Win2k or Win XP?

T

TSx

Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
647
I looked around and didn't see a post on the topic, so I'm asking the question, which OS do you think is better?

I'm using win2k pro on all of my machines right now, but won a copy of XP pro at a raffle a few days back, so I'm considering installing it. I do a lot of gaming in mmorpg's, web/photo editing constantly, a fair amount of dvd authoring and video encoding, and the usual web browsing and other sorts of things. Basically I want to know if XP offers anything 2k doesn't, or if one is faster/better than the other for general use, or for gaming.

I'm planning on formatting soon and installing several new pieces of hardware so I'll put whichever OS on when I do that.

If it matters, the comp in question's specs are: AMD 64 3000+, MSI K8T Neo-FSR board, 1gig Corsair DDR 400 PC3200 ValueRam, ATI Radeon 9800pro 128mb, Maxtor 80gig 8mb cache 7200rpm, IBM 20gig 7200rpm 2mb cache, and a SoundBlaster Audigy LS.
 
I use W2K
however, I*ve seen driver updates and software certs are beginning to be offered for XP but not W2K (Im talkin highend workstation and not yet widespread) the support will just continue to be either degraded or delayed from here on out.

Im also currently trialing WinXP 64bit
and that will more than likely be my next main OS
(provided it works properly with Maya 5)
 
2000.

uses half the resources of XP. and you get the same stability. XP just seems too... "bloated" to me. if somebody can find me a stripped down version with all the amenities of 2000 then please show me. until then.

2000.
 
Originally posted by USMC2Hard4U
XP - Classic View
Click to expand...

This is what I currently use. I just wish I could strip out some more of the stuff. I think there is software out now that will do it but knowing me, I'll just bitch about the bloated installation and then live with it like I have for so long already.

To the original poster:

If you have a copy of WinXP, I would try it out on the new machine for a while and see how you like it. Other than losing the install time and the time messing around with it, I don't see how you would actually be hurt by trying it. There will be a small learning curve that does go with the switch though. Some of the general settings have changed places and can be annoying at first trying to find them. I hate that MS does this with about every release of a new OS. Personally, I wish they would keep the settings in the same place instead of constantly moving them around.

The main reason I use WinXP is believe it or not, the new Start Menu. I think it's still one of the best features of XP. The Win95 compatibility mode also comes in handy for older software when it works.
 
Originally posted by HRslammR
2000.

uses half the resources of XP. and you get the same stability. XP just seems too... "bloated" to me. if somebody can find me a stripped down version with all the amenities of 2000 then please show me. until then.

2000.
Click to expand...

This is sort of what I was wondering...I had heard that XP used a lot more resources, and my winbar shows me in at right around 150-175mb/767mb used on load with 2k, I don't know how much more/less XP would use. I want to keep as much free as possible, obviously, so I'd prefer an OS that didn't take up 50% right off the bat. I've gotta stick with windows though, so it's basically either 2k or xp.
 
in my experience, a new install with win2k runs around 90MB after boot and win2k runs around 110MB. so no big deal, really.

I use win2k, but only because I am stuck on a 450MHz processor till later this month.
 
Originally posted by Doc
in my experience, a new install with win2k runs around 90MB after boot and win2k runs around 110MB. so no big deal, really.

I use win2k, but only because I am stuck on a 450MHz processor till later this month.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you meant one of those numbers to be for xp...but which one? -=oP
 
the larger of course :p

and no one has brought up the obvious yet so I will
I dynamically configure my computer quite a bit
and reactivation is a pain in the butt
 
Originally posted by TSx
I'm sure you meant one of those numbers to be for xp...but which one? -=oP
Click to expand...

Originally posted by Ice Czar
the larger of course :p

and no one has brought up the obvious yet so I will
I dynamically configure my computer quite a bit
and reactivation is a pain in the butt
Click to expand...

what he said :D
 
Originally posted by Ice Czar
the larger of course :p

and no one has brought up the obvious yet so I will
I dynamically configure my computer quite a bit
and reactivation is a pain in the butt
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just clueless on this, but what reactivation?
 
the OS will recognize substantial changes in hardware and youll need to call Mircosoft to have your installation reactivated so it continues to work
 
Originally posted by TSx
Maybe I'm just clueless on this, but what reactivation?
Click to expand...
Brief run-down on Windows Product Activation

What it means is that you either need a connection to the internet or a phone to call an 800 number to activate after a certain amount of hardware changes, depending on what hardware and how far apart you change stuff.


Now, as far as deciding what OS you want to run, it depends on what you are looking for from the OS itself:
  • XP has better software compatibility, but 2K runs almost everything XP does (with mostly exotic or less-used titles)
  • XP and 2K perform the same when gaming, so no gaming advantages either way.
  • XP has the ability to run "themes" or skins as opposed to the "old" boxy windows of every Win OS before it ( look here ). 2K, on the other hand, looks and "feels" very much like Windows 98, which may or may not make a transition easier for a user who is used to 98.
  • 2K has a smaller memory requirement than XP. For any machine running over 128 MB of RAM, this is a moot point. However, be prepared for loads of "bloated" and "resource hog" remarks with very little actual data backing it up. When running, XP actually takes up about the same amount of resources as 2K. The fact remains that 2K takes up less space than XP, though.
  • If something runs or works in 2K, it will work in XP 9 times out of 10. If something works in XP, it will work in 2K ~8 times out of ten (some say less, I disagree). Compatibility between the two is wonderful.
  • XP has many wizards and helpful interfaces for just about any configuration. 2K requires much more manual configuring for some hardware (like wireless, drivers, PnP devices). This means XP is more effective at "just working," while 2K gives the user more of a feeling of "I did it myself." YMMV
  • Neither XP nor 2K are "new" or "untested" operating systems. Both are tested, worked-out, and mature.
  • XP has a built-in firewall, 2K does not. People have varying opinions on XP's ICF. Ironic that there are more negative opinions than people who have actually used it and found it unsatisfactory. ZoneAlarm works equally well on both 2K and XP.
  • There are loads of people who love XP, and loads who love 2K. This always happens—when Longhorn finally ships, there will be people who love Longhorn, and people who prefer XP. The cycle never ends.


Can we compile a FAQs for this damn topic, and just sticky it? Does it get as tiresome to anyone else to see at least one new thread about this every week?
 
Heh, I looked through a bit and didn't see any direct threads asking an opinion/comparison between the two OS's, hence my reason for posting.

I've seen programs that say you can 'skin' 2k, or are those unreliable? I thought one of them was window blinds...

I've never had a problem with any software, so I wouldn't expect that to be a problem in either OS. As for the 'bloated' comments, ya, I've heard several of those...and I've never really looked into xp enough to see if they were true or not, I sort of just assumed a bit since I had heard them. I use nokia's pc suite with infrared on my laptop on 2k to my cell phone with no problems, and that's the only real non-usb type thing I've used so can't say I'd have any problems there.

The biggest things I had been concerned about with XP were the resource management and general 'slower' feel I had read about. I hate having to restart due to low ram after running 3 rows worth of taskbar programs and playing a few games, and I had heard xp made restarts more necessary, though I didn't have any proof of that. I had also heard there were more 'slow down' things in XP that were more of a pain to disable...I think it was stuff like mouse motions, menu transitions, and just everyday type things that I had heard/read slowed your comp down. It could be a lot of BS but I really don't know.

As for the reactivation thing...that could be a pain in the ass, but with the system I'd put xp on, I don't plan on needing to change any parts in/out for about two years, so might not be a problem. I'm guessing that's new to xp, since I've never seen it in 2k...is it only on the home edition? I know one of the offices I work with is constantly upgrading/changing their hardware out and using xp, and I've never seen them mention a reactivation...so I'd guess they use a pro or corporate edition?
 
Ive had thorough experience with both operating systems.. and through my experience, there really is no extra useful features in XP. If you go through them, you find that all of the actual nuts and bolts are almost exactly the same. However, 2k is rid of the grandma factor immediately. You go into the control panel on xp, and you have to start explaining what you want. Using XP is like trying to tell someone what you want.. as opposed to just doing it. All XP really has as far as i can tell are pretty colors. The one thing I do know that is on XP that you may find useful is remote desktop. As for software compatibility... anything that works on XP usually works on 2k. I have NEVER had 2k refuse to run a program. Not to mention, the nifty software compatibility modes built into XP that every talks about that 2k doesnt have... are actually there, you just have to know how to activate them. My vote goes for 2k, as XP just seems to me to be loaded with unneccessary crap. I sure dont appreciate having to "re-activate", or go through and turn off all of the fruity colors and menus. After you do all of that, it works like 2k, just slower. One exception.. if youre using an intel processor with HT, go for XP, as 2k does not support HT. AMD=2k all the way.
 
I currently use XP and see not reason to use Windows 2000. With some tweaking I can get XP running on equal or less resources than Windows 2000. Windows XP also works better with all my games when some of them had issues with 2k. I even went further and purchased XPLite which allows me to remove many components of windows XP making it even faster. After using that program I had my windows somewhere around 600mb.
 
What is XPLite? Can't say I've heard of that one. If it's a way to remove a lot of the uselessness that comes with it, that might intrigue me more. I really don't want useless features that just slow stuff down.

Like skitzo said above, I thought XP had a lot of 'dumbed down' types of things, to make it more non-comp user friendly. I would really prefer not to have a paperclip popping up and telling me where the start menu is...but if there's ways to remove or disable all of that stuff so it doesn't mess with any resources or anything, that might be worthwhile.
 
i once again say 2000.

i don't like having to "turn off" stuff in an operating system. i'd much rather turn it on. that way I get to choose what's going to be running and what's not.

i like looking down at my taskbar when 2000 is booting up and i all i see load up is my soundcard control panel and my hardware monitor. and even those i can turn off if i want.
 
Originally posted by TSx
What is XPLite? Can't say I've heard of that one. If it's a way to remove a lot of the uselessness that comes with it, that might intrigue me more. I really don't want useless features that just slow stuff down.

Like skitzo said above, I thought XP had a lot of 'dumbed down' types of things, to make it more non-comp user friendly. I would really prefer not to have a paperclip popping up and telling me where the start menu is...but if there's ways to remove or disable all of that stuff so it doesn't mess with any resources or anything, that might be worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Check it out: http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html
 
XP = 2000 w/ shareware and a bunch of useless crap integrated into it.

Turn most of that stuff off, and XP's integration of stuff like CDburning, Zip file support, etc is kinda useful. But Personally, I prefer stuff based on application. 2000 Boxes seem to be happier for boxes that never get touched, while XP seems to be better for user stuff.

My $.02 :D
 
I can agree with the previous. If you're going to "set it and leave it alone" for long stretches, 2K is Just Fine. If you have multiple users or you prefer doing many different things with the OS, XP makes it far easier.


Heh, I looked through a bit and didn't see any direct threads asking an opinion/comparison between the two OS's, hence my reason for posting.
Click to expand...
I wasn't really commenting on this thread in particular, just that there is a new one of the same vein every week or so, and a FAQ would really solve a lot of redundancy.

I've seen programs that say you can 'skin' 2k, or are those unreliable? I thought one of them was window blinds...
Click to expand...
Windowblinds is far, far inferior to XP's built-in theming, and uses way more resources—these are actually what are noticable and recordable. If one patches the UXTheme.dll in XP, though, you get no performance loss by running themes. The only feature of Windowblinds that I thought was neat was being able to "roll up" your open windows without minimizing (a feature from *nix WMs and OS X, incidentally).

The biggest things I had been concerned about with XP were the resource management and general 'slower' feel I had read about. I hate having to restart due to low ram after running 3 rows worth of taskbar programs and playing a few games, and I had heard xp made restarts more necessary, though I didn't have any proof of that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, what you heard was an example of the misinformation often assiciated with the dispute between the "new" and the "old" operating systems, most predominately in Windows. Same thing when 2K first came out: people swore up and down 98 handled resources way better, but no one ever proved it. The fact is, while the recommended requirements for XP are higher, XP can run with far less resources than are listed as its lowest, and is pretty much just as low as 2K, with few exceptions. Running either OS on a 166 with 96MB of memory is going to be slow as molasses, but both running on a P4 2.4C with 512MB of memory are going to be equally snappy. Anecdotes: a friend's PIII laptop was actually sped up (in responsiveness) by installing XP, and my home `net-browser laptop (133 with 136MB RAM) actually starts up and responds faster than when it had 2K on it. And the latter runs with full themes.

I had also heard there were more 'slow down' things in XP that were more of a pain to disable...I think it was stuff like mouse motions, menu transitions, and just everyday type things that I had heard/read slowed your comp down. It could be a lot of BS but I really don't know.
Click to expand...
It takes about as many or more steps to change refresh rate settings on your monitor (which is the same in 2K & XP) than it does to change mouse or transition settings. The caveat: the menus in XP are not just 2K menus with XP interface—if you don't learn to use XP like XP, rather than XP like 2K, then you are going to believe that it is not up to par. The same applies to those who try to use XP like 98, 98SE, or ME.

As for the reactivation thing...that could be a pain in the ass, but with the system I'd put xp on, I don't plan on needing to change any parts in/out for about two years, so might not be a problem. I'm guessing that's new to xp, since I've never seen it in 2k...is it only on the home edition? I know one of the offices I work with is constantly upgrading/changing their hardware out and using xp, and I've never seen them mention a reactivation...so I'd guess they use a pro or corporate edition?
Click to expand...
They're using a Volume License (corporate edition), which has no activation. I have a couple Volume Licenses, but I only use them for testing purposes. I have Pro on both the laptop and the (main) desktop, and I have been required to activate the laptop only once (when installed), and only twice on the desktop (I changed out just about everything but CPU & RAM). The previous post has a description on how hardware changes lead to activation (in the link). I'll probably be going back and rewriting that whole explanation, with more detail and some actual info from MS themselves (past explanations I've read in documentation) to put it in a more readable format. It's not perfect in XP, but it's not the horror story some people like to make it out to be. If you don't change much besides a vid card and a sound card once a year, you'll never have a problem. If you run testbeds with various configs of hardware, it's less hassle (and cheaper, depending on the # of licenses) to go with Volume Licenses (corp editions).
 
2000 was horrible for gaming when I had it installed. Awful ATI driver support and overall craptastic load times and framerates.

XP solved everything and made networking very very nifty.

Uptimes over 50 days too, on my server box. Apache2/PHP5 currently. IIS is too damn complicated.

I find CD burning / zip support useless. Nero and WinRAR are far better. You need them for dvds / rars anyway!
 
Originally posted by kovermours
2000 was horrible for gaming when I had it installed. Awful ATI driver support and overall craptastic load times and framerates.

XP solved everything and made networking very very nifty.

Uptimes over 50 days too, on my server box. Apache2/PHP5 currently. IIS is too damn complicated.

I find CD burning / zip support useless. Nero and WinRAR are far better. You need them for dvds / rars anyway!
Click to expand...

I've had an ati card, then an nvidia card, then an ati card, and back to an nvidia card all in this comp, never once uninstalled drivers or anything, and never had problems on win2k. I don't think I've ever had a problem with gaming either... What gaming problems were you having...like, games wouldn't run?

I don't know about uptime, never really paid attention to it, I turn my comp off if I'm not downloading or leaving a game open overnight most of the time, but I know it was up from mid october to mid december last year...never thought uptime was a factor really.

I don't think I'd use the cd burning or zip features people have mentioned, as I use nero and winzip/winrar for those...I'm not sure what all other features XP offers.

I hadn't tried windowblinds, just read about it. I use Winbar right now, mostly for the e-mail checking feature since AIM no longer works on my e-mail for some reason; and the ram usage feature is nice. I don't know if I would mess with a custom skin for XP or not, but I think it could be something cool to make it more custom. I have a program that rotates my wallpaper every few hours, with it rotating between about 80 of them, so it would be hard to make a theme to fit all of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top