benefits of win 2000

ScuffScuff Southwestern, Pennsylvania
edited February 2005 in Science & Tech
whats the benefits (if any ) of using Windows 2000 for non business use. It does seem more stable in a sense compared to like "win me". If any of you have experience with this let me know . Also is win 2000 comparable in performance to xp or is one bettter. Just curious!

Comments

  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited February 2005
    Windows NT (NT4, 2000, XP) is a whole different league of stability from Windows 9x (95, 98, ME).

    e.g. it actually IS stable, as opposed to horrendously instable.
  • ScuffScuff Southwestern, Pennsylvania
    edited February 2005
    ok now whats the difference in the windows 2000 being loaded as a server or as pro?
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited February 2005
    Pro is for workstations

    Server is pro with a whole bunch of extra things running - all the "servers" - FTP, HTTP, DNS, Active Directory (LDAP), SMTP, NNTP, whatever you want. It's a server OS.
  • TexTex Dallas/Ft. Worth
    edited February 2005
    Just use win2k pro. Trust me if you don't know the differance you don't need server. And I am not being tacky just truthful.

    Win2k pro can function as a small server in your house unless you have non normal needs ands if your coming off win98 or winme then learning win2k pro will be enough for ya to tackle.

    You really should consider skipping it altogether and going to win xp which is more geared to home use and just as stable. Lots of nifty fun features for home.

    Tex
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited February 2005
    Yeah no reason at all for running Windows 2000 Server, it's more expencive and for home use it doesn't help you.

    I still have my Windows 2000 Pro, it's a great OS and I didn't upgrade to XP easily becuase it treated me well. But when I had the money I went ahead and got XP Pro and found it has alot of cool features, a different look, some extra gadgets, etc.... though some of it you could do to Windows 2000 Pro as well if you knew/know what you're doing.

    If you don't have 2000 Pro already and looking to get a new OS, I'd go ahead and get XP Home, or Pro if you don't mind spending a bit more money. Pro has extra networking features that even I don't ever mess with really. Other then that, if you're just using it to play games or do some office work at home, Home edition is all you need.
  • MeunoukMeunouk Wales, UK
    edited February 2005
    Every gamer knows you do not ever use XP Home Edition!
  • leishi85leishi85 Grand Rapids, MI Icrontian
    edited February 2005
    and may i ask why?
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited February 2005
    leishi85 wrote:
    and may i ask why?

    no, you just gave up your only chance :D

    pst... I don't think he knows squat about any of this.... ;D
  • pseudonympseudonym Michigan Icrontian
    edited February 2005
    XP Home blows... THATS WHY!!!

    Anyways, I've run 2000 Pro on just about all my computers and only recently switched to XP pro. Basically, both are about the same to me performace wise. Some say XP is quicker, some say 2000 is quicker. XP is just a bit nicer and more polished really.
  • lightninlightnin
    edited February 2005
    we run 200 pro or linux exclusively at work (no red hat). we do mostly web apps but are dabbling in installed apps, in which point the win guys are messing with .net on 2000. i am the head java guy, and i personally love my debian machine. i do have a win 2000 machine though, but i only use it if i come across a word doc that oo.org simply cant render properly. we use win 2000/office 2003 because it does seem to be a ton more stable than xp, and seems to be able to run on much less ram for longer uptime without having to adjust anything on the ui.
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited February 2005
    pseudonym wrote:
    XP Home blows... THATS WHY!!!

    Anyways, I've run 2000 Pro on just about all my computers and only recently switched to XP pro. Basically, both are about the same to me performace wise. Some say XP is quicker, some say 2000 is quicker. XP is just a bit nicer and more polished really.

    Anyone can say "IT SUCKS" or "IT BLOWS" but it seems to take a man to say WHY and back up their claim. As far as I recall the only difference between Home and Pro is Networking options, as far as the average User and even Overclocker is concerned, there is no big difference but the name of the product. You average Uber Geek would want the "Pro" version over all, unless there is an even better name. At least that is the way I have seen it so far.
  • leishi85leishi85 Grand Rapids, MI Icrontian
    edited February 2005
    you mean like the Uber version instead of the PRO, hehe ;D
Sign In or Register to comment.