If a purty GUI is your liking and you'll use the integrated functions, it might be.
I've run XP, and don't see anything worth $300, but other ppl are estatic about it.

If you upgrade your computer a lot, and have a good setup now doing everything you want, I'd say stick with Win2K.... Unless you like spending time on the phone trying to explain to the M$ people why you need to activate your OS *again* and why your hardware is different *again*.
 
From my own personal experience.... I'm upgrading components in my computer at least every 3 months.... I'll get a faster CD burner, or a new CPU, a better video card, etc.... If my NIC goes bad, I'll have to replace it. I replace the motherboards at times too - better chipset, more processor support, etc.... Guess what? If I do that with XP, I'll probably have to re-activate....
 
Just food for thought.

I am not sold on it yet, but there are some cool new features that don't involve the UI. I do alter my system often, but I'll not be Activating even if I do purchase WinXP.
 
The most useful feature ever award goes to: Fast User Switch. So many times am I warking on something, and don't want to stop os I don't lose my place, and someone else needs the machine. This is a great feature, and much needed for home users.
 
-bZj

i'd say stick with 2k. xp doesn't really offer any unique features to make it worth upgrading. any touted features can easily be added with 3rd party apps that do 10x better job.

Ive run XP2600 Pro for about 4 days and i agree.... it looks nice and pretty but i really cant see any thing special.....
 
2K is the pick i think..

Does anyone have some win2k versus winxp final benchmarks?

Hit my url button and go to the VP6 review.
 
Franknet
 
It's with RC1 tho. I seriously can't feel the difference, but the vid card did have an impact on gaming tho. Don't have my GF2Pro yet.
 
XP isn't vastly different than 2k, and, at least for me, not worth $300 for the few differences and hassle.

u people are to hooked on 2k - 2k sucks royal dick
 
 
i been running xp since early beta and it is the best
 
2k took a ****ing long time to get half decent - xp was better then 2k in early beta and is far superior now its final code

You might think it sucks, but that doesn't mean that we are wrong to use Win2k.
You have your opinion; I have mine. This does not mean that you should use the OS you don't like, but telling everyone here that XP is the only OS that they should run is crossing the line.
 
XP is not the best for everyone. Hell, any version of Windows isn't for everyone.
I've run XP's beta's too and I don't XP to be worth it to me. Newbies, yes, it's a very good OS. I find that there is more items I use that I have to find, more things I have to change around for me, things that are not optional, except through manual edits...
 
If you want to use XP, go right ahead. Whatever works for you.
 
I will use which OS I want to, and that is my choice. I don't want another situation where I or anybody else is told that their OS choice sucks because one person is too close-minded on the subject.
I don't care what OS you use. XP is fine, but it's not for me.

Benchmarks here :
 
http://www.xp-erience.org/bench.htm
 
Shoot out between:
 
Windows XP Professional 5.1.2600 Build 2600
 
Windows 2000 5.00.2195 Service Pack 2
 
Windows Me 4.90.3000

i thought Windows XP: Professional would be more compatible, especially with recent games and appz, than win2k. i was wrong.
 
BUT the upgrade process from win2k --> win xp was very smooth. all the programs i was running before the upgrade is still funcional. pity about the compatibility.

To be sincere I am more excited about W2K SP3 than XP Final