrote:


    so - in answer to first post.. go with 2003
    youll need the multiple user webserver support

    Winxp says it supports 10 users - but it seems to cack out with more than 2 people connected on the site



    Interesting point, this was the general information I was curious about.  How 'Friendly' the os looks is secondary to me.  My primary concern is the Technical impact (positve or negative) that I will see upon upgrading.  I develop for a living and that is all I am really interested in when chosing my OS (the closest thing to a game I have on my dev box is solitare) - although I admit, I do like some of the XP themes I've seen out there

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Frankly if you are not running a Domain and or webServer then there is no point installing Win2k3. It has been optimized to run background services at their limit not desktop applications and games.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.