Windows XP vs Windows 2000

Message

barras · #1 Post by **barras** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:33 am

Hey all,

I've just received my IBM ThinkPad T42. It comes with Windows XP SP1 installed. I was wondering how Windows XP compares with good old Windows 2K for mobile use.

How different is Windows XP from Windows 2000? I get the impression that Windows 2000 is a whole lot less demanding on hardware. What's the consensus out there?

Thank you in advance for all your responses.

awolfe63 · #2 Post by **awolfe63** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:41 am

There is very little difference - I have w2K on my TP - XP on my desktop - I barely notice. Administrative stuff is sometimes hard to find in XP - but it's all there.

XP requires a bit more memory - but both run OK with 256M+. I prefer at least 384M with XP.

#3 Post by **jdhurst** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:11 pm

XP Pro SP1 works wonderfully well. I use the classic interface, got rid of the eye candy (My Computer, Properties, Advanced), used the Start Menu properties to put Admin Tools on the Start Menu system, got rid of fast logon, welcome screen, simple file sharing (in favour of standard logon, and proper file sharing) and the whole thing works like a charm with everything just like it was in Windows 2000. Now enable clear type on an LCD screen, and you won't go back to Windows 2000. ... jdhurst

dclee012 · #4 Post by **dclee012** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:46 pm

for me, im a big fan of win2k. half, due to corporate standards; half, due to personal preference. i think xp does too much.. too much gimmicky stuff, like that search dog? what the heck is that? (starting to remind me more of macs and "icandy") i know you can disable most of these extras, but for me, the amount of extra ram/cpu/hd usage can go towards a better cause.

but then again, i could just be a late bloomer. i refused to swtich to win98 for a long time. and when i did, i would always shell out to dos to do stuff..

for the T4x, ive installed win2k on all the series. the drivers and software from ibm are all compatible. there are no issues.. make sure you get speedstep, that's all.

matty · #5 Post by **matty** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:26 pm

I hate that dog more than anything, so stupid!!
Use the following registry code to disable the search dog and use advanced search.

Code: Select all

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

;Force Search to Search All Files
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer]
"SearchSystemDirs"=dword:00000001
"SearchHidden"=dword:00000001
"SearchSlowFiles"=dword:00000001

;Set search assistant to the good stuff (disable that s***ty assistant and use advanced search)
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Search Assistant]
"SocialUI"=dword:00000000
"UsageCount"=dword:00000001
"UseAdvancedSearchAlways"=dword:00000001

In case you don't know how to enter this into the registry, open notepad, paste the code above,
then Save As a file name with a .reg extension (ex: searchdisable.reg) .
Then, double click the .reg file.

geobel · #6 Post by **geobel** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:34 pm

Use the following registry code to disable the search dog and use advanced search.

To my memory this can be done with WinXP power toys...
Gosha

#7 Post by **jdhurst** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:34 pm

You do not *ever* need to use the registry to disable permanently any Windows XP eye candy. I never see the search dog. I disable that within the first 60 seconds of starting a new XP box and it never returns. I turn off that crap in Office XP as well. Like I said, get rid of the eye candy.

I have 768Mb of RAM on my T41, mostly so I can run VMware. Right now, I have over 512Mb free (no VM running) which means XP is running happily in 256Mb. I wanted that much for Windows 2000 when I used it, so I don't see XP as much of a resource or memory hog. Remember though, I turn off excess stuff. ... jdhurst

lilserenity · #8 Post by **lilserenity** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:37 pm

I think the very key thing here is to note this:

Windows 2000 - NT 5.0
Windows XP - NT 5.1

That says it all, XP is an incremental upgrade, not a mammoth jump. A lot of XP's changes are cosmetic with things like rudimentary cd burning thrown in and generally copes better with devices being unplugged without explicit removal.

I personally prefer XP and it works a beauty on my 1gig memory 1.13GHz T23.

Vicky

Footnote: That said, I use Windows 2000 Server on my 560Z as it is my umm server, and I wouldn't touch Windows Server 2003, too much eye candy and glitz. But for my T23, I prefer XP.

#9 Post by **K. Eng** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:55 pm

I prefer XP Pro over 2000, though both are very good IMO. XP Pro's resource usage isn't all that much different than 2000 once all the eye candy and junk is turned off.

I like XP because it boots quickly and because the taskbar organizes itself better (same apps stay near each other, icon tray can hide itself). The cartoony icons are the only thing I don't really like about XP.

MJC · #10 Post by **MJC** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:06 pm

i am waiting for this tp
click here

from what i am getting from this thread, it is better to run xp pro on this machine, do you suggest i move to xp? any upgrade issues i should know about before doing anything?

thanks,

mjc

AssPenny · #11 Post by **AssPenny** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:17 pm

XP is 2000 with fluff.

I like fluff, my thinkpad easily handles fluff, so i use XP.

awolfe63 · #12 Post by **awolfe63** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 10:13 am

MJC wrote:i am waiting for this tp
click here

from what i am getting from this thread, it is better to run xp pro on this machine, do you suggest i move to xp? any upgrade issues i should know about before doing anything?

thanks,

mjc

I wouldn't spend the time or money. It comes with W2K. XP pro (legally) is at least $150. Not worth changing. I'm still using W2K on my T23 for the same reason. (My T42 is on the way though

)

Daniel · #13 Post by **Daniel** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:58 am

lilserenity wrote:Footnote: That said, I use Windows 2000 Server on my 560Z as it is my umm server, and I wouldn't touch Windows Server 2003, too much eye candy and glitz. But for my T23, I prefer XP.

Is there really that much eye candy? I was testing it out for several months a while ago and I don't remember there being any eye candy. It came with the classic interface, making it look similar to Win2k. I remember it being very careful with security preferences also.

ian · #14 Post by **ian** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 8:48 am

I have to agree with you Daniel - either my Win 2003 server came without it, or it's a case of hearsay...I'm running 2003 on two of my servers - runs great, and as for the eye-candy, can't say I've noticed anything overtly colourful !

I agree that some things aren't in the same place as Win 2K but then I hadn't really expected this to be a 'clone' on 2K either...

greg025 · #15 Post by **greg025** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 10:47 pm

I don't recall there being too much eye candy in 2K3.

However, one of the major reasons to run 2K3 over 2K is the security, 2K3 is much more secure by default. It helps that in a base 2K3 install, the services that are not directly required for the running of the server do not get installed.

Cheers,

Greg

Foxhound · #16 Post by **Foxhound** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:36 am

I'd take windows 2k over xp any day. I don't care much for the 'fluff', and all the gimmicky features they shoved into it, well, are better handled with 3rd party tools. Save ram & cpu cycles to boot.

My 560x can run win 2k fine (96mb ram), but, I wouldn't dare put xp close too it. And my main rig, even though its a 1700+ @ 2800+ish speeds, I still never would put xp on it, just no reason to

Windows XP vs Windows 2000

Windows XP vs Windows 2000

t20, from 2k to xp?

Re: t20, from 2k to xp?

2k , any time

Who is online