Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 22, 2003, 10:14 AM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2
Default Windows 2000 vs XP

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but I'm curious if any PC users have experience with XP as opposed to W2K. I am currently running W2K Pro on both machines, but need to know if there is ample reason to migrate to XP. I've read that XP handles digital imaging better than W2K, but is it that much better? I don't relish the idea of completely rebuilding 2 hard drives.
studioc is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 22, 2003, 10:18 AM   #2
steve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,535

The only "handling" that XP really does is auto-launch Explorer or a program of your choice when a flash card or Mass Storage device is plugged in the USB port.

This is great for raw beginners but I surely wouldn't rebuild two machines just to get that feature. Your call of course.

steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2003, 11:16 AM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585

I upgrade from Win98SE to XP because I bought a new computer. I would not upgrade from W2K to XP as long everything is working on your current OS. I still run Win98SE on my laptop.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2003, 12:17 PM   #4
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 62

WIN XP seems to load the pics in thumbnail mode much faster.
however, WIN XP requires a huge amount of disk space to install. you need at least over 1.2 G before it'll even let you start....and while you're at it, it won't even recognize your system unless you have at least 64MB(?) of ram. WIN XP's install interface to the hard drive is very similiar to NT4.0 (actually, I think it's just NT4.0 with extra GUI...just my personal opinion) and takes over a day for it to install (I know this because I had to redo the system a few times recently). sometime's (not always) it mentions in the early install process that having SMARTDRIVE helps to make things go faster. aside from not having any old versions of DOS around, none could be found with the CD. There's this one little part in the install process that it says it's loading files to the hard drive, it sits there for a very long time (really), you think it's hung up, and you want to reboot the machine....DON'T (go eat breakfast, eat lunch, play tennis, have dinner or something). the bad part is if it should stop for any reason, you have to start all over again. if you've managed to get it finally installed, you have exactly 30 days (?) to register it (if you don't register it, the system crashes and you need to re-install it). if you register it online, you risk MS snooping into your system (see http://extreme.ziffdavis.com/cgi-bin...tP70FBV0tgF0Ac).
You can register by phone, although that's not readily made apparent anywhere. registering by phone is a nightmare since it involves jumping through a long series of answering phone menu choices and entering the new long serial number they give you. if you manage to get through all that, you're good to go. however, if you manage to crash your system for some particular reason or another and need to re-install it again, LOL. by the way, you know that long serial number that they gave you to enter by phone or online? you can forget about writing it down since it'll mean absolutely nothing when you reintall the system. you will need to call in for a new one. it's a moving target. so far, I've managed to obtain at least 4 different serial numbers at 4 different times that are totally worthless in a reinstall. ok...i digress...this is a digi-photo site and not an operating system site. my apologies.
pixrus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2003, 1:43 PM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 220

A typical install of XP takes less than 900Mb of hard disk space, install time varies from PC to PC but for a clean install on a new system (typ. Athlon 1.8, 256Mb, 40Gb etc.) it takes under 1 hour to load and configure.

The only disadvantages XP has in comparison to 2000 for the "average home user" are offset by the much larger range of built in hardware drivers, cd burning software, thumbnail handling etc., the MS snoop s/w can easily be turned off. The only thing I find worse than 2000 is the ctrl-alt-del call up of the task manager if the system freezes it seems to be much slower and of course the "Teletubbies/Fisher Price" front end which can be removed as well
phaedra1106 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2003, 1:46 PM   #6
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 220

Sorry ops:

Short answer to the OP is No, it's not worth it if your systems are running OK with 2K pro :lol:
phaedra1106 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2003, 2:32 PM   #7
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162

I've got Win98SE and 2KPro on dual boot as a migration plan. But still not moved off 98SE as I know the devil well and can fix anything it throws up.

If 'better' means beta testing and re-learning, then stick with what you've got that works. So it takes a couple of extra sec's to load some thumbnails - live with it and enjoy photography without hassle!

When you get a new pc (and a load more replacement software) that's the time to think about OS. It's always worth making sure you keep up to date with drivers for XP for your hardware and software though, even though you might not be running it yet.
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2003, 4:54 PM   #8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Victoria, B.C., Canada
Posts: 852

I haven't found that Windows XP is quite so demanding as the specs say.

I just got a new computer. It considerably exceeds the Windows XP requirements. But I don't like installing something that I may not like, so before I installed it in the new one, I tried out the upgrade version of Windows XP Home Edition on my older computer - a mere 200MHz Pentium, with only 64 Mb of RAM but an 8 gigabytes hard drive.

I found that even on the older computer, Windows XP worked fine. It was just as fast, or maybe faster than, Windows 98.

Naturally I didn't 'activate' it. But seeing that I was satisfied with it, I uninstalled it and installed it on the new machine on which it is 'activated'. The old machine is of course back on Windows 98.
Herb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2003, 9:34 PM   #9
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 39

I feel I'll be going against the grain here but XP is a an improvement over 2000.

First, there are imaging improvements such as native support for TIF, PNG, and other common file formats. Most people (I hope have additional software for this but it comes in handy occasionallly.

The USB and Image Acquisition support is vastly improved. If you buy any new hardware you have better chance of it being supported on XP.

XP supports hyperthreading and 2000 requires a pro or server version to do it. This could become significant if you upgrade to a new Intel processor.

If it's a family computer the fast multi-user logon is much nicer that 2000.

There are also many small improvements under the hood and in the kernel that have taken place and aren't easily seen as features.

There's other stuff also but these are just a few points.

By no means do you *have* to upgrade, especially if your happy now, but there are benefits.

Now if we're talking 98 vs. XP then I recommend you upgrade asap for your own sanity (if your hardware can handle it).

98 is much buggier, much less stable, and much less functional than both 2000 and XP.
lwhitney is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:20 AM.