win2k pro or win xp pro

[DVX]

i'm going to be reformatting my system soon, and get rid of win98 which came with it, and i am deciding on whether to install win2k pro or xp pro..

i am going to be doing development mainly, not so much games, that's why i got the computer, and i am going to need a pretty stable operating system.  one of my friends, he's a pro computer tech, recomended win2k if you are familiar with computers and microsoft's os's.  he said winxp is a computer newby/dummy proof os, and is good if you are just new to things you will want to do with xp.  but once you know, or allready do know, these things, win2k is by far better, not only because it's more stable, but also it has been around longer and nearly all the bugs, if any now, are worked out, as where xp is not.

i was just wondering if anyone had any opinions to make about what i should get, because to tell you the truth, even after what he said, i am not totally sure..  i'm thinking win2k pro at this point, but xp pro still sits in my head :p

[iago]

There's another thread near the top about this, posted by me.  Bottom line: win xp pro is best, but win xp home is the worst.

I've used both of those, I've always preferred win xp.

[DVX]

but xp is full of tutorials and "user-friendly features," and from what he said, 2k is not..  also, 2k is much more stable and reliable than xp

it's also much less memory consuming than xp

[Hitmen]

but xp is full of tutorials and "user-friendly features," and from what he said, 2k is not..  also, 2k is much more stable and reliable than xp

it's also much less memory consuming than xp

Windows 2000 is not "much more stable and reliable" than XP, except probably xp home :p

[effect]

Both are built from NT technology so why not use NT and get the best of both worlds.

[Zakath]

I've generally noticed Win2k to be a bit more stable. Just my own observations, so take that for what it's worth.

It does require less memory to run well, among a few other things. See that other thread for more detail.

My recommendation, btw, is Win2k.

[DVX]

cool, i did some research..  and told my tech pro guy, and he argued it's all bullshit and doesn't really even matter..  things such as much more network support, system administrator control and user accounts, media, miscellaneous entertainment features, and i even read one article which claimed XP loads applications 17% faster, runs 34% faster and smoothly, and even noted is 34% more stable..  but he still insisted win2k is a much better choice..  but it seems to me that the information says otherwise..  i'm still unsure on exactly what i should get..  keep in mind i am using the computer for development..

[Trance]

Both are built from NT technology so why not use NT and get the best of both worlds.

..Windows 2000 and Windows XP is WIndows NT.. just newer versions..

Anyways, if your system doesn't have a lot of memory, I suggest Windows 2000. I generally recommend atleast 384mb's of RAM for Windows XP.

[effect]

..Windows 2000 and Windows XP is WIndows NT.. just newer versions..
worlds.

Thus the BUILT ON

I generally recommend atleast 384mb's of RAM for Windows XP.  

Microsoft recommends a minimum 128 Megabytes of RAM to use Windows XP

[iago]

XP has a pile of user friendly features, all of which can be disabled.  XP loads almost twice as fast as 2K, I've found XP to be more stable, and having user friendly features isn't a reason not to use an operating system.

Although if you want to do real development, just get it over with and switch to Linux

But anyway, any more discussion should happen in the other thread; there's no sense in having 2 threads discussing the same thing.