Coffeehouse Thread

44 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Windows 2k vs. XP Pro vs. 2003

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Steven J Ackerman

    I still prefer Win2K vs Xp and Win2K3.

    Win2K3 runs great, but still doesn't support a lot of software and hardware that runs on Win2K or Xp.

    I can cause my Win2K3 system to blue-screen simply by plugging in a Sandisk Imagemate CF card reader.

  • User profile image

    I have always been a fan of Win2k.. since RC2 ... but just recently went to XP.. with Office 2003.. very yummy...


  • User profile image

    jamie wrote:

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

    Windows 2000 Professional was never intended to be an "end user" product.  The name "Professional" is meant to iconify the workstation-class nature of the OS.
    I've never used 2000 on a home system...that's not what it was/is meant for...

  • User profile image

    What do you call a secretary?

    i call them an end user

    our company bought win2k for all machines - or they basically came with it

    end result: Mean techy unfinished USER release, in the hands of secretaries and everyone else... not just admins/developers

    ..but the story has a happy ending: XP! Smiley

  • User profile image

    Isn't everyone who uses Windows an end user? Even developers and IT technicians are end users.

    I think what is more true is that Windows 2000 was not intended for the 'home user' - i.e. not for playing games, watching DVD's etc. Every product has an end user - you need someone to use it after all.

  • User profile image

       I use all three actually. It's kind of silly but here is the break down. I have a laptop with XP Pro (this is the developer machine). I have a Win2k Pro machine acting like a server as I have it running File Sharing and such for VSS. I recently added a Win2k3 server to take a look at the baked in .NET and IIS 6.0. Most of my work is web based and I have to tell you that for my experiences, Win2k3 is the best for development servers. Mostly for the reasons already pointed out (security being the first) but also as I said .NET baked in is somehow different than Win2k download. Call me crazy, but .NET running on a machine that prioritizes background process and locks the rest of the world out is the way to go. IIS 6 is a gem. Takes some transitioning and out of the box - it isn't there. ASP.NET is a manual install.

    If you can manage it, run XP on a dev machine and Win2k3 on a seperate server for your development environment. XP is just nicer to look at and saves me loading Media Player and all of my "creature comforts" on my server where the code is running.

    Don't listen to the mumbling about end user-ability, that's not exactly the point. Developers are capable of working in less friendly environments than most. BEFORE YOU GO RANTING (jamie) -- I agree with you. Design is very important to me and I think in a lot of cases MS missed the mark with the 2k versions and hit it better in the XP and ME versions. However I would never in a million years use ME. Or 98 (in any viersion).

  • User profile image

    no rant

    i run what you do:
    2003 server + XP SP2 dev
    great combo

    * everyone forgets here my views come from user side - not programmer - not trying to be a "ranter" Smiley

  • User profile image

    The good: Never mind what Jamie says, I liked Windows 2000 very much, too. The reason why I upgraded to XP was ClearType, I couldn't stand the crappy font rendering anymore. (Hell, even the fonts on my 2 year old SuSE box looked better!) So I decided to buy a new PC with XP and it has run stable ever since.
    The bad: Of course, XP can be slower at times, there are some issues where explorer.exe basically just hangs itself especially during unreliable network sessions. The same goes for svchost, having the RPC subsystem constantly at 99% CPU power for no reason whatsoever is not really as fun as it sounds. Sometimes I get the impression that parts of XP were just glued on top of some other, older parts and the developers didn't always foresee the consequences of it.
    The verdict: Although I'm a programmer type, I really like great UI stuff and XP's UI is way better than 2000. I'd recommend switching, the chances are that you'll be happy with XP.

  • User profile image

    If one just can't stand the pretty GUI anymore just stop the Themes Service and everything will look very familiar (dull) again. 

    I like the colourful blissful interface in XP. I even like Office Clippy. But I can get by with my day to day business without it. The dialogs don't have to say pretty please. As long as I don't have to reboot when I change my network connection. That used to drive me nuts.

    Right now I run W2K and XP machines. Given a completely free choice I would run XP Pro for workstation and laptop and W2K3 Server for the servers. In the real world it comes down to drivers, application compatability, performance and not to forget:license costs.


  • User profile image

    I myself think if your in need of a server for many computers and not much money go with Y2k. If you have cash to waste go with 2k3, if you are just in a small user group go with xp pro. I myself like win xp best over other 3 but I don't agree with jamie all he has been posting is crap and also has been posting stuff which I can translate for you:


    I USED to like what Jamie posted but he has gotten out of hand always posting rantage never posting something helpful. Always complaining about xp SP2, (which I cant wait for) Smiley and is just plain annoying, I say "shape up or ship out." (I have always wanted to say that)

  • User profile image

    Personal opinion, but i like w2k3 as a dev box...i find it really stable and the background services thing works quite nicely ( background compiles etc )...

  • User profile image

    themaffeo wrote:
      (BTW, I normally run IIS, SQL, SpeechSDK, VS2003, and other simlar devloper tools)

    If you're running these applications because you ship on them, and want to mirror your production environment that might be a factor. The versions of IIS on w2k3, XP, and W2K are all different for example.

  • User profile image

    Loads Good - i wont stoop to your level of name calling and negativity.
    channel 9 i thought was for ideas
    Hopefully that doesnt mean Programmers only

    I thought this site was for users like me - Longhorn blogs is too technical

    maybe we need a channel 8: - "Non-programmers who give a damb about Windows - and want it to be better"

  • User profile image

    Smiley i think it's cool you're on board jamie...i enjoy reading the stuff u post.

    it's good to have a ( slightly wider ) cross section of humanity here rather than just us geeks Smiley

  • User profile image

    Yeah but you forget, geeks rule! Smiley

    Just wanted to say.. although I run XP I have set it to look exactly like 2K, I have classic start menu's with the classic desktop and classic look forms etc. The only way, looking at my desktop someone could tell that this is even an XP box is the distinctive XP backgrounds. Oh and the auto-hide system tray if you have a good eye.

  • User profile image

    I still use 2K also and I agree it's a fine OS. You have nothing to be ashamed about. Smiley

    I really don't care one bit for XP, I find it a totally useless 'in-between' product. As for stability, security, etc., it's not really any improvement over 2K.

    2003 is a different story - I wanted to try it but I just don't have the hardware or diskspace for it. And at this moment, I'm thinking I'll just skip it al together, since all new goodies will be in Longhorn anyway.

    The company I work for runs a lot of websites (IIS5) and databases (SQL2K) on 2K. We just don't have any need to upgrade to 2003. As long as it runs, don't touch it.

    Conclusion: I'm waiting for Longhorn. Gives me some time to save money for it too. Wink

  • User profile image

    I would love to move off W2k, but one of the things I do is maintain a large ~500,000 LOC Visual Basic app and XP is prohibitively slow.

    It takes about 15 seconds to run it from the IDE on my PIII 1Ghz running W2K.  On a P4 2.4Ghz with XP it takes over a minute to do the same. 

    This problem is only in the IDE, the EXE runs fine, but it makes development on XP an absolute pain. 

    I believe the problem is related to the VB IDE creating temporary com registrations for all of my VB classes.  For some reason XP just chokes!

    Roll on .Net apps!


  • User profile image

    spod wrote:
    themaffeo wrote:   (BTW, I normally run IIS, SQL, SpeechSDK, VS2003, and other simlar devloper tools)

    If you're running these applications because you ship on them, and want to mirror your production environment that might be a factor. The versions of IIS on w2k3, XP, and W2K are all different for example.

    GOod point.  What I normally do on my dev box is just the 'playing/prototyping/designing' stuff.  I have an a cople of other physical computers that run different OS's, and for any other testing I have a couple Virtual Machines set up on my dev box through Virtual PC.

    In fact, that's where I run SQL2k.  Since I dont use my development implimentation all the time, I have it installed on a virtual machine that I just boot up when I want to do development on one of those projects (Right now I happen to be focusing on Report services - sweet!)

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.