cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Summary Win 2K vs XP

Highlighted
Newbie

Summary Win 2K vs XP

I received lots of responses, covering both options. I may try to
persuade our group to wait. In my opinion, rolling out Wildfire 2.0 and
XP at the same time doesn't sound like a real good idea. XP has benefits,
but I am not sure that I can prove that the benefits to our group would be
enough to counter balance the down-time and expense at this junction.

Here is my original post, followed by the responses I received

Thanks again to all who responded!!

Michelle McMasters
Engineering Systems Administrator
Black & Decker Hardware & Home Improvement
michelle.mcmasters@bdhhi.com

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you.


We are currently running Wildfire 1.0 m180 and Intralink 3.3 m022 and
intend to upgrade to Wildfire 2.0 m090 in the next 60 days

I am sure this has been brought up before; I am just not having any luck
finding the information I need.

We are currently running Windows 2000 PE on our Engineering computers.
The rest of the company is using XP. I have several managers driving me
to upgrade the department to XP. When I went to discuss the process with
our IT department, they wanted to know why we wanted to upgrade.

They then went on to tell me why they think we shouldn't upgrade at this
time.
XP has not proven to be more stable than Windows 2000.
Engineering is purring along quite well on Windows 2000 so why upset the
apple cart?

To quote them "The wrench doesn't work better just because you put it in a
different toolbox"

Wrench = Pro/E
Toolbox = Windows 2000 vs. XP

They could think of no driving reason to validate the cost in time,
resources and finances. We have to test and develop; we have to upgrade
our windows 2K licenses to XP, in addition to the massive down time and
the potential for having to replace hardware that won't upgrade.

If I can provide validation as to how much XP is going to benefit
Engineering, then they will be happy to oblige. Otherwise, they recommend
waiting for Longhorn.

Opinions? Experience?

RESPONSES


I agree with your IT department. The only advantage XP has over 2K in
the ProE world is the ability to use the /3GB switch so that ProE can use
more memory. This is only necessary if your assemblies are over 1.7Gb
and/or you don't use simplified reps.

Our department uses W2k, however I do have an XP box for testing. There
is no reason to go to XP in my opinion. We are waiting for longhorn as
well.

I hear you can utilize up to 3.5 gigabytes of ram on windows xp and that
capability doesn't exist on windows 2000. I don't know the details on how
to configure XP to do this, but we've been talking about upgrading to XP
for this reason.


I haven't done a performance comparison between XP and W2K, but there are
other goodies with XP that may save time and money, so you may want to
explore that aspect. One example is XP offers a built-in WinZip
application.


XP is good but so is 2000, I don't see how you could justify the cost to
upgrade. We are currently on both 2000 and XP on our workstations, any new
machines are XP and any old NT machines are upgraded to XP but those
already on 2000 will stay until Microsoft quits supporting it.

Hello Michelle, I had the same argue with my IT department, so I requested
machines with more power to run big assemblies (around 2~2.5 GB) and
because you can't do that with win2k, I gave them 2 options: XP in all the
new and old machines, or windows server option to all the machines (much
more expensive). Also, we had a lot of problems with other applications
(mostly ansys) and with its updates and drivers, so, after many
discussions, we gave the order to upgrade all the machines to XP and they
are in the process to do that, also because we are trying to use ghost
installations and clone the machines to have the same systems in each one,
so the IT department has no other option. Seriously, it was a big fight
with these guys, but we installed first some machines with XP and then we
saw a better performance and also better functionality with proe, so we
had the best excuse to push them really hard, and they finally agree. As
far as I can see, it's the same with the IT people everywhere, they don't
know how to do things, but at the same time they are also a big stone on
the shoe of the users, but after 2 or 3 shouts the obey you.

I hope this helps; It's really good when you hit this guys to do
something, at least 1 healer for the soul...

Just 1 warning, don't try to use XP in old machines, its really heavy and
you will need more resources.


I run XP at work and 2000 at home. I actually like 2000 better, but I
don't see any difference in stability.

Why does your management team want you to upgrade?


You can tell them it looks prettier on the screen. On a more serious
note, with XP Pro, you can get a per process memory limit higher than on
2K so if your assemblies or mechanica are between 1.6GB and 2.4 (or so if
I remember
right) There are some articles in the knowledge base (I did have a copy,
but can't find it now)


We currently have XP and 2000 running Wildfire 2.0 on numerous machines.
I can't say that one is better than the other. They both seem to run at
nearly the same levels. As far as going to Wildfire 2.0, if you machine
ran okay with Wildfire 1.0 it's pretty safe to say that you'll be fine
running Wildfire 2.0.

Some positives about switching to XP:

You're keeping current with technology.
More and more programs are becoming exclusive to XP.

I don't think you would have to upgrade all your machines at once. Are
they similar machines and could you use a program like Norton Ghost to
duplicate setups?

You would seem to think that if the rest of your company is running XP,
why wouldn't your IT department want to have everyone on the same page?

My 2 cents.

If you have any more questions feel free to ask.


I am also in a similar dilemma. Management asking the "why" and I am
stuck to "justify" the value benefit.
I would be certainly interested in the responses too.

I am a Pro-E WF 1.0 USER and also Pro-E Toolkit Application Developer
working in MS Visual C++, my opinion doesn't count for much but here it is
anyway.
My question to your IT department would be, If you have a car that is
running fine, why would you ever buy a new one? The answer is, as newer
technologies develop it just makes since to upgrade, or else the world
would come to a stand still.
XP has not proven to be 'MORE' stable than Win2k is probably an
understatement, in my opinion it probably never will be, Win2k has always
been known as the MOST stable of all Windows Operating Systems but then
back to the technology advancement thing, at some point Microsoft will
pull the plug on Win 2k as it did with Win95, Win98 and WinME, (which were
all just cruel jokes on the real world).
We also have Pro-E WF 1.0 M180 and Intralink 3.3 running, but in a mix of
XP and Win2k Pro. It neither runs better nor faster in either environment,
to my knowledge, however if you know you will be upgrading to WF 2.0 in a
few months it just makes common since to upgrade to XP before hand and
stabilize the operating environment before upgrading to WF 2.0 (it's
always been my practice not to change too many things at once, so if
something breaks it's easier to debug what the culprit is).
P.S. If your hardware is not up to running XP you can probably assume that
it may not be up to date enough to run WF 2.0 either.


I wouldn't argue with them. I wish we were still on 2000. Actually I wish
we were still on NT. XP is not very stable.


Stay with Windows 2000 as long as you can.

My last company's IT group required all new workstations to have XP (and
they were cheaper when bought bundled that way). Users were not exactly
happy with the performance or stability, even though they were in most
cases getting a PC 3 years newer. There are a variety of hotfixes and
service packs to XP that cause various annoying slowdowns in Pro/E,
depending on a few factors, not all of which might affect you. We are
constantly having to push back hotfixes that IT wants us to apply here at
Kenworth because they slow down Pro/E. All machines at KW are on XP.

ANSYS corp. ran a bunch of benchmarks on identical hardware machines using
W2k and WXP on a variety of standard FEA tests. At best, XP ran an
analysis in the same amount of time. Typically it took 2x to 3x as long
as under W2k. At worst it took 6x as long for an analysis to run under XP
compared to W2k. I have not seen any external tests but we saw something
similar when we ran a couple Pro/E benchmark tests we got off the Internet
- and W2k was on older hardware.

I know you probably want something more concrete so you can also search
through the PTC KB on Windows XP and find a few articles. There are ways
to improve XP out-of-the box performance (turn off all the extra junk to
make it look like Windows 2000 again). XP is faster in general use in
some respects (boot-up most noticeably).

I guess you really need to decide you you're going to push back against,
those who want you to go to XP or those who want you go stay on 2000. I
think you'll find more evidence to support staying on 2000, at least for
now.

Good luck!

Something I didn't mention is you could perhaps upgrade through attrition.
As new PCs come in, get them with XP. The only problem is you'll really
need to reign in your IT group to make sure you review - and can roll back
- any XP Hotfixes, let alone SP2. Supposedly after a certain build of
WF2, XP SP2 is okay - but Microsoft is always coming out with new patches
that seem to goof something up so I would still encourage the review/test
process. And of course there is still a performance hit. Anyway, 2000 and
XP are close enough that it really shouldn't matter to IT if both are
installed. Startup scripts, Active Directory controls, and a number of
other IT tools work the same with both so upgrade by attrition rather than
fussing with upgrading existing PCs makes very good business sense.

Our IT guys have told me that Microsoft will be ending support for Win2k
before Longhorn is scheduled for release. We too were going to wait for
Longhorn but instead have to fasttrack the XP upgrades. I would check
with Microsoft's website to verify their end of life for Win2k. It's also
possible that PTC will stop supporting Win2k on future ProE's before
Longhorn is released...especially if Microsoft stops supporting Win2k.

Stay with Windows 2000 as long as you can.

My last company's IT group required all new workstations to have XP (and
they were cheaper when bought bundled that way). Users were not exactly
happy with the performance or stability, even though they were in most
cases getting a PC 3 years newer. There are a variety of hotfixes and
service packs to XP that cause various annoying slowdowns in Pro/E,
depending on a few factors, not all of which might affect you. We are
constantly having to push back hotfixes that IT wants us to apply here at
Kenworth because they slow down Pro/E. All machines at KW are on XP.

ANSYS corp. ran a bunch of benchmarks on identical hardware machines using
W2k and WXP on a variety of standard FEA tests. At best, XP ran an
analysis in the same amount of time. Typically it took 2x to 3x as long
as under W2k. At worst it took 6x as long for an analysis to run under XP
compared to W2k. I have not seen any external tests but we saw something
similar when we ran a couple Pro/E benchmark tests we got off the Internet
- and W2k was on older hardware.

I know you probably want something more concrete so you can also search
through the PTC KB on Windows XP and find a few articles. There are ways
to improve XP out-of-the box performance (turn off all the extra junk to
make it look like Windows 2000 again). XP is faster in general use in
some respects (boot-up most noticeably).

I guess you really need to decide you you're going to push back against,
those who want you to go to XP or those who want you go stay on 2000. I
think you'll find more evidence to support staying on 2000, at least for
now.
Announcements