Beats me,
but W2K started to look a bit old. The cartoonish GUI of XP is a change, anyhow.
 
H.

Well, the easy answer to your question is that Microsoft (10 ton gorilla here) says that it is better. Are you going to argue with the folks who make the exclusive system? I am not trying to be cynical but one day it will quit supporting W2K before it does XP.
 
There are apparently hooks built into the GUI of XP that will enable multimedia and streaming media to perform in a way different than today. These may not be made available to W2K. This depends on Redmond.
 
I don't like fixing things if they are not broken. W2k performs admirably. Anyone using it and is satisfied, should best leave things alone. If you're getting a new computer, best to go with XP; it is the immediate future.

More group policy options, remote desktop, and a different UI for me. It also seems to scale slightly better than Windows 2000 on faster boxes (1GHz+).

Oh, another thing is better too, it boots faster.
Saves 10+ secs.
On the other hand, how often do you boot? If its often, switch to XP, add up the savings and book an extra vacation!
 
H.

i thought it was rather nice i didn't have to fiddle with loading drivers for my old hardware (with xp) like i did with 2000.

Built-in PPPOE support was very nice, as is the Remote Desktop feature. For managed environments, the Remote Desktop feature can be worth its weight in RAM.
 
Brian K

I can definitely understand why someone would not upgrade to Windows XP, because Windows 2000 is great. However, Windows XP is definitely a big improvement over Win2k. One big update is driver support, and another one is general improvement in the overall code. I don't want to elaborate any further, because experiencing the OS would give you the best perspective.

While XP still has some minor issues left to address its like a polished version of Windows 2000, I think XP is what Microsoft wanted to deliver in Windows 2000 in the first place, that's why it only took a year or so to get it out. 2000 was out around February 2000 and XP was out October 2001.

2000 went GOLD on Dec 1999.
XP went GOLD August 2001.
 
20 months=1 year 8 months. Almost 2 years.
 
Pretty sad huh? 2 years for not much of a difference....
 
I expect that's why .NET Server has been taking so long. Should be ALOT more polished than XP is. It's been pushed back until mid 2003 for "security" reasons. heh. Right around that time sound's about right for the major version of a Microsoft OS to come out....

I do notice XP to be a tad faster in gaming than under 2k. However, if I was in a business setting, Win2k all the way still.

remote desktop has to be seen to be believed
updated, approved drivers for all devices, so easy installs
speed/system responsiveness
auto sharing of printers, very nice in small office environments
windows update improvements
64 bit versions for my Itaniums
 
..and the simplest argument for me is that there is no reason to run 2000 after moving to XP. I won't run anything but XP now.
 
Now, is XP worth a full upgrade price from Windows 2000? No bloody way! From 9x, yes. But $200 to upgrade from NT 5.0 to NT 5.1 is freaking ludicrous. WinXPPro (XP home is a waste of bytes) should be a $99 upgrade from Windows 2000. But that is a different thread entirely...
 
So, get it for free when you buy that new computer, cause the pricing model is just BS IMHO.
 
:}

At work, I maintain a mix of standalone Windows 2000 Pro and Server boxes for our office. We received a site-license for XP Pro, so I gave it a shot and did a clean install on one of the systems. What a pain! Even when fully patched, it couldn't run any brand-name anti-virus software; even versions specifically for XP. It had so many quirks and issues that it not only pissed me off, but everyone else that had to sit in front of it for any period of time. Got formatted and a clean 2k installation shortly after
 
The thing I don't like about 2000 however, is that you need to install SO many updates/patches/drivers after install. I make my own integrated SP2 + most commonly used apps discs, but it still takes about 15 trips to Windows Update and dozens of reboots.

Windows XP pro has a much better support for multimedia production and capturing video. I could never get my ATI Rage Theater Capture to work with Win2K. I hated Win 2k for that, but as soon as I installed WinXP all my problems were solved. Now I can do anything i want with my videos and XP is definitely more resourceful than win2k.

GTwannabe:
 
I'm not really sure what your particular problem was, but both McAfee and Symantec's anti-virus sofware are running fine on various WinXP machines of mine, at home and at work.
 
You might contact the appropriate vendors for support if you can't get it to work properly.
 
Of all the reasons I've seen to NOT upgrade to WinXP, this is one of the least persuasive.
 
Out of curiosity, what sort of "quirks and issues" have you run across in WinXP? I have not found anything I've had a problem with thus far, I'd like to see if I'm just lucky or what...
 
Brian K

@GTwannabe
 
The last time when I installed Win2k (7 Days ago on my primary system) I just rebooted 3 times to finish the installation (win2k, office and a sh..load of apps..) Now Windows Update shows me no more Downloads (expect the one I dont want to load!) and my system runs fine..
 
Well and I didnt install from a SP2 disk. Clean Win2k install and then installed all the fixes (4 or so.. Sp2, Sp2SRP1, DX8.1 ....) and with the same "reboote phase" I installed 20 apps on my computer and didnt restart after each app wanted me to do so!
 
PS: I also stay with win2k because XP is just to coloured for me.. (sure you can switch that of.. but .. who needs XP anyway? just too much annoying helpers everywhere). And like its with every MS OS just wait for the first SP to install it

"Guys what really makes WinXP better than Win2k pro?"
 
Winxp is Nt 5.1. That's what really makes it better than Nt 5.0.
 
The tenths numerical place.

The machine I installed XP on was an IBM 92U (very pissy, tempermental system) With XP, I had software incompatability problems, random lockups and reboots involving the screensaver, and a slew of other things I don't remember right now. With 2k tho, I haven't had one hickup from that computer.
 
I'm sure XP will mature, but until 64-bit processors become mainstream (fondles 64-bit beta CD) I'm 2k all-the-way

heh. .NET's version # is 5.2

I see no advantages over Win2k. I'm a little disappointed in XP, as even without installing any of my own drivers it's crashed on me every installation I've tried. The latest fiasco was that my computer would crash/freeze simply by double clicking "My Computer". So I put Windows 2000 back on and as expected, everything is again running like it should be. Ya just can't beat Win2k.
 
I'm also not a very big fan of the new GUI, as it's too "big" and reminds me of candyland or the little toy computers that you give a child. The search function is annoying as heck with that stupid dog and the 100 options you are presented. Thank God you can get rid of all that trash by using TweakUI for XP, which allows you to go back to the "Windows 2000" style of searching.
 
Also, they changed the way it looks when you go to change security settings on folders/files. I hate that you have to type in the name of the user/group and then press "search". I'd MUCH rather have the Win2k way, where you can see the available users/groups and select from the list.
 
Oh and the built in .zip file support is annoying has heck. You can disable it by editing the registry, but it doesn't seem to hold. Perhaps if they kept all this stuff specific to the Home Edition that would be fine... but much of it has absolutely no place in the "Professional" edition.
 
I'm also don't like the new start menu. When I have XP installed that gets disabled immediately. I dunno, I think it takes longer to get through it because of all the different crap all over. Oh well, I could go on and on... but when you get down to it, I've gone back to Windows 2000 because I'm sick of having XP crash on me all the time.

I think XP appears to be afflicted with a minor dose of the same thing that ailed ME - that on some systems it solves hardware probs, but on others it creates new ones.
 
I like the GUI, just not the default Style, so I use StyleXP & the Coughdrop Style with the Grape theme. I'll agree with you about the stupid dog though, thank goodness for TweakUI.
 
As to the Start Menu - I think it's great - takes a little bit of getting used to, simply because it's different than it's predecessor, but once you get the hang of it I find it actually makes life much easier. You don't have to mess around with a 3rd party tweak progs to get menus on there of Control Panel, My Documents, My Pictures, My Music, etc - it's all within easy reach. In fact, AFAIK, Control Panel & I think Favorites were the only ones you could have cascading from the start menu in 9x/ME - dunno about 2k though. The Pin to Start Menu function is useful as well, as it means that you don't have to have as many things cluttering up your Quick Launch bar.