Thanks Tracy. All valid points and ones currently under my consideration. One of my drawbacks is that I have quite a bit of W2K experience but 0 WXP so I have no benchmark to work with, consequently my plethora of questions. I would like to not mess this up if possible.

Since I'm dealing with a home scenario, there will be games involved :-) so that is a significant consideration. I like W2K ( as much as I can like a MS product - (sigh) if engineering companies produced products like MS did we would probably all be dead in a relatively short time :-) ) I'll have to see if any other weigh in with more data on this. The pendulum started out on XP and since has started swinging back and forth quite a bit. The fact that I'm getting such conflicting views is consternating simply on principle. There must be valid and real reasons why there is such different and widely varying experiences regarding this OS ...

Bill

>Windows 2000 is very stable. There are a LOT of security patches for it and 3 support packs so right now it is pretty far along in the development cycle considering its age. Windows XP has been stable on my system at home also. It works great for remote management and I have had no problems using it on my development machine. I don't play games on the pc so I cannot provide any input there. I have problems with the control/communication MSFT exerts inside of XP. It is alittle too much for me. Too close to 'big brother' for my tastes. However, with MSFT products, this is obviously the 'wave of the future' so there is probably not going to be another MSFT OS that does not pass so much information along to MSFT. For businesses that require MSFT operating systems, both are stable with Windows 2000 having a little more history of stability of course. Both have issues to resolve and workarounds. I prefer the desktop environment of Windows 2000 to XP. XP was designed to be more
>user friendly, but the entire desktop has a somewhat 'AOL' feel to it. I set it to classic but certain functions are still tricky to find and require more keystrokes than it did with 2000 especially if you are trying to do something that MSFT doesn't feel is a typical user function. Of course I have used Windows 2000 longer so I was more comfortable with it. Eventually I may feel the same about XP, but after 6 months, I haven't yet. Also, if you manage Windows 2000 servers it is seamless managing your 2000 workstation due to the similarities. With XP, that is not so-you are switching back and forth just as with Win95/98/2K/XP. I should also note here that I am constantly switching the XP desktop preferences around so I can talk users through the gui desktop when they need assistance on their systems.
>
>Tracy
>
>
>Tracy
>
>>Hi Tracy,
>>
>>Thanks for the input. I'll take a look at the URL. Do you have any personal info regarding W2K preference in addition to the URL info?
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>>I use Windows 2000 PRO at work and Windows XP PRO at home. I'm happy with it and it has been stable so far (6 months). I installed it initially at home to become comfortable with it, for testing, and to allow easy access for me to manage my mother's workation in Colorado (she has xp pro now too). However, due to the information below:
>>>
>>>http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm
>>>
>>>I would choose Windows 2000 PRO. We will be switching to Windows XP PRo here at work shortly though regardless of my preference!
>>>
>>>Tracy
>>>
>>>>I will be looking into acquiring a new machine for home use. This will include development work ( VFP, VB, VC++, web stuff, etc. ) and typical home stuff such as running games etc. What are the relative merits of using WinXP or Win2k as the OS in this scenario?
>>>>
>>>>We use Win2k Pro at work and I find it very workable and stable. I have heard some stories of WinXP being quite a resource hog and affecting the performance of some games. I would like get as much factual information regarding the relative merits of these two OS's before committing myself to one for home use.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Bill