I recently made the switch from Win2000 to XP-pro. Some of my students
say that XP takes more resources and is slower. My own impression is
that it runs just as fast or even faster than Win2k. My computer is a
400MHz Pentium II with 640M or RAM. The RAM is what may allow it to run
fast, but I have not tried removing RAM to see what happens.

XP runs some software that did not run under Win2k, but other software
that was ok for Win2k does not run under XP! I have had no problems
finding device drivers so far. In some cases, I end up using Microsoft
device drivers that are not exactly a match for my hardware, but they
work fine anyway.

That is my experience. What I like most is that Windows Explorer in XP
is STABLE!!! Under Win2k I kept crashing Windows Explorer (NOT IE) and
ended up using PowerDesk instead.

Peter
_____________________
Peter Shkabara
[log in to unmask]
http://gocolumbia.org/pesh

-----Original Message-----
I am collecting some points "why it is better to have XP than 2000" <g>.
So users of both systems, if you know, please share with it.

Which OS supports old hardware better, which one easier to install etc.
--
Stanislav Rabinovich

                         PCBUILD's List Owners:
                      Bob Wright<[log in to unmask]>
                       Drew Dunn<[log in to unmask]>