2000 Pro - Xp Pro

9 Aug 2005 8:39 PM

Mac

Is there an upgrade from 2000 pro (upgrade) to XP pro?

How much?

9 Aug 2005 8:39 PM

Bob I

Yes, check with your preferred reseller.

Mac wrote:

Show quoteHide quote

> Is there an upgrade from 2000 pro (upgrade) to XP pro?
>
> How much?
>
>

9 Aug 2005 8:46 PM

Jud

"Bob I" <bire***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ef6d7KSnFHA.420@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Yes, check with your preferred reseller.
>
> Mac wrote:
>
> > Is there an upgrade from 2000 pro (upgrade) to XP pro?
> >
> > How much?
> >
> >
>

Before doing it though, ask your self what does XP have that's better than
2K, and why bother to upgrade.

9 Aug 2005 8:52 PM

copyman46

XP is better than 2000, extended support phase for 2000, more patches
and fixes, better GUI appearance...

9 Aug 2005 10:19 PM

ByTor

In article <1123620734.903082.141***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
copyma***@hotmail.com, says...

> XP is better than 2000, extended support phase for 2000, more patches
> and fixes, better GUI appearance...
>
>

Support? Of what?

More patches & fixes one would question stability.....

Appearance? Now there's a great reason..........

10 Aug 2005 3:05 PM

George Hester

The user has been infected with upgrademania. It's a common affliction.
One that is very much supported by software makers. They don't get it right
the first time and they make believe for users that they have this time.
Then it all starts over again round and round.

--
George Hester
_______________________________

Show quoteHide quote

"ByTor" <By***@snowdog.com> wrote in message
news:EZ9Ke.76981$6g2.64420@fe09.usenetserver.com...
> In article <1123620734.903082.141***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> copyma***@hotmail.com, says...
>
> > XP is better than 2000, extended support phase for 2000, more patches
> > and fixes, better GUI appearance...
> >
> >
>
> Support? Of what?
>
> More patches & fixes one would question stability.....
>
> Appearance? Now there's a great reason..........
>

10 Aug 2005 3:10 AM

GO

<copyma***@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1123620734.903082.141200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> XP is better than 2000, extended support phase for 2000, more patches
> and fixes, better GUI appearance...

More patches is good thing? More patches mean more vulnerabilities. Win2k
has a two year lead on XP, meaning that all of the bugs have been worked
out.

To the OP....as others have mentioned, why do you wish to upgrade? Win2k
can do anything XP can do. If your current Win2k system is running fine and
stable why risk installing a new OS to lose that?

10 Aug 2005 10:12 AM

Peter

>
> More patches is good thing? More patches mean more vulnerabilities. Win2k
> has a two year lead on XP, meaning that all of the bugs have been worked
> out.
>

Obviously more patches signify lesser stability to begin with, but the
support issue is relevant I guess. New problems that see the day with W2K
will not have patches available when MS quits supporting it for good. And It
seems that is what is about to happen now. Didn't MS already try to pull the
plug on it a year ago as well but then extended the support period? I just
read on ZdNet the other day about a new Windows vulnerability affecting Win2K
at 'kernel level' or or something serious like that, for which there was no
present knowledge about how to cure. Something about IP insecurity, a foreign
company found it out and reported to MS but none will tell more until they
know how to go about fixing it.

So continued support is kind of relevent I would guess.

Then I think a couple of you underestimate the importance some of us users
give to appearance... I know you'll probably think that's really nerdy,
what's important is how well it works. Yes, but since XP is far from crashing
all over the place all the time, it's a bit too simple just to say stability
is the most important thing. Some of us may prefer too work in a more
aesthethic environment that we customized ourselves to the price of slight
occasional instability. Not everyone is running servers, and need to keep
100% functioning systems, you know.

That's my 2 cents.

/p

10 Aug 2005 9:33 PM

GO

Show quote Hide quote

"Peter" <Pe***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:053B0B04-7FE5-4558-B375-B4CF61F84422@microsoft.com...
>
> >
> > More patches is good thing? More patches mean more vulnerabilities.
Win2k
> > has a two year lead on XP, meaning that all of the bugs have been worked
> > out.
> >
>
> Obviously more patches signify lesser stability to begin with, but the
> support issue is relevant I guess. New problems that see the day with W2K
> will not have patches available when MS quits supporting it for good. And
It
> seems that is what is about to happen now. Didn't MS already try to pull
the
> plug on it a year ago as well but then extended the support period? I just
> read on ZdNet the other day about a new Windows vulnerability affecting
Win2K
> at 'kernel level' or or something serious like that, for which there was
no
> present knowledge about how to cure. Something about IP insecurity, a
foreign
> company found it out and reported to MS but none will tell more until they
> know how to go about fixing it.
>
> So continued support is kind of relevent I would guess.
>
> Then I think a couple of you underestimate the importance some of us users
> give to appearance... I know you'll probably think that's really nerdy,
> what's important is how well it works. Yes, but since XP is far from
crashing
> all over the place all the time, it's a bit too simple just to say
stability
> is the most important thing. Some of us may prefer too work in a more
> aesthethic environment that we customized ourselves to the price of slight
> occasional instability. Not everyone is running servers, and need to keep
> 100% functioning systems, you know.
>
> That's my 2 cents.
>
> /p

You do make some good points, and yes, continued support is definitely a
nice thing but I think if people always didn't feel the need to upgrade
support for Win2k would have continued for much longer (and MS may change
their mind yet and continue supporting 2k as there are a LOT of businesses
[and home users] still using it). And I realize some people to want/like a
prettier interface, and that's fine, but I wouldn't want to risk losing a
perfectly stable machine just for appearances, but obviously some may. But
if the only reason to upgrade is for appearances there are third party
alternatives to do so, some of which are free (Stardock is one of the better
known and there are also several shell replacement apps out there).

12 Aug 2005 3:24 AM

no_one

copyma***@hotmail.com wrote:

>XP is better than 2000, extended support phase for 2000, more patches
>and fixes, better GUI appearance...

Mmmmm, not here. XP Pro is the one in out network that gives me the
fits. The WIN 2000 units run fine in the network. Better interface,
ya if you like Disney cartoons. As far as I am concerned XP is the
only know virus with mouse control.

--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

9 Aug 2005 8:50 PM

copyman46

Upgrade from the XP CD, and are your installation is default settnings?