PocketMatrix

I just ask this cuz i got Win2k installed in my PC.
it works fine for me, never crashes, great performance, good compatibility, but i think the GUI is just old (like win95). I wanted to upgrade to WinXP Pro, but after seeing many ppl in pain cuz drivers, etc...

Win2K!!! Using Windows since Win95 on floppies, I don't like when things are moved around. XP moves around EVERYTHING, I had to dig through control panel after control panel finding something simple, only to find it was placed more illogically than before. That's only one complaint out of 1000 I had about XP the week before I gave up and nuked it.

I usually say this: If you don't know what your doing, get XP, otherwise 2000 is the best.

Both are pretty equal in terms of stability; they both have the NT kernel, while XP is a bit better with DOS support, but with VDMS for sound emulation, I haven't had much of a problem at all.

I'd stick with Win2k, due to the thing where you have to go buy another copy of XP to install on another comp. You can install 2k as much as you want.
However, I have heard good things about XP. If you want to put up with the fleecing.. then get XP.

If you buy 5 or more copies then it's considered OEM and activation is not required... you could buy 4 extra and hold a contest here on PM, as longs as I get one anyway

Win2k is WinXP without all the trying to be "user friendly" crap that it doesn't do good. I have Win2k. Its only crashed on me once, but I figured out I downloaded some bug off of Kazaa. Win2k Pro is also good for networks, obviously.

XP is really worth the effort if you can deal with it.

First things first, I'd go in and set up the control panel and other admin stuff to be menus off the start menu.

While I agree that the control panel is somewhat contrived, once you get used to it, its better. Plus the 'manage' option off the system is better.

Also, you get stuff like the auto-populated start menu with most used apps, which I like. And the 'Hide Always' thing for the tray is really sweet.

Beyond that, if you are looking to get Mac-Esque (which I'm not, but there are some nice things), XP lets you create CDs (music and data) without any additional software, if you attach a camera or other device it tends to let you very easily deal with it without extra software, it responds really well to removable media (which i use a lot)...and there are other nice things.

Plus it has the disk manager like 2K which is better than the old unmanaged crap. And there is built in encryption for folders and files, so multi-user is better.

...and then...

The truth is that since I have put Win2K on my server, set the DMZ on my router to said server (with Norton Firewall on it), made my desktop and laptop XP, got a PPC2002 pocketpc with WiFi, set up my downstairs with WiFi, and attached the XBox to Live, I have had to do practically nothing by way of system maintanance to keep it working well. There's a lot to say for that...since I enjoy setting it up but its a pain in the ass to always have to fix something.

Go for XP. It takes me 1min and 23sec to rearange everything back to "win2k" style (yes I just installed it for the 19th time today on another computer and decided to time myself). It is starting to piss me off when people come in and tell me how XP is terrible and there are so many problems with it (then they ask for a copy of ME HAHAHA). XP is stabler and is more compatible (slightly) with programs than 2000. Also, XP is not a user friendly 2k. It is built off of the 2k code, but has a nice number of inhancements that make it worth the upgrade. I have used windows for 3.0 up (yes, I too was using floppies untill I got a 98 cd) and say XP all of the way.

On a lighter note, if you thought that 95 had a lot of floppies, you should have seen the number of floppies ms office had back then. The stack is taller than my dog.

only the uber-1337 purists say xp is bad, just because they are uber 1337. xp is an awesome os. i do have some problems with word97 not really working well on XP but it is a great os.