Windows 2000 over Windows XP

[BruisedQuasar]

I did not mean to leave the impression that I find XP unstable. To the contrary, I applaud MS for finally getting out a relatively stable general use and small business use Operating System. I guess my point was that MS still seems incapable of compiling consistently stable updates for its own software. ...but then, I've always thought Microsoft invented the notion: "let the consumers discover and report the bugs, then we will address the bigger ones"

It certainly took long enough for MS and Intel to arrive at the point where Commodore Amiga & Motorola was evolving with the 1992 release of the Amiga computers, the 500, 1000 and the 3000. All three are still made and sold today, basically unchanged and still running on the original Motorola Processors, which provided true multi-tasking before Intel's much more costly dual core processors.

Gateway owned the rights to Amiga and made and sold them in the late 1990s. I do not know who owns Amiga now but I hear it is an independent company bearing the Amiga logo.

[dsvochak]

The original post was:

I've currently using Win XP on my T23 but somehow I'm a bit fancy downgrading it to Windows 2000. What do you think guys? Worth downgrading?

The only compelling reason I can think of to "downgrade" from XP to W2K is if the copy of XP is a purchased copy and you want to legally put it on another machine.

[dwilsonfl]

So how would you "downgrade"?

[jdhurst]

So how would you "downgrade"?

Save your data, format the hard drive and install Windows 2000. Microsoft upgrades only go in one direction so far as I know, but then I have never tried. Clean installs (especially for downgrades) are the best answer from my perspective. ... JD Hurst

[pianowizard]

I can assure you in spades that XP is every bit as stable, reliable, and performant as Windows 2000 (I have used both). I have had XP running on my IBM NetVista Deskop now for nearly three years 24x7 98 percent of the time and no crashes.

So please, before making the statement you did, ensure (1) that the machine is certified and (2) XP was set up correctly.

On those three machines, XP was still very stable, crashing only once in 2 to 6 months (versus once a week for Win98!). Most people, including me, would not complain about that, but Windows 2000 is even more stable. Also, I don't think (though I am not sure) those three computers were certified for Win2K either, so it's fair to compare with XP.

And what do you mean by setting up XP correctly? I just install from the CD and then get any missing drivers from IBM/Lenovo. Isn't that good enough?

[jdhurst]

<snip>
On those three machines, XP was still very stable, crashing only once in 2 to 6 months (versus once a week for Win98!). Most people, including me, would not complain about that, but Windows 2000 is even more stable. Also, I don't think (though I am not sure) those three computers were certified for Win2K either, so it's fair to compare with XP.

And what do you mean by setting up XP correctly? I just install from the CD and then get any missing drivers from IBM/Lenovo. Isn't that good enough?

Re Stability: I am still waiting for my first XP crash. I would regard twice or thrice yearly as outrageous. It should not crash at all. I had a crash or two in three years with Windows 2000, but I think I know why, and it was not a Windows 2000 problem.

Re Setup: I check all the settings in all the drivers and windows subsystems. I make a record of what I change for the next time. Base installs of IBM, IBM third party drivers, and Windows tend to start processes that cause problems (like the insane Sonic update program for example). Windows Explorer wants to reconnect network drives - if you are not near the network, it will have a heart attack. None of this is rocket science. It is simply a matter of: How do I use my own PC, and how should I set things to my way of operation? The standard settings are one-size that do not fit all.

Re Certified machines: I only use machines certified for the OS I am running. There are thousands (probably millions) of posts in hundreds of forums littering the internet that go like: "I am having a problem with (take your pick of OS) on a machine not certified for it. What could be the problem?" Who knows? and really, Who cares?

... JD Hurst

[pianowizard]

Re Certified machines: I only use machines certified for the OS I am running. There are thousands (probably millions) of posts in hundreds of forums littering the internet that go like: "I am having a problem with (take your pick of OS) on a machine not certified for it. What could be the problem?" Who knows? and really, Who cares?... JD Hurst

You are lucky to have machines perfectly compatible with Windows XP, but many people are still using older computers and they want to run XP on them.

[jdhurst]

<snip>
You are lucky to have machines perfectly compatible with Windows XP, but many people are still using older computers and they want to run XP on them.

With the greatest respect, and not to be arrogant, but luck has nothing to do with it. It is in fair part (the certification labels) why I by IBM. I have always bought IBM with my personal hard-earned money, and I always know where I stand. Once I was surprised by IBM, and in a very positive way: They produced a bunch of laptops that came with Windows 98, but in fact were silently certified to run Windows 2000 and *did* run Windows 2000 quite well.

I have clients with white no-name machines that won't run anything but the Windows 98 they came with. Now they are early junkers. Too bad, really.
... JD Hurst