Home > Tools of the Trade > Hardware > Windows 2000 or Windows XP Pro

Windows 2000 or Windows XP Pro

  1. Any thoughts on which is a better operating system?
  2. I've got a 4pc network at home on a wireless LAN, running 2 machines on XP (one home, one pro version), one on w2K and one on windows ME.

    So far XP is proving to be excellent, subject to a few warnings. It has a nice smooth feel and you can set all the personalisations to look just like w2k.

    One warning would be on xp drivers if you have any wireless LAN cards. From Microsoft's hardware compatibility list there seem to be very few wireless cards with xp ready drivers. I was lucky with a Cisco card. Another warning would be to make sure you have the software upgrade for AOL via 56k modem if you use that.

    One of the nice things about xp is that the upgrade cd can check your system compatibility before you decide to upgrade.

    I was particularly concerned that broker java applications would not work but they seem to be fine (TWS and JTrader). Just uninstall them before upgrade and reinstall later.

  3. Did they ever do anything about the liscensing fiasco? Last I heard you had to call them for clearance everytime you reinstall XP.
  4. I think that depends on your hardware. I've read a few articles that say unless you have the fastest multiprocessor system, you're better off staying with W2K. This is one of those articles I've read: www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml

    If you have a really slow machine like I do, a 266MHz, you're better off with Windows NT than W2K. So it really depends on your hardware. Even assuming you have enough hardware, for running mission critical applications, which trading is, you don't want to jump onto the initial few release of any software. Let them work out the bugs first... :)
  5. Sarasota,

    I just installed XP about two weeks ago; I upgraded from Windows ME. So far, I am really pleased with it. It seems to be running alot smoother, and it is opening windows faster.

    I did have a problem installing it, because I had to download upgrade drivers for my sound card, video card, and printer. Everything worked ok except the video driver. This problem was resolved with the help of a technician from Microsoft, who called me back after I left a message and spent nearly two hours on the phone with me, and they were paying for the call. I finally resolved the problem by downloading the Windows 2000/XP driver for the video card from the Navidia web site. The only thing I do not like is that there is no free upgrade for norton antivirus. It cost about $25 bucks for the upgrade.

    Hope this helps.
  6. I'm not surprised that you think XP is smoother/faster than ME. Just my opinion but you cannot even mention Win95/98 and especially ME in the same sentence with W2K or XP. They have done studies and the former group is over 20 times less reliable than the latter. Win95/98/ME is just not an option for trading.
  7. the truth is : if you use a win98 system you must ONLY install your trading software on it and nothing else.. ever.
    you must have enough memory RAM and a fast hard disk.
    then your win98 system will be robust enough (clean install of course).
    win98 is not that unstable in good conditions. the problem is it can get very unstable easily. that's a different story.
    I used it for a while and did not have major problems related to the OS itself.

    OF COURSE : any serious trader (who needs to do more with the machine than just have 2 programs installed) need something better. Nowadays that's Win2000 any day of the week. WinXP is big and OK it is smooth (when you have a new and fast machine) but I don't see ANY advantage for a trader or someone working semi or total pro.
    At the moment the best deal is Win2000 Pro (aka NT5). This is strong, this is fast, really fast and well tested / proven.

    As usual with MSFT products, XP will be worthwhile in 2 / 3 years with newer machines. that was the case with Win2000 and now it is good for us.

  8. Well let me take the other side of this discussion. I used Win2K on a three monitor system and did not like it. A major pain in the butt if you use it as it is supposed to be used with system administration separated from users. Loading software is difficult because you have to do so as the system administrator. Once loaded there is no guarantee that the software will run under user control. Many packages do not. The ACPI interface is just plain lousy. Using Win2K on a LAN with file sharing is also problematic when the other machines are running some other OS's (Win 95 or 98). I finally gave up on it and switched to Win 98 SE. Runs fine with all the software I like installed. My LAN now has no problems.
    As far as XP goes- I leave it to you guys who like to jump on the new models before anyone else. I will wait for version 2. When anyone asks me about what OS to use now, I recommend Win98 SE. All new machines I build now I still build with Win98 SE.
  9. Why not just run win2k as the Adminstrator all the time? That's basically what you're doing with win98 (in the sense that you have permission to do whatever you want).

    Considering that win2k implements file security in a totally different manner than win95/98, it's not surprising to hear that there would be LAN file sharing problems, especially with a non-supported legacy OS like win95.

    It's good to hear that your setup meets your needs though.
  10. BARON-yes you could run Win2K that way but that was not its intended purpose. It was designed to save you from yourself by separating out the administrative functions from user functions. It was really designed for an office environment not home use. Being a Unix user, I found Win2K to be laughable at best. It satisfied neither the home user nor the office user. That's why there are now two versions of XP. If XP lives up to all its hype, I would expect to see 98 and 2K to recede into history. However, it's taken 2 years to learn how crummy Win2K really is. It will take at least that long to evaluate WinXP.
    My hope however is to see some other competing operating system enter this arena(perhaps some offshoot of UNIX, like LINUX)
  11. jperl, well to continue the argument then I would say that the blame is on the software (installation). Most software just assume they run under win98, therefore making it hard to use with Win2000 (or XP by the way), because they ignore multi users support.

    don't get me wrong, none of Microsoft OSes are good imo. But I do think W2K is more adequate, it is faster and more reliable than W98. As pointed out in some other threads though, W98 is enough (and the file OS itself is faster since it does so little), it takes less memory too. But it is fragile. I used it for a very long time for trading. I had to be very careful on what I installed on it or not. And horror stories are well known with it.
    In fact my setup was like this : R&D on NT4 and Trading on W98 ! Because I would not install anything on the W98 mode other than trading tools and would be very careful with it. So I think I know your point.
    However, recommending W98 is a stretch in my mind. If you don't know enough about computers, oddly I would recommend W2K because it will help you keep a cleaner and more reliable system.
    I now using only W2K and it is fine. I try to use software which knows about proper use of windows (usually it is a sign of poor programming skills, when a software company delivers a program not multi users or not LAN aware nowadays. don't blame the OS for that. although you can blame MSFT for letting this happen for years!)

    Where we all agree so far : Avoid XP for a couple of years at least.
  12. Major companies never install a new OS until a SE CD is released. There are bugs in a new system. Don't be the beta testers trying to find them all. Especially if you are trading with that OS.

    Robert Tharp
  13. I am contemplating upgrading my Win98SE system to Win2000 or WinNT.

    Do you recommend I upgrade via an upgrade CD, or do a fresh install of the entire operating system?


    -- SP
  14. Punter,

    I am contemplating upgrading my Win98SE system to Win2000 or WinNT. Do you recommend I upgrade via an upgrade CD, or do a fresh install of the entire operating system?

    I've tried upgrading W98 to both of your proposed operating systems. It did a miserable job "upgrading" to NT (radically different registry structures, going from plug 'n play to no PNP, etc.) If you decide on NT I strongly urge you to do a clean install, it will avoid alot of bizarre oddities later.

    I've also upgraded from W98 to W2K and it certainly goes smoother than the above. Even so, I still ran into problems with dual-card video problems, networking printer problems, and other random quirks. Again, I would recommend you do a clean install. This is particularly easy to do with W2K (not as easy with NT) as it's so automatic, and it properly detects almost all hardware.

    Please note that you can often to a clean install with an upgrade disk. If you do a search you'll find that it's been discussed a few times at Elite.
  15. Thanks Magna.

    Since you've done both, do you prefer Win2000 or Win NT?

    -- SP
  16. stock_punter,

    Win2000 is also called WinNt 5. Win NT is simply an "older version" of Win2000. Both are very stable. Win2000 is much easier to install, because it recognizes most of the hardware, for Win NT 4 or lower - usually you have to install most of the hardware drivers manually.
  17. Thanks Fohat, that helps a lot. Now I need to see if Dell supports Win2000 for my 2 year old laptop.

    -- SP
  18. Punter,

    Thanks Magna. Since you've done both, do you prefer Win2000 or Win NT?

    Interesting question, with no clear-cut answer. I've got two machines, one has NT, the other W2K. I like them both. The only reason I installed W2K was for a Radeon VE dual-card that NT doesn't support. Both systems are remarkably stable, NT manages memory better, W2K is bulkier, more bloated if you will. W2K supports USB (which I don't currently have).

    If it weren't for the Radeon VE I'd probably still have NT on both boxes, yet I don't mind having W2K to play around with. They network with each other just fine. In short, you won't go wrong with either and, as mentioned, W2K is easier to install because you don't have to individually install most hardware drivers. It's not a big deal in NT, but it's definitely a tad easier in W2K since it has that useful Device Manager like Win9x.
  19. Thanks Magna.