Win2K Pro sp4 vs WinXP Pro

O

option141

Gawd
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
880
Which does everyone find "best" for a powerful desktop PC (not a server).

i AM a gamer.

show me the way - i find XP bloated and annoying when drivers loadup when i login rather than before i login.
 
option141 said:
show me the way - i find XP bloated
Click to expand...
That. Rumor. Is. Complete. Bullcrap. XP is the best microsoft OS to date, it's just that no one gives it a chance. If you properly configure it, it is not only stable, but is very fast. Using a tweaket-out XP, I can run Doom 3 at High, 1024, 2xAA/8xAF with a Radeon 9600XT. You heard, a 9600XT. Convinced? Oh yeah, I have probably been running the same install of XP for a year now and it's still running strong.
 
XPSP2.

Do you really care when it loads the drivers? :confused:

How does that *really* impact your experience with the OS??

Bloated? Examples? What don't you like about it?
 
sac_tagg said:
Convinced? Oh yeah, I have probably been running the same install of XP for a year now and it's still running strong.
Click to expand...
XP and 2K are just as stable. My 2K install has been running for 3+years and is stable as a rock. In fact the only reason I'm not running XP is because I haven't needed to reload, and there is no compelling feature to make me want to get rid of my current load...
 
Phoenix86 said:
XPSP2.

Do you really care when it loads the drivers? :confused:

How does that *really* impact your experience with the OS??
Click to expand...

have you ever had programs that access the internet load before your network is setup? thats happened to me =/

i havnt tried SP2 - what are the pros/cons from going XP Pro SP1 to SP2?
 
option141 said:
have you ever had programs that access the internet load before your network is setup? thats happened to me =/

i havnt tried SP2 - what are the pros/cons from going XP Pro SP1 to SP2?
Click to expand...
No, nor would I think it's that disasterous.

SPs are service packs, they really shouldn't be considered optional downloads. They contain numerous fixes in them, SP2 more than most. SPs provided everything from bug fixes to security updates (this is why it's not really optional), SP2, again, more than most.

SP2 provides lots of new features, like 'em or hate 'em, doesn't really matter... Again, it's not that optional. Currently MS is patching SP1 with all the security/bug fixes but it won't forever. At this time, SP1 is *technically* as secure as SP2, but that's a matter of opinion. When MS stops patching SP1, it'll be a moot point.

SP2 provides things like a decent built in firewall, for example, but there are lots of changes.

Here is the offical list from MS.

 
I gotta agree here.

I am always amazed by the amount of people that say that load time is a factor in how they do things. If it were a video game system (i.e. xbox, playstation) or a handheld device, sure, boot times would make a big difference. But, in all honesty, how often do you reboot your machine? I feel that I reboot more often than most when I say once a week (when I don't have driver updates / security patches).

Also, there are a few things that are incorporated into XP (wireless connectivity comes to mind) that simply aren't there in 2k without extra software. And, this is a matter of opinion, XP is a little more gamer friendly (personal experience).

If that wasn't all, don't like the Luna style? Turn it off, revert to the 2k look. You can turn off all the special stuff and speed things up a little. Hell, get windowblinds if you want to customize further.
 
XP, hands-down. If the best make-or-break case for 2K is "I log in slower" and you think it's a reasonable argument -- you're in a whole different class from the rest of us and there's not much we can do to help. As above, the latest service pack (regardless of OS) should be considered mandatory.

I don't think it even comes down to tweaking. All modern operating systems -- XP, 2K, OSX, Linux, whatever -- are incredibly efficient. For XP, kill the Indexing Service. If you want a more responsive desktop, turn off the visual effects -- not that they matter either way when gaming. Otherwise, you're good to go.
 
XP Pro with SP2.

The only reason why i would load 2000 anymore is on a machine that was very slow and couldnt run XP ( i refuse to touch anything below 2000 ), or if i needed a hardened stripped down system.
 
Only reason I use windows xp is cause I have no idea how to get connected to the internet threw linux. Once I know how, I'm switching to it to become a penguin junkie :p. But for now, windows has its uses, and I like it. I use to have windows 98se back in 2001 - 2003, and I can tell you, once I used winxp, I was in heaven. Not having a os that crashes everytime you try to do something is a "big" help.
 
I still run 2000...

...i saw no reason to upgrade... :p

...i still see no reason to upgrade...:p

For my purpose...
XP Pro > 2000 Pro > ME/98 > XP Home
(XP Home, lacks domain networking, that is why it is crap for me)

XP is probably better for the latest games :)
 
XP is probably the best for gaming because just about all drivers are developed now with XP has the primary target OS....same with games and apps.

Did this question really have to be asked YET AGAIN?
 
Phoenix86 said:
My 2K install has been running for 3+years and is stable as a rock. In fact the only reason I'm not running XP is because I haven't needed to reload, and there is no compelling feature to make me want to get rid of my current load...
Click to expand...

Same here, I bought Win2K the day it came out and it's been great.
Tried XP but all the extraneous BS that came with it made my mouse cry.
 
I think we need a sticky that says something like..

Its the consenus of the forum that XPw/sp2 is the best thing you could be runnng..SO DONT ASK THE QUESTION..

or something like that
 
The problem with running 2000 is you're going to be getting to end-of-life problems before too long, while XP is still going strong. If you don't like all of the fancy graphical addons in XP, you can always turn them off and it looks exactly like 2k.
 
UMCPWintermute said:
The problem with running 2000 is you're going to be getting to end-of-life problems before too long, while XP is still going strong. If you don't like all of the fancy graphical addons in XP, you can always turn them off and it looks exactly like 2k.
Click to expand...
Support Lifcycle.

Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition 31-Dec-2001 31-Dec-2006 Not Applicable
Microsoft Windows XP Professional 31-Dec-2001 31-Dec-2006 31-Dec-2011
Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional 31-Mar-2000 30-Jun-2005 30-Jun-2010

XP is only given an extra year. Interesting that XP Home doesn't have an end date (yet), where pro does...
 
UMCPWintermute said:
The problem with running 2000 is you're going to be getting to end-of-life problems before too long, while XP is still going strong. If you don't like all of the fancy graphical addons in XP, you can always turn them off and it looks exactly like 2k.
Click to expand...

lol, multiple people have told me this, and who doesnt know you can make XP look bare? that wasnt what i was talking about when i referred to bloated - theres a lot of pre-loaded stuff , thats all.

so the XP pro life cycle is also over?
 
option141 said:
...that wasnt what i was talking about when i referred to bloated - theres a lot of pre-loaded stuff , thats all.
Click to expand...
What, pray tell, is drastically different from 2K aside from the visual themes?
 
option141 said:
so the XP pro life cycle is also over?
Click to expand...
LOL, no, look at the link.

XP Pro ends Dec-2006 (mainstream) Dec-2011 (extended, aka patches). Which will likely be extended. I can't see them ending mainstream support on XP before Longhorn is out and in production environments (meaning XP isn't).

If you know how to support the OS yourself, the "real" cutoff dates are the extended ones. Meaning 2K ends Jun-2010, XPPRO Dec-2011, XPHOME Not Applicable (no date yet? who knows what they mean here).
 
I personally prefer XP for two reasons, first, XP can start up much faster than 2000. I don't like to leave my computer on all the time because it's a waste of power. Second and most importantly, XP has ClearType. It seems to me that most people either love or hate ClearType, or simply don't know it even exists, so you may not care, but I love my antialiased text and my eyes would weep for it if I had to use 2000.
 
XP Pro SP2. With a few changes, like the TCP/IP stack replacement, old-school menus and start menu and desktop theme, etc.

You wouldn't even know you were using XP, except for the friendly contextual menus, quick boot times, and better gaming performance. There's no reason to use 2k, and several reasons not to - it's not being actively patched for security at this point besides maintenance releases. There will likely be no more service packs for 2k.
 
iirc, 2k w/sp3/4 do have activation, but im not sure, cause it's been so long since ive installed 'em.

ive heard people saying (on xtremesystems or w/e) that 3dmark scores on xp are generally lower than on 2k, with the exact same hadware/drivers/etc, which makes me believe xp's kernel is bloated.

sure, you can turn off all the eye candy, and disable all the services, and tweak the shit out of xp, but you still cant un-bloat the kernel.

for gaming, if xp doesnt have any necessary features you need, then just go for 2k+sp2.

also, sp1 vs sp2, id generally say go for sp2, like it or not, its gonna be required before too long.

my $0.02
 
KarateBob said:
iirc, 2k w/sp3/4 do have activation, but im not sure, cause it's been so long since ive installed 'em.

ive heard people saying (on xtremesystems or w/e) that 3dmark scores on xp are generally lower than on 2k, with the exact same hadware/drivers/etc, which makes me believe xp's kernel is bloated.

sure, you can turn off all the eye candy, and disable all the services, and tweak the shit out of xp, but you still cant un-bloat the kernel.

for gaming, if xp doesnt have any necessary features you need, then just go for 2k+sp2.

also, sp1 vs sp2, id generally say go for sp2, like it or not, its gonna be required before too long.

my $0.02
Click to expand...

Windows 2000 never had activation features. Also, there are some slightly older games that do not run on 2000. All game designers and gaming hardware designers use XP as their primary target platform, so why go with anything else if gaming is your primary function?
 
djnes said:
Also, there are some slightly older games that do not run on 2000. All game designers and gaming hardware designers use XP as their primary target platform, so why go with anything else if gaming is your primary function?
Click to expand...
...But there are bugs that affect XP that don't affect 2K. With a very similar setup as my friend I was getting +30%FPS in America's Army, and he had a slightly faster video card, and proc. He was running XP and I was running 2K. IIRC it's a punkbuster XP lag issue. It's give and take, so I kinda think it's splitting hairs.

Anyways, I have yet to see a game not run because I'm using 2K, and all I do on that machine is game. All that being said, my recommendation is still XP...

 
Phoenix86 said:
Anyways, I have yet to see a game not run because I'm using 2K, and all I do on that machine is game. All that being said, my recommendation is still XP...
Click to expand...

For a few seasons, none of the EA Sports games would work on 2000. The newer ones do, as far as I know, but I still do play some of the older ones.
 
Yes XP might take a little longer to boot, but since I only have to boot it once a year I don't mind those extra few seconds...

OK I'm exagerating, I occasionally need to reboot it for hardware/software updates, but you get my point :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top