Win XP vs Win 2000

[Striker]

Hmm... Longhorn features?  Sadly, I don't have much info on it at the moment, but wasn't Longhorn the new name for Palladium, the project with sweeping anti-privacy features that was put on "low publicity" because of the bad buzz generated around it?

[Louisiana Night]

Longhorn is simply the temporary/code name of the new version of Windows, as far as I know. I think Palladium is supposed to be a part of Longhorn, but I'm not completely sure.

[p]

I would say it's debatable about how similar they are (it greatly depends on your point of view).

Here are a handful of differences, between the two OSs( ignoring all but the latest versions of both ). I would name similarities, but I think everyone here agrees that the kernel( core coding/base code ) is the main thing that makes them similar(and nobody seems to have touched on the differences, which is the reason I'm posting here ).


Differences
1.WinXP has greatly increased Win9x and DOS compatibility
2.WinXP allows FAT, NTFS, and soon WinFS filesystems (WinFS should be public within a few months),Win2000 is only capable of creating NTFS partitions (to the best of my knowledge).
3.XP is capable of using 64-bit apps
4.XP has that weird cd-key/ownership validation( I'm not sure what the correct term is )
5.I understand that some Longhorn software/features will be "backported" to XP, such as WinFS filesystem, and not 2000( WinFS is the only one I can think of, off hand ).
7.WinXP has a more "user-friendly" interface(perty colours )
8.Increased software support (and increased support from Microsoft, compared to 2000)
9.I think there is more support for multiple users using one machine in XP, but I'm not completely sure


Win98SE/Win95
Even Win98SE has major differences to Win98( stronger USB support, for one ), and the differences between 95 is greater.
Example=some programs, such as Hijack95, were quite buggy in Win98(almost unusable).

Feel free to correct any errors I have made in this post( in reference to the subject/topic at hand ).

I was going to let this topic die...  But I had to say that I don't think your list is very accurate.  

- Win 2000 allows FAT, NTFS too.  No differences there
- XP does NOT allow 64 bit apps, unless you get their new x64 edition which came out a few months ago.  Doesn't count as a difference.
- Win 2000 is no longer a supported OS (obsolete and replaced by win 2003), so there will of course not be any "backporting".  
- I'm not sure how you determined that the support was increased for XP users over 2000.  Besides, that's out of context isn't it?  has nothing to do with OS differences.


I think the only thing in your list that counts as a valid difference between win2000 and XP pro is:"better compatibility for DOS applications."  But this only helps prove my point that XP is 2000 with a skin.  As you probably know, win2000 is an upgrade from Win NT (microsoft's old server OS).  The NT kernel never had good DOS support because it was a "true" 32 bit OS.  Windows 95/3.11/98/ME all ran on top of DOS (16 bit).  So making XP more compatible towards DOS was a nessecity due to migration needs of their customers (ie. win 98 home users who still had DOS programs they needed to run).

[Louisiana Night]

Somehow, I suspected that you'd be replying to my post soon.

Win 2000 allows FAT, NTFS too. No differences there

Thank you for correcting me on that.

I looked into it after reading your post though. Windows2000 can create FAT32 partitions larger than 32gb, without being roundabout(XP requires a workaround), it would seem. Also, it cannot create FAT32 partitions on installation( XP can ).

XP does NOT allow 64 bit apps, unless you get their new x64 edition which came out a few months ago. Doesn't count as a difference.

"ignoring all but the latest versions of both"

Win 2000 is no longer a supported OS (obsolete and replaced by win 2003), so there will of course not be any "backporting".

Well, how is that inaccurate? You're agreeing with it yourself.

I'm not sure how you determined that the support was increased for XP users over 2000.

Even you said "obsolete and replaced by win 2003"

Besides, that's out of context isn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean by out of context... mind clarifying?

has nothing to do with OS differences.

Well, if I'm upgrading from Win98 to another OS it is(and an important one). :cheerygrin:

I think the only thing in your list that counts as a valid difference between win2000 and XP pro is:"better compatibility for DOS applications." But this only helps prove my point that XP is 2000 with a skin. As you probably know, win2000 is an upgrade from Win NT (microsoft's old server OS). The NT kernel never had good DOS support because it was a "true" 32 bit OS. Windows 95/3.11/98/ME all ran on top of DOS (16 bit). So making XP more compatible towards DOS was a nessecity due to migration needs of their customers (ie. win 98 home users who still had DOS programs they needed to run).

I think that you mean Win9x compatibility is the only valid point( it's MUCH more important than DOS support, which is extremely limited, and the vast majority of users don't even know what DOS is...much less still use it ).

and like I said, it's a matter of opinion of how similar they are( and our opinions seem to have very few similarities, if any, about this topic ).

I don't see you naming why you think the other details I mentioned are invalid, so I'll end my post here( and if anyone wants me to name more differences, which I highly doubt, I'll be happy to oblige XD ).

P.S.
It's quite late/early here, so please excuse my grammar/spelling, while I... zzzzz

[p]

Okay, okay, I see what you're saying.  Except win9x compatibility/DOS compatibility is the same since thats what win9x ran on top of.  Windows runtime executibles for win 9x should run the same between win2000 and XP... which I believe brings us full circle.  If I remember correctly, the reason this thread was started was because someone suggested testing their game on both windows2000 and XP, to which I replied: "Why?  they are basically the same..."

Anyway, I'd much rather talk about the differences between xBox 360 and Playstation 3.  Have you seen the screenshots for the games those machines are capable of?  I think they actually beat PCs.  Sony is touting that the CGI cutscenes in Final Fantasy can now be rendered real-time in a playable environment.

Behold:

http://hero6.com/new/memfiles/warhawk-ps3-...16075802591.jpg

http://hero6.com/new/memfiles/killzone-nex...16075934164.jpg
(check out that dude's hair!  freakin' amazing)

/end geek rant
/sorry for the big pictures screwing up the page format

[Paladin0707077]

I'm not surprised about the PS3, considering how much power they technically have. Since I'm lazy, here's a link to the specs on it:

PS3 Specs

It has a 3.2 Gig processor, among other things. My personal PC doesn't have that much, and it was near top of the line last year.