XP & 2000

What is the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?

basically... its an upgrade... xp definitely is better den 2000... visually... functionality... and security wise... thats their only different i guess... visually for example... xp got that beautiful blue-ish new theme for desktop compare to the previous dull grayish one... functionality i'm not too sure... maybe support for multi-users or a better version of iis? or a new implementation of a lousy firewall... or the ability to group same applications together in taskbar when it get filled... security wise they have improve alot... due to wad have been happening in the past... if u ask me to recommand 1 of the os... of cuz i would recommand xp... pro or home ed... still the same answer...edit: oh yeah... stability too... xp don't crash... (at least in my pass experience i never meant b4) definitely more stable den windows 2000

windows xp is just a updated version of 2000 with tons mroe skins less crashing more options and better utilisation of system resources...also much simpler to use

Removed

xp pro is better than win2k pro. xp has lot of cool things like skins and a user frndly, eye catching effects. actually it doesn't change much before sp2. with sp2 the xp's security is now a little bit tougher than before and also block pirated version

Another reason is XP requires validation, 2000 doesn't.

That's the main reason I still am using Windows 2000. Although a no of XP hack are available on the web, but I was told that they all got blocked in SP2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

meh you don't require validation all the time....like if you download the xp 8 in 1 cd off the net one of the versions doesn't require validation or it is just a serial easily found off the net. I can't really remember but another thing is you don"t even need to install sp2...it kinda blows in my opinion plus if you just download all the updates seperately it will be almost like getting sp2's main features minus the annoying ones

Removed

I believe, versions of XP available on the P2P are the corporate versions and are using one of the 10-15 leaked keys. And as far as I know, Microsoft blocked all those leaked keys in SP2

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well then I suggest not downloading sp2 or like I said earlier I think you could jsut download the security packs seprately instead of sp2 all together you might not get stuff like the pop up blocked but it all depends how badly you want to block those pop ups

Alright... time for someone to stand up in defence of 2000.Security. XP and 2000 are just as (in)secure. Often the security holes are the same for both OS's and MS releases patches same time. XP now has this "security center" (or whatever they call it) which does not increase security any more than good anti-virus & firewall software. Performance. I've somethimes heard people claiming that XP is faster in multimedia applications. This is bull. If therer is difference, it is minimal. Looks. Sure XP has these skins which add colour to your desktop. They also look gay.In 2000 no activation or validation. Also 2000, AFAIK, does not contains built-in spyware as XP does. Stability. I and few of my friends have used 2000 for few years now and we all have been very satisfied to its stability. The secret is the Digital's kernel. From what I have experience and heard, 2000 and XP are equally stabile. The changes to the kernel from 2000 to XP are, AFAIK, quite minimal. 2000 has now had 4 service packs. Anyways I haven't seen a single "Help with Win2k SP n" threads anywhere in web. But it seems like just about every bigger forum I visit (regardless if it is computer related forum or not) has these XP threads more than enough. So as long as M$ keeps supporting W2k and I'm not going 64-bits, for my windows machine I'm sticking with w2k.

well, there are some new feautures though. more support for actidve directory & stuff like that. but on thing that sucks about windows xp is that you can already login before all the policies have been committed. so basicly, if you're fast, you could bypass some policies and get to sources you shouldn't be able to get to. that's why xp boots faster. but it isn't better.if you get all the service packs for 2k, you're at least just as good & safe.besides, xp uses more resources. after saying this, it'll be funny for you to here that I use XP. i think XP is great for home users that don't need to bother about securing delicate information & stuff. it's easy and most software that comes out is made for xp in the first place. i have the impression it's better for gaming too.so to sum things up: linux! haha

I've found that 2000 is great if you want to run older software as well as all the latest stuff. I have a great selection of old games and apps, and wasn't able to run them with xp, but ran into no problems with 2000. Overall I like 2000 more, but it just a personal preference.

Hi folkes,I'm not quit sure to where to post this problem, but one thing that I'm sure about is that is regarding Windows 2k.As once opon a time I had Windows XP installed at my Computer, but then did MS made that excalation in their campain against piracy, and killed autoupdate as it was an pirated version.That point didn't I care much about as I allready had an legal version of Windows 2k, and therefor did I installed it again without any bigger tears or problems.To get to the point was there actualy one problem, as when I had XP on my computer did I also had Apache, Mysql and PHP running, and I've now tried several of installation kits without any succes, just to mention some of these I've tried as follow:- Netserver 01 beta 5 build 2- EyE WW- xampDo any have any expirence regarding running apache on win 2k who might can tell me what the problem is, without just telling me to upgrade to XP. And I'm wondering if any can help me to solve this anoying incident.I'm looking foreward to your responds.Cheers! and best regardsJens