Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

[Dr-J]

Limited? It runs more programs (try to run CS3 on W2K), unmounts devices better, can accommodate more hardware, and is much more modern. I see no downsides at all, saving for a small amount of difference in responsiveness. This is not major.

[i-SnipeZ]

Limited? It runs more programs (try to run CS3 on W2K), unmounts devices better, can accommodate more hardware, and is much more modern. I see no downsides at all, saving for a small amount of difference in responsiveness. This is not major.

No, not limited in programs.

I'm talking customization of everything in the OS, if Vista is any indication, most of the things I would like to set manually will be done automatically with no other option. I like being able to control every little part in the OS (hence my love for Linux, and Windows XP and 2000).

[Dr-J]

No, not limited in programs.

If you do not run third-party programs on Windows, then don't run it. The native ones are nonsense. Modern Windows programs don't run on W2K. If you don't run those, that's fine, but this is a real limitation for most users.

I'm talking customization of everything in the OS, if Vista is any indication, most of the things I would like to set manually will be done automatically with no other option. I like being able to control every little part in the OS (hence my love for Linux, and Windows XP and 2000).

Sheesh. You can override anything in Windows of whatever vintage. Vista is a bit clunky, but it works pretty well overall and yes, you can customize every last thing if you wish to do so. And Win7 really is much better.

I'm no Windows lover. While I refuse to run Linux, I do run a lot of FreeBSD, and have received acknowledgments from them for debugging various parts of WM releases (Gnome, in ports).

Now if you want to use software that is five or more years old, and you want to complain about Windows, go right ahead. But try Win7. It really is very good, and it allows you to run recent software. You can't do that on W2K.

[dr_st]

I'm talking customization of everything in the OS, if Vista is any indication, most of the things I would like to set manually will be done automatically with no other option. I like being able to control every little part in the OS (hence my love for Linux, and Windows XP and 2000).

Can you give an example of something that you can control in XP, but cannot in Vista? Being a power user myself, my experience showed that Vista is just every bit as customizable as XP. The UI is different and the initial settings are often stupid, but a true power user can get accustomed to the new UI with ease, find his way around and tweak things to his liking, just like before.

[jdhurst]

<snip> Being a power user myself, my experience showed that Vista is just every bit as customizable as XP. The UI is different and the initial settings are often stupid, but a true power user can get accustomed to the new UI with ease, find his way around and tweak things to his liking, just like before.

Exactly. Windows 2000 worked great for me, and so also did XP Pro. I am a fan of both OS's. Now Vista is working great. I found my way around, tweaked it, and it runs super fast and smoothly. I will move to Windows 7 and tweak it to my liking as well. ... JDH

[mattbiernat]

XP works fine, I just think 2000 feels better.

that's exactly how I felt about vista after moving from XP. it took me two years to get accustomed to it. the key is to make your O.S. look exactly as windows 2000, which it pretty easy with XP. don't give up on XP, it is a fine piece of sotftware.