computer question

I'm seriously considering running 2000 instead of xp on some of my computers. 2000 is basically xp minus all the effects. do you guys think i'd be stupid for doing this. i disable a bunch of crap on xp any ways for more performance so what would be different in just running 2000?

 

Thanks for the input Tim! you always have good advice.

 

W2k has less security features, is slightly more prone to infection.

I like Tim's last post:

At least W2k doesnt need Activation





XP is more efficient, Boots Faster, performs tasks faster by average of 25%

Dont Try to kid your self that W2k is better, cause it aint
From a performance stand point W2k is a step backwards

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/usability.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/performance.mspx