switch from 2K to xp ?

95, 98 and ME it's worth the switch to XP. Not so sure about 2k.

ya i have those no contest thanks for the response

If you have 2000 you don't havce to switch. Its almost the same thing. 2000 is more for programers and systems developers... like NT. WinXP is soppossed to replace NT and 2000. Win 2000 is the replacement for NT.

Confused?

I had Win2000 and is was fine. It doesn't have the features of XP but hardware wise and ability for programs are the same.

And with ObjectDesktop you cane have Win2000 look like XP like I did.

you are probably right i just thought I would get some feed back from somebody that has made the change. I have all the eye-candy stardock puts out and alternate shell and such just curious I waited a long wile before getting 2Kpro as we all know that OS'S get distributed before the bugs get addressed. So any way did you switch ?

i am a web developer and i used win2k pro. it was fine and stable snd also ran any game or app i threw at it. it is a fine OS especially with Service Pack 3. Now i use windows xp pro. It has even more stability and has loads more of compatibility. just make sure you have 256megs of ram for good excelent performance! 128 megs doesn't work that well

if you are really a hardcore programer i recomend Mandrake Linux 8.2 Power Pack Edition! it has all the tools you will need for almost any major language and is more stable than any version of windows!

What Hard-Drive setup do you happen to have?

Multi-gig drives are dirt cheap these days and you can actually put ata100 drive at 7200 rpm
for a resonable price.

Dual-Boot might work well for you and then you can decide?

If you have 2 drives with the room on em, Ghost your Win2k drive over to the second and then update the first. This way you have the ability to run your apps under both to really get a feel for each and you do not loose anything or have a pain in the ass if you decide XP is a hosebag.

Personally, if cost is restrictive, XP is not worth the money for the upgrade.

Win 2k is much faster, and as with any windows OS release and the claims of great gains in speed, functionality, ect. Everything you read from MS or hear on TV is not exactly true across the board.

You can read just about any of the old magazines dealing with network administration and such to find out that Windows XP actually is slower than 2k on the real world bench marks they put them through side by side. I have yet to see, read, or hear anything about MS dealing with that and making it so XP does what it saya when it claims it is faster than Win2k.

Almost like Intels claims of being faster than AMD for so many years only to find out that it was a crock after all and Intel ended up in a class action suite over it...

luck to you...

thanks one and all pretty much what i thought but its nice to have the input. I am running 2K pro on a fairly old setup 700 amd 512 at 100 with a 20 gig hard drive and out side of my getting over zealous with loading the heck out of my system with programs and shells it holds up pretty good one thing I notice ieSpell shure makes any OS work better

Win2K was a reliable crasher for me...and had the odd driver compatibility problem as well.
XP Pro, with identical hardware has been quite a lot better. I now have to work really hard to make my OS crash...[but nothing is beyond me]...

Prime reason for me not to use 2000 was its sucky multi-display support. Quite a step back from 98. Luckily, XP's got it all right.

nah don't switch. you got 2000 Pro (of which I had) then it is the same as XP Pro. XP has allot of features but when it comes to regular computing it is the same thing.

Keep in mind that eventually, though, Microsoft will not make any more real updates for Win2000 because they want you to have XP.

I would just keep Win2000 and get XP later.

oh and yes AMD is just as good as Intel but cheaper.

Some progeams claim to be only tested on Intel, but usually they will work fine on AMD.

I do not know of one application that will not run on an AMD that will run on an Intel...
Lots of Lans / Mans and Wans over the years and not one. Though I do remember Intel screwing the pooch on floating point with the Pentimu and they raced to get that B-Step patch out to everyone. Opps

AMD IMHO is better and cheaper. Also for the tweaker you can over clock AMD more that Inter.

AutoDesk (the makers of AutoCad and other drafting and design programs) says they test the program on Intel. They won't promise anything if you bought a computer that was a AMD CPU.

I found that odd, but I was young and just started school. Evrybody else bought a Intel Pentium so why go against the grain?

I know better now, and yet I still make sure I have a pentium in the house.

That is exactly how I got into computers graphics in the first place Acad9 on a IBM 286/12, taking courses for Mechanical Design and CAD. We used to print to the HP Laser and while it was plotting we would walk across campus to the break area, drink a cup of coffee, smoke a cig and bs for a bit. Then walk back across campus and into the room and you might be lucky enough to hear the Laser kick into printmode...

The future should be interesting with the SNMP mom boards and 64bit chips hitting the market. 3d animation and graphics should really expand and evolve. Though knowing MS they will figure a way out to eat up every stinking resource on your system forcing you into upgrading to 4 gigs of ram, 1 terabyte of disk space and 1 gig of video memory, just to get a boot screen, and not have to listen to the system churning away clicking like a broken clock everytime you move the mouse cursor... HA!

Intergraph should bend Intel over a barrel...