XP Pro or 2000 Pro? Stability, security, efficiency.

[Charles]

Which operating system is better for Tusl2-c running a Celeron 1.4? Why?

[HAL9000]

Either would be just fine. I personally would go XP.

[mrlucio]

XP PRO

[Charles]

Thanks, any reasoning? I have heard about XP hugging memory?

[Statica]

You mentioned stability and security... it depends on how critical the machine is. If it is mission-critical, I would go with a bug fixed, service pack-ed Win2K prof.

[lil Jimmie]

I have that same board and with a 1.2 Celeron with XP home running flawlessly now going on 5+ months. The wife uses it daily mostly with office 2000, e-mail and web browsing and never complains in fact doesn’t want me touching it.

[CraigMcD]

If you have a slow computer then the Luna interface can make your computer drag. As you have a 1.4 GHz CPU I don't think you have anything to worry about.

[Charles]

Thanks for all your input.

[bailey]

I have run both systems on that board, and I agree that eather one will do just fine for you.

[WIN2kServer]

I would go 2000 pro it's the best os to date (I think) stable definitly secure and pretty darn efficent if you ask me doesnt use more resources than it needs (unlike XP)

[Tuf]

XP supports more hardware and software. Since it replaces 2000, the days for 2000 specific drivers are numbered. Plus it just offers more features. 2000 is a great OS also but XP is where things are headed and headed fast.

[RedVR6]

Between the two...I recommend XP as well. 2000 is rock solid from my experiences with it. Been running XP since November (I think) and after two re-installs and fine tuning and a new case as of March....I have found it to be more stable than the 2000 boxes I work with. And as Tuf said...ditto.