WIN XP PRO or WIN2000 PRO

[volunteer]

I want to add a new OS to the group of pc's. I can buy either WINXP PRO or 2000 PRO for the same cost. Pro's and con's for each?

[elroy]

Win2k isn't a resource/ram hog like XP.
Win2k looks like Win9x so it is easy to get around in it.
Win2k doesn't have service packs that hose your system.
Win2k doesn't have the M$ registration scheme that XP has.
That's my .02

[crossedup]

W2K can be browsed easier over the network if you do that sort of thing.
XP PRO is the new version of W2K, pretty much.
I still prefer W2K over about any other windows O/S.

[johnnyis42]

Originally posted by elroy
Win2k isn't a resource/ram hog like XP.
Win2k looks like Win9x so it is easy to get around in it.

yeah, uh, what version of windows xp you using? last i checked, you could make windows xp look exactly like windows 2k, and if you're trying to get your pentium 3 500 with 128 megs of RAM to run windows xp smoothly, you can turn off all the visual effects, and disable a number of default services to make the desktop environment run as slick as it does with win2k (not that a pentium 3 500 runs 2k all that fast)

add to the fact that the default group policy template on a windowsXP machine is actually configured more securely (though it is true the UPnP service being on by default leaves a big hole) and the biggest difference you have is the coolness factor of terminal services server abilities, completely enhanced multimonitor (not just dual monitor) support, and the built in firewall, though not exactly fort knox, it's more than windows 2k has by default.

oh yeah, and not to mention all the MMC snapins, which windows 98 does not have, but windows 2000 does have.... i guess when you say "looks the same" i'm wondering if you mean the pretty outside that doesn't really do much, or if you mean under the hood, which is completely different and whether you change from 98 to XP or 2k, will take a bit of getting used to.