I was just wondering why you run XP over Win2000.
I'm building a new computer and was going to use Win2000 cause it was supposed to use less sytem resources
and takes less ram at boot up.
Thanks
TaranScorp

This question was asked in a private message. Rather than hide our tech advice in private conversations, Site Staff will often answer PMs (from any site) here in the digitalFAQ.com forum, so that others may read and benefit from our expertise. Please continue the conversation here. Either login or join as a Free Member, and we can continue troubleshooting your video, photo or web related issue. Thanks for understanding our tech Q&A policies.

Win2000 XP pro vs XP ?
 

Adobe CS3 is the biggest one. Lots of other software requires XP SP1, SP2 and .NET frameworks.

Win2000 is not more stable, that's such a myth. If anything, it's less stable. The "2000 better than XP" was true before SP1. But SP1 is 7 years old or so, now.

Heck, I've had to use Vista on two systems, more requirements of software. I imagine Windows 7 will make it to at least one of my systems, eventually. I only run XP SP1, SP2 and Vista SP1, right now.

If I need an older OS, I'll run it in a virtual machine (VirtualPC, VMWare, VirtualBox, DOSBox), but those are rare situations.

I have anywhere from 1GB to 6GM RAM in my systems, and RAM and start-up time really is not a concern. The work is what I worry about, and Windows XP (or even Mac OS X) is the right tool at this moment -- not Windows 2000, which is not even updated or supported by Microsoft anymore.

I would be surprised if you could get Windows 2000 to even acknowledge all the hardware found in truly "new" computers.