Win2K-Pro vs. WinXP-Pro

[Nicholas]

Neither Windows 2000 or Windows XP Professional is
considered to be a "light server OS. They are both "Desktop"
or "Workstation" operating systems.

My suggestion is to obtain the free trial version of Windows Server =
2003.

Windows Server 2003 Evaluation Kit
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/trial/default.mspx


--=20
Nicholas

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Tom Tenny" > wrote in message: =20
...

| I'm considering upgrading from Win98 to either Win2K
| or WinXP (both Pro) for upcomming courses in Enterprise
| Java Beans - which will need a light server OS. My PC
| has a 450MHz PII with 384MB of DRAM. I'm debating
| installation of full OEM versions of the OSs versus doing
| upgrade installations (involving a small price difference).
|=20
| Is there any reason to do an install from a non-MS
| operating system environment (i.e. a "full" install) rather
| than from an MS operating system (i.e. an "upgrade")?
|=20
| Is there any difference between Win2K and WinXP in
| speed or memory requirements or application software
| compatibility?
|=20
| What's your opinion of Win2K as a home PC OS?
|=20
|=20
| -[Tom Tenny]-

[Michael Culley]

Depends on your definition of "light server os". Both can run server apps
such as IIS, SQL Server etc.

--
Michael Culley


"Nicholas" > wrote in message
...
Neither Windows 2000 or Windows XP Professional is
considered to be a "light server OS. They are both "Desktop"
or "Workstation" operating systems.

My suggestion is to obtain the free trial version of Windows Server 2003.

Windows Server 2003 Evaluation Kit
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/trial/default.mspx


--
Nicholas

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Tom Tenny" > wrote in message:
...

| I'm considering upgrading from Win98 to either Win2K
| or WinXP (both Pro) for upcomming courses in Enterprise
| Java Beans - which will need a light server OS. My PC
| has a 450MHz PII with 384MB of DRAM. I'm debating
| installation of full OEM versions of the OSs versus doing
| upgrade installations (involving a small price difference).
|
| Is there any reason to do an install from a non-MS
| operating system environment (i.e. a "full" install) rather
| than from an MS operating system (i.e. an "upgrade")?
|
| Is there any difference between Win2K and WinXP in
| speed or memory requirements or application software
| compatibility?
|
| What's your opinion of Win2K as a home PC OS?
|
|
| -[Tom Tenny]-

[Your name]

"Tom Tenny" > wrote in news:ec9vaubFDHA.1904
@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:

> I'm considering upgrading from Win98 to either Win2K
> or WinXP (both Pro) for upcomming courses in Enterprise
> Java Beans - which will need a light server OS. My PC
> has a 450MHz PII with 384MB of DRAM. I'm debating
> installation of full OEM versions of the OSs versus doing
> upgrade installations (involving a small price difference).
>
> Is there any reason to do an install from a non-MS
> operating system environment (i.e. a "full" install) rather
> than from an MS operating system (i.e. an "upgrade")?
>
> Is there any difference between Win2K and WinXP in
> speed or memory requirements or application software
> compatibility?
>
> What's your opinion of Win2K as a home PC OS?
>
>
> -[Tom Tenny]-
>
>

i think w2k is great for lecture and course and there are lots of tools
for w2k administration

[dh]

I dual-boot XPP & 2kP on a p3 500 / 384mb.
2k is quick and solid.
XP lags a bit.
You should borrow an XP disk and run the compatibility wizard.
Odds are your system is not really up to XP.
There's little "gotcha's" like: can your HD(s) do NTFS 5.1 (XP)?
One of my old HD's, an IBM DJ372200 (GXP 22) does not officially support
XP's NTFS file system, for example, and it shows.
And Intel 440SEBX2 motherboard / BIOS does not work well with XP but is fine
with 2k.
If you just want to do quick, serious work go with 2k.
If you want pretty interface, bells / whistles and familiarity with XP OS
for current / future OS's like Server 2003 but don't mind slow performance
try XP (if you pass compatibility).
HTH, dh

"Tom Tenny" > wrote in message
...
> I'm considering upgrading from Win98 to either Win2K
> or WinXP (both Pro) for upcomming courses in Enterprise
> Java Beans - which will need a light server OS. My PC
> has a 450MHz PII with 384MB of DRAM. I'm debating
> installation of full OEM versions of the OSs versus doing
> upgrade installations (involving a small price difference).
>
> Is there any reason to do an install from a non-MS
> operating system environment (i.e. a "full" install) rather
> than from an MS operating system (i.e. an "upgrade")?
>
> Is there any difference between Win2K and WinXP in
> speed or memory requirements or application software
> compatibility?
>
> What's your opinion of Win2K as a home PC OS?
>
>
> -[Tom Tenny]-
>
>

[Walter Hawn]

An addendum: NTFS is not required to run XP. It'll handle fat32 just fine.
Also, I find XP to be very nimble. H'ever, I have heard that certain older
BIOS's don't care for it.

You should have little, if any, trouble on a system 2 years old or younger.
I beta-ed XP on a four-year old 300mhz system, and had no troubles to speak
of. XP includes nearly all the drivers you'll need for the basic box, and
for most printers. H'ever, for scanners, camaras, etc, you should be ready
with the latest and greatest from the manufacturer. If you're running EZCD
Creator, you'll need to get the latest updates from Roxio's web-site.

Me, I'd go with XP (you can, BTW, dispense with all the eye candy, if you
like. Speeds things up some to do so), mostly because 2k is one step back.
If you look at the version numbers, you'll notice 2k is NT5.0, while XP is
NT5.1, so it's not really a major stride from one to the other.

Also, there is no need to buy a "full" install disk, if you already have an
upgradeable OS. You can still get an entirely clean install. The
'upgrade' disk is identical to the "full" disk, except for an authentication
routine. You simply need to have either the old OS on the HD, or an
original disk. XP checks to see whether you have a legal copy, and then
completely wipes out the old OS on a clean install.

I've gone both ways, clean and 'upgrade.' An upgrade from win9x is
essentially a clean install except that the old registry, desktop, and other
settings are preserved. The largest disadvantage to clean install is that
you must reinstall all your software and settings, and you must be very
careful in sequestering your data, if you wish to preserve it. The
advantage, of course, is that you don't have any left over registry entries
to maybe get in the way.
--
Hope this is helpful,

Walter Hawn
Associate XPert
The Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone

"dh" > wrote in message
...
> I dual-boot XPP & 2kP on a p3 500 / 384mb.
> 2k is quick and solid.
> XP lags a bit.
> You should borrow an XP disk and run the compatibility wizard.
> Odds are your system is not really up to XP.
> There's little "gotcha's" like: can your HD(s) do NTFS 5.1 (XP)?
> One of my old HD's, an IBM DJ372200 (GXP 22) does not officially support
> XP's NTFS file system, for example, and it shows.
> And Intel 440SEBX2 motherboard / BIOS does not work well with XP but is
fine
> with 2k.
> If you just want to do quick, serious work go with 2k.
> If you want pretty interface, bells / whistles and familiarity with XP OS
> for current / future OS's like Server 2003 but don't mind slow performance
> try XP (if you pass compatibility).
> HTH, dh
>
> "Tom Tenny" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm considering upgrading from Win98 to either Win2K
> > or WinXP (both Pro) for upcomming courses in Enterprise
> > Java Beans - which will need a light server OS. My PC
> > has a 450MHz PII with 384MB of DRAM. I'm debating
> > installation of full OEM versions of the OSs versus doing
> > upgrade installations (involving a small price difference).
> >
> > Is there any reason to do an install from a non-MS
> > operating system environment (i.e. a "full" install) rather
> > than from an MS operating system (i.e. an "upgrade")?
> >
> > Is there any difference between Win2K and WinXP in
> > speed or memory requirements or application software
> > compatibility?
> >
> > What's your opinion of Win2K as a home PC OS?
> >
> >
> > -[Tom Tenny]-
> >
> >
>
>

[Harry Ohrn]

You can use an Upgrade version of either W2K or XP to do a clean install.
Just pop your Win98 CD into the drive when asked for a qualifying product. I
suggest you do this rather than purchase an OEM version. An OEM version is
tied to the first system you install it to and legally you can not sell or
transfer it to another system if you decide to do that.

--

Harry Ohrn - MS MVP (Windows Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp/
www.webtree.ca/newlife/


"Tom Tenny" > wrote in message
...
> I'm considering upgrading from Win98 to either Win2K
> or WinXP (both Pro) for upcomming courses in Enterprise
> Java Beans - which will need a light server OS. My PC
> has a 450MHz PII with 384MB of DRAM. I'm debating
> installation of full OEM versions of the OSs versus doing
> upgrade installations (involving a small price difference).
>
> Is there any reason to do an install from a non-MS
> operating system environment (i.e. a "full" install) rather
> than from an MS operating system (i.e. an "upgrade")?
>
> Is there any difference between Win2K and WinXP in
> speed or memory requirements or application software
> compatibility?
>
> What's your opinion of Win2K as a home PC OS?
>
>
> -[Tom Tenny]-
>
>

[Jon]

"Tom Tenny" > wrote in message =
...
> I'm considering upgrading from Win98 to either Win2K
> or WinXP (both Pro) for upcomming courses in Enterprise
> Java Beans - which will need a light server OS. My PC
> has a 450MHz PII with 384MB of DRAM. I'm debating
> installation of full OEM versions of the OSs versus doing
> upgrade installations (involving a small price difference).
>=20

Please set your date correctly.
> Is there any reason to do an install from a non-MS
> operating system environment (i.e. a "full" install) rather
> than from an MS operating system (i.e. an "upgrade")?
>=20
> Is there any difference between Win2K and WinXP in
> speed or memory requirements or application software
> compatibility?
>=20
> What's your opinion of Win2K as a home PC OS?
>=20
>=20
> -[Tom Tenny]-
>=20
>

[Matthew Shaw]

You don't have to use NTFS you can still use fat32


"dh" > wrote in message
...
> I dual-boot XPP & 2kP on a p3 500 / 384mb.
> 2k is quick and solid.
> XP lags a bit.
> You should borrow an XP disk and run the compatibility wizard.
> Odds are your system is not really up to XP.
> There's little "gotcha's" like: can your HD(s) do NTFS 5.1 (XP)?
> One of my old HD's, an IBM DJ372200 (GXP 22) does not officially support
> XP's NTFS file system, for example, and it shows.
> And Intel 440SEBX2 motherboard / BIOS does not work well with XP but is
fine
> with 2k.
> If you just want to do quick, serious work go with 2k.
> If you want pretty interface, bells / whistles and familiarity with XP OS
> for current / future OS's like Server 2003 but don't mind slow performance
> try XP (if you pass compatibility).
> HTH, dh
>
> "Tom Tenny" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm considering upgrading from Win98 to either Win2K
> > or WinXP (both Pro) for upcomming courses in Enterprise
> > Java Beans - which will need a light server OS. My PC
> > has a 450MHz PII with 384MB of DRAM. I'm debating
> > installation of full OEM versions of the OSs versus doing
> > upgrade installations (involving a small price difference).
> >
> > Is there any reason to do an install from a non-MS
> > operating system environment (i.e. a "full" install) rather
> > than from an MS operating system (i.e. an "upgrade")?
> >
> > Is there any difference between Win2K and WinXP in
> > speed or memory requirements or application software
> > compatibility?
> >
> > What's your opinion of Win2K as a home PC OS?
> >
> >
> > -[Tom Tenny]-
> >
> >
>
>

[Tom Tenny]

"Jon" wrote:
Please set your date correctly.

Awww.... I was hoping to peek at the answers. :-)


-[Tom Tenny]-

[buggs]

Also win xp OEM does not have the contact microsoft in help and support. it
took out some stuff,. I have win xp pro OEM and don't like it compared to
the normal version.


"Harry Ohrn" > wrote in message
...
> You can use an Upgrade version of either W2K or XP to do a clean install.
> Just pop your Win98 CD into the drive when asked for a qualifying product.
I
> suggest you do this rather than purchase an OEM version. An OEM version is
> tied to the first system you install it to and legally you can not sell or
> transfer it to another system if you decide to do that.
>
> --
>
> Harry Ohrn - MS MVP (Windows Shell/User]
> www.webtree.ca/windowsxp/
> www.webtree.ca/newlife/
>
>
> "Tom Tenny" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm considering upgrading from Win98 to either Win2K
> > or WinXP (both Pro) for upcomming courses in Enterprise
> > Java Beans - which will need a light server OS. My PC
> > has a 450MHz PII with 384MB of DRAM. I'm debating
> > installation of full OEM versions of the OSs versus doing
> > upgrade installations (involving a small price difference).
> >
> > Is there any reason to do an install from a non-MS
> > operating system environment (i.e. a "full" install) rather
> > than from an MS operating system (i.e. an "upgrade")?
> >
> > Is there any difference between Win2K and WinXP in
> > speed or memory requirements or application software
> > compatibility?
> >
> > What's your opinion of Win2K as a home PC OS?
> >
> >
> > -[Tom Tenny]-
> >
> >
>
>

[Sir_George]

Tom,

Please adjust either your time zone or clock to the correct setting.

--
Sir_George


"Tom Tenny" > wrote in message
...
> I'm considering upgrading from Win98 to either Win2K
> or WinXP (both Pro) for upcomming courses in Enterprise
> Java Beans - which will need a light server OS. My PC
> has a 450MHz PII with 384MB of DRAM. I'm debating
> installation of full OEM versions of the OSs versus doing
> upgrade installations (involving a small price difference).
>
> Is there any reason to do an install from a non-MS
> operating system environment (i.e. a "full" install) rather
> than from an MS operating system (i.e. an "upgrade")?
>
> Is there any difference between Win2K and WinXP in
> speed or memory requirements or application software
> compatibility?
>
> What's your opinion of Win2K as a home PC OS?
>
>
> -[Tom Tenny]-
>
>

[Tom Tenny]

I'm considering upgrading from Win98 to either Win2K
or WinXP (both Pro) for upcomming courses in Enterprise
Java Beans - which will need a light server OS. My PC
has a 450MHz PII with 384MB of DRAM. I'm debating
installation of full OEM versions of the OSs versus doing
upgrade installations (involving a small price difference).

Is there any reason to do an install from a non-MS
operating system environment (i.e. a "full" install) rather
than from an MS operating system (i.e. an "upgrade")?

Is there any difference between Win2K and WinXP in
speed or memory requirements or application software
compatibility?

What's your opinion of Win2K as a home PC OS?


-[Tom Tenny]-

[Tom Tenny]

Thanks, Nicholas. By "light server" I mean only that
it should demonstrate the correctness of the Enter-
prise Java Beans that I write. It needn't actually
"serve" anyone but myself and the instructor - who
has said that XP would do for the "server" that
we would download from Sun's website.
BTW, I've settled on XP for a number of reasons
that I'll list in another posting.

-[Tome Tenny]-


"Nicholas" > wrote:
>Neither Windows 2000 or Windows XP Professional
>is considered to be a "light server OS. They are both
>"Desktop" or "Workstation" operating systems.
>
>My suggestion is to obtain the free trial version of
>Windows Server 2003.

Windows Server 2003 Evaluation Kit
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/trial/default.mspx


--
Nicholas

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Tom Tenny" > wrote in message:
...

| I'm considering upgrading from Win98 to either Win2K
| or WinXP (both Pro) for upcomming courses in Enterprise
| Java Beans - which will need a light server OS. My PC
| has a 450MHz PII with 384MB of DRAM. I'm debating
| installation of full OEM versions of the OSs versus doing
| upgrade installations (involving a small price difference).
|
| Is there any reason to do an install from a non-MS
| operating system environment (i.e. a "full" install) rather
| than from an MS operating system (i.e. an "upgrade")?
|
| Is there any difference between Win2K and WinXP in
| speed or memory requirements or application software
| compatibility?
|
| What's your opinion of Win2K as a home PC OS?
|
|
| -[Tom Tenny]-

[Tom Tenny]

Thanks for the mention of OEM version's linkage to
the first system it's installed on. I hadn't seen that
mentioned anywhere else.

-[Tome Tenny]-

"Harry Ohrn" > wrote:
> You can use an Upgrade version of either W2K or XP
> to do a clean install. Just pop your Win98 CD into the
> drive when asked for a qualifying product. I suggest
> you do this rather than purchase an OEM version. An
> OEM version is tied to the first system you install it to
> and legally you can not sell or transfer it to another
> system if you decide to do that.
>
> --
>
> Harry Ohrn - MS MVP (Windows Shell/User]
> www.webtree.ca/windowsxp/
> www.webtree.ca/newlife/
>
>
> "Tom Tenny" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm considering upgrading from Win98 to either Win2K
> > or WinXP (both Pro) for upcomming courses in Enterprise
> > Java Beans - which will need a light server OS. My PC
> > has a 450MHz PII with 384MB of DRAM. I'm debating
> > installation of full OEM versions of the OSs versus doing
> > upgrade installations (involving a small price difference).
> >
> > Is there any reason to do an install from a non-MS
> > operating system environment (i.e. a "full" install) rather
> > than from an MS operating system (i.e. an "upgrade")?
> >
> > Is there any difference between Win2K and WinXP in
> > speed or memory requirements or application software
> > compatibility?
> >
> > What's your opinion of Win2K as a home PC OS?
> >
> >
> > -[Tom Tenny]-
> >
> >
>
>

[Tom Tenny]

Thanks for your opinions and experiences, everyone.
I've decided to go with the WinXP Pro Upgrade for
a number of reasons, each one a close call, I admit:

1) I don't need speed and the server needn't actually
"serve" to the real world. WinXP will do the job.
2) I can get an academic discount on WinXP Pro from
the student store, putting the cost at $99 (+tax). Win2K
Pro (even as an upgrade with academic discount)
would cost more.
3) The next PC that I buy will probably have WinXP
pre-installed, so I might as well learn it now.
4) I have the option of upgrading the CPU if slow speed
becomes unbearable. I can also double the memory
to 768MB if I have to. Later, I will be able to afford it.
Now, I'm pinching pennies.
5) And lastly, I need the new OS *this weekend*.

I hope I don't regret this decision later. :-)


I'll try to archive and then un-install as much application
software as I can before doing the upgrade so as to
keep the upgrade process as simple as possible.
Does anyone have any hints to encourage a successful
upgrade?


-[Tom Tenny]-



"Tom Tenny" > wrote:
> I'm considering upgrading from Win98 to either Win2K
> or WinXP (both Pro) for upcomming courses in Enterprise
> Java Beans - which will need a light server OS. My PC
> has a 450MHz PII with 384MB of DRAM. I'm debating
> installation of full OEM versions of the OSs versus doing
> upgrade installations (involving a small price difference).
>
> Is there any reason to do an install from a non-MS
> operating system environment (i.e. a "full" install) rather
> than from an MS operating system (i.e. an "upgrade")?
>
> Is there any difference between Win2K and WinXP in
> speed or memory requirements or application software
> compatibility?
>
> What's your opinion of Win2K as a home PC OS?
>
>
> -[Tom Tenny]-

[David Williams]

"Tom Tenny" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for your opinions and experiences, everyone.
> I've decided to go with the WinXP Pro Upgrade for
> a number of reasons, each one a close call, I admit:
>
> 1) I don't need speed and the server needn't actually
> "serve" to the real world. WinXP will do the job.
> 2) I can get an academic discount on WinXP Pro from
> the student store, putting the cost at $99 (+tax). Win2K
> Pro (even as an upgrade with academic discount)
> would cost more.
> 3) The next PC that I buy will probably have WinXP
> pre-installed, so I might as well learn it now.
> 4) I have the option of upgrading the CPU if slow speed
> becomes unbearable. I can also double the memory
> to 768MB if I have to. Later, I will be able to afford it.
> Now, I'm pinching pennies.
> 5) And lastly, I need the new OS *this weekend*.
>
> I hope I don't regret this decision later. :-)

I think you will be happier with XP as a Home OS.

[Harry Ohrn]

Hi. These versions are cheaper not only because MS wants to help the
starving student but also because there are some restrictions. An academic
version carries some restrictions on it's use and resale. You may want to
re-consider this as you did with purchasing an OEM version. Or at least be
certain of what the restrictions are. If you can live with them then you
certainly have made a good choice economically but if you plan to resell it
later you may run into a problem.

--

Harry Ohrn - MS MVP (Windows Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp/
www.webtree.ca/newlife/


"Tom Tenny" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for your opinions and experiences, everyone.
> I've decided to go with the WinXP Pro Upgrade for
> a number of reasons, each one a close call, I admit:
>
> 1) I don't need speed and the server needn't actually
> "serve" to the real world. WinXP will do the job.
> 2) I can get an academic discount on WinXP Pro from
> the student store, putting the cost at $99 (+tax). Win2K
> Pro (even as an upgrade with academic discount)
> would cost more.
> 3) The next PC that I buy will probably have WinXP
> pre-installed, so I might as well learn it now.
> 4) I have the option of upgrading the CPU if slow speed
> becomes unbearable. I can also double the memory
> to 768MB if I have to. Later, I will be able to afford it.
> Now, I'm pinching pennies.
> 5) And lastly, I need the new OS *this weekend*.
>
> I hope I don't regret this decision later. :-)
>
>
> I'll try to archive and then un-install as much application
> software as I can before doing the upgrade so as to
> keep the upgrade process as simple as possible.
> Does anyone have any hints to encourage a successful
> upgrade?
>
>
> -[Tom Tenny]-
>
>
>
> "Tom Tenny" > wrote:
> > I'm considering upgrading from Win98 to either Win2K
> > or WinXP (both Pro) for upcomming courses in Enterprise
> > Java Beans - which will need a light server OS. My PC
> > has a 450MHz PII with 384MB of DRAM. I'm debating
> > installation of full OEM versions of the OSs versus doing
> > upgrade installations (involving a small price difference).
> >
> > Is there any reason to do an install from a non-MS
> > operating system environment (i.e. a "full" install) rather
> > than from an MS operating system (i.e. an "upgrade")?
> >
> > Is there any difference between Win2K and WinXP in
> > speed or memory requirements or application software
> > compatibility?
> >
> > What's your opinion of Win2K as a home PC OS?
> >
> >
> > -[Tom Tenny]-
>

[Lance Hill]

"Tom Tenny" > wrote...
> Thanks for your opinions and experiences, everyone.
> I've decided to go with the WinXP Pro Upgrade for
> a number of reasons, each one a close call, I admit:
>
> 2) I can get an academic discount on WinXP Pro from
> the student store, putting the cost at $99 (+tax). Win2K
> Pro (even as an upgrade with academic discount)
> would cost more.

Those academic discounts are great. My bookstore is offering XP Pro Upgrade
for $95 ($299 for the full version). Win2k goes for $129 for the upgrade and
$319 for the full versions.

The trick for a successful XP install will be doing the partition/reformat
and making sure your computer/printers/cards etc are compatible with XP or
have upgraded drivers/firmware available from the manufacturer. Make sure
you run that compatibility check before you upgrade.

Good luck with your Java Beans.

Lance
*****