Upgrade Windows 2000 to XP pro?

[Colonel Sanders]

While, I'm thinking about leaving Windows 2000 and finally upgrading to Windows XP, Pro of course. =) Newegg has an academic Windows XP Pro upgrade for $82.

So the question is, does Windows XP offer any advantages over Windows 2000 Pro?

[jimmyrules712]

i say no, those are very similar, and it wont be long until the new windows, longhorn, comes out, i say save the money for that. (altho if you get longhorn, youll probly wantto upgrade your ram to 512)

XP and 2000 kind of have a same/similar core, so they are both stable and both run well. XP does have advantages over 2000, XP has many many more features, and is easier to use. Overall it is a more powerful OS< but i wouldnt spend $80 on it when you have 2000 already and longhorn is around the corner.

Now if you had 98 or ME or an older version then 2000, i would say yes, the upgrade is worth it.

[lil Jimmie]

I'd say upgrade and grab another 256mb stick of ram :D

[g-dogg]

i say no, those are very similar, and it wont be long until the new windows, longhorn, comes out, i say save the money for that. (altho if you get longhorn, youll probly wantto upgrade your ram to 512)

XP and 2000 kind of have a same/similar core, so they are both stable and both run well. XP does have advantages over 2000, XP has many many more features, and is easier to use. Overall it is a more powerful OS< but i wouldnt spend $80 on it when you have 2000 already and longhorn is around the corner.

Now if you had 98 or ME or an older version then 2000, i would say yes, the upgrade is worth it.

IMO, win 2000 is just like win xp, which is just like longhorn (i tried longhorn all the diffrence, is its a system hog and it got a better search tool.) the major diffrence would be in the gui, if you want a better look try to get one of those transformation packs (i think there is one for win 2000) and transform your gui to longhorn gui. save the $80 for an upgrade or something!

g-dogg

[glc]

If Win2K runs all your software and is stable, there is no functional reason to upgrade. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[HAL9000]

It's gonna be a personal opinion thing.. while 2K is stable and an excellent OS... I hate it... I just don't like the look/feel of it... I would rather have XP.

[jimmyrules712]

IMO, win 2000 is just like win xp, which is just like longhorn (i tried longhorn all the diffrence, is its a system hog and it got a better search tool.) the major diffrence would be in the gui, if you want a better look try to get one of those transformation packs (i think there is one for win 2000) and transform your gui to longhorn gui. save the $80 for an upgrade or something!

g-dogg

is longhorn out for testing or something? i wasnt aware a perosn could try it.

Are you seriously not exagerating any when you say that stuff about longhorn? i owuld expect a little better.

[bailey]

I don't feel that anyone that has there computer at home has no need for xp-pro at all
xp-home is much less money and will do everything you could possibly want at home.
also so will w2000, the main differance as far as advantages is concerned, xp does have the restore points which I feel is very good for the adverage user, it has fixed many a problem when mistakes are made.

all three are equally great systems, and will perform very well.
I have all three and are on 3 differant systems, I like all 3 too.

but as for your question, I say no just because your only choice was for xp-pro, had you included home then I would have said yes,

I would always recommend xp-home as long as the system will support it well.

[digitalfreedom64]

Windows XP to me is easier to use than W2K. They are both great stable OS. If you upgrade to winxp you may also want to get another 256mb of ram. At this point in time though I wouldn't spend the money for XP. Longhorn is supposed to be out next year. If your programs are running fine with W2K would be best to stick with it til longhorn comes then upgrade.

[HAL9000]

I don't feel that anyone that has there computer at home has no need for xp-pro at all
xp-home is much less money and will do everything you could possibly want at home.


I agree Bailey.... unless you are running a dually CPU or need to log into a domain, I don't think XP Pro is worth the extra money. Sure, Pro has some better file encryption security, but again, it's in your own home... tis something I really don't think you need to be worried about unless you're on a network sharing with other people who you don't want accessing your files.

IMHO, too many people get Pro, just to say "Pro" and "sound better".

[glc]

The academic upgrade of Pro he is looking at is cheaper than Home. If he goes away to school, it's very likely the school will require Win2K or XP Pro - 98/ME/XP Home will not be supported on their network.

[HAL9000]

And that is a reasonable justification

[Floppyman]

I just upgraded from 2000 to XP Pro this past year (after using 2000 for 3-4 years). So far the main advantage for me has been the decreased boot time. Other than, it seems pretty similar to Windows 2000. I probably would not have upgraded, but I got my copy for free so I went ahead with it.

[thefultonhow]

While, I'm thinking about leaving Windows 2000 and finally upgrading to Windows XP, Pro of course. =) Newegg has an academic Windows XP Pro upgrade for $82.

So the question is, does Windows XP offer any advantages over Windows 2000 Pro?

I have found that although XP offers more features than 2000, the features add instability. Windows 2000 was, in my opinion, the most stable Microsoft desktop OS ever. I would say that unless you are a really big fan of eye candy or you need the multimedia features of XP, you should stick with 2000.

The one feature of XP that I love is Remote Desktop. If you want that, that's also enough reason for the upgrade.

[HAL9000]

XP and instability? The only time I ever reboot is for an update/software install or hardware upgrade that requires I do so.