XP Vs. 2K basically who kicks more butt

[triflux]

I was wondering which OS kicks more ass? I have no idea thats why I would like to hear your sides of the situation. I run win 2k and win xp on my rig though I use xp much more. After all it is pretty heheheh.

I was just wondering what you guys ran and what you thought was best for gaming and everythign else you would do.

[Chris]

well i like to use XP simply because it looks nicer, i installed 2000 when it first came out but didnt like it so formated within 30mins.

[13oots2]

Windows 2K has most of the useful features of XP, but uses less memory and looks a lot cleaner. I spent 2hrs digging through a friends XP settings to get it to look like 2K. Also XP will install features that you may or may not want as standard, my friend was quite worried by the amount of disk space the XP install took. 512Mb for a suspend to RAM feature and another large chunk for the Restore feature, neither of which he was interested in using.

It really depends what you want to use your OS for, and a lot is down to personal taste. personally I am not a true XP fan, and 2K is due for another service pack soon. Try to have a look at both Os'es if possible, in terms of performance my friend has seen little to separate them.

[madsam]

i thought xp was just the same as 2000 , with a cosmetic make-over. my xp home was ok, but this xp pro has more drivers and is stable. if you are worried about the amount of space used for features like system restore....get a real hdd, and stop crying....i've installed games that eat up 1.3 gig of my hdd, and some folks complain about a feture using too much hdd? get a real hdd, or just simply shut off those unwanted features....or use windows 95..lol

i love this xp pro, but i'm probably a little biased as i went from millenium to xp home, and now xp pro. i have not use win 2000, but i hear it is a good choice over 98 and me.

go for the gusto and do the xp pro. it runs great in my pc, and it also worked as a great fix for my kids evil-machines pc. that sucker had trouble since day 1, and it came with win me.

i installed xp pro, and presto....everything is all good now.

[xanthan]

XP does use alot of memory/HD in stock form but alot of the options can be disabled making it semi ok hehe. i personally love XP to death :)

[Oni]

If you like looking at pretty things that suck up a lot of space/RAM, install XP. If you like functionality, stability and compatability, install 2000. I've been running 2000 on the system in the sig since I bought it (Over a year ago, and I just recently upgraded) since I put it together, and it's never ever been a burden. 2k is truly the best OS MS has ever released, ever.

[su root]

IMHO XP is for Home users and people who don't know too much about computers. It likes to hide options and stuff that would mess up your computer, unless you know where to go for them.

XP Pro, however, has a few more features than 2k, like Remote Desktop, which is unavailable in 2k Pro (but it is in 2k Servers), and the ability to bridge networks.

Personally I use Windows 2000, I find that XP eats too much resouces, case and point is explorer.exe... i clocked it on my computer at about 3megs memory usage, and on an XP box at about 14megs.

Also, Microsoft is making an effort to make you use their stuff, MSN messanger is BUILT INTO explorer.exe, using valuable space in the shell and openning up security holes (if someone found a way to hack MSN messanger, they could take over your shell).

XP is known quite well for their security problems, within the first week that XP was released, microsoft released it's first service pack. Now, if you set your computer on "automatic download of patches", you will be pulling in hotfixes and patches almost daily to fix it's problems.

They are both built on basically the same base NT system, but technically XP is the newer system, it's running a newer NTFS, and newer components.

As for games, XP is rumored to play games better, but I havn't seen any conclusive results.

I also don't care for the Call Home stuff or the big brother components built into XP, and some services are not necissary, like the "time" service that updates your system clock every couple hours, and the "QoS" service that floods your home network with quality of service packets (only good when there's something that watches for QoS.)

The way I figure it, if you are looking for functionality, go for 2k, if it's gonna sit and hum in the corner, choose 2k (no need for it to sit there with a pretty interface if it's only used once in a while, it's a waste of resources), but if you are going to use it, and want a pretty playschool interface, then by all means go XP.. spend the extra CPU power and memory if it makes you feel better, I personally find that it is easier to work with for daily stuff (ie surfing), but I'll never leave my 2k.

[madsam]

like i said before, i love xp pro, but as su root just pointed out, xp is kinda power hungry...in more ways than one......i can live with it using my cpu, i got room there, but it is an issue to folks with too slow a cpu or too little memory. i only have 256 mb, but i'm not going to sweat it when i get 512 or 1024.....no biggie to me. i am on my pc all day and night if i can, so i do want the pretty interface......so for those with a pretty fast cpu and plenty of resources to spare, you are probably like me....a true american, who buys more than he needs and wants it that way just because we live in america and we can do that.......which brings us to the point where xp takes over......now, i paid my money, i want to take control. i use the messenger to talk to one neighbor, however, i don't like microsoft throwing the damn thing in my face before i decide to use it.......there is pretty much a fix or adjustment for most any problem, but like su root also said, you gotta get out the pick-ax, and start diggin'

there are too many ways it makes itself....so-called......user friendly...( takes over).......once you set it up, it seems to be working fine, and loads up quick too. i need someone to send me a free windows 2000. also, su root......you seem to know more about the negative aspects of the xp than us xp users..do you have xp? have you tried it? if not, looks like you'd have a ball picking it apart, and then reporting back to us lazzzy o/c'ers who would like to know what is hidden and where.

thanks for an honest opinion there su root.

[su root]

I don't use XP personally, but at work I deal with XP machines all the time, and after working on 20 XP pcs, and finally jumping on an NT4 WS box, your really see the difference in the interface... It is more refined, but it does suck up resouces... Personally I can't stand watching the interface redraw itself while the system is really busy.. it's just so "bloated".. and that's the only word for it.

XP is the nintendo of Operating systems, plug in the controller, plug in the game, and your set, no configuration needed. If, however, you like to control what your system does, ie: you want your system to prompt you about hardware installation (instead of popping up a little bubble that says "Hardware installation complete, however, there may be problems using your new hardware", and gives you no reason why it says that :confused: ), then you want 2k.

owell.. sometimes it's nice to plug in a parallel printer, and have the OS recognize it immediately... (shows how much resouces it's using to check all the ports all the time.. :rolleyes: )

and it's nice to be able to say, "I can burn a CD without installing any software" (but I install my own anyways, kuz I don't trust their burning software)

Microsoft's plan to combat software piracy by registering online is a waste of time... I can't imagine what computer shops would have to do when they swap in & out too much stuff & have to call M$.. grr. It is a neat idea, but it adds too much big brother, call home, and bloat to an otherwise decent OS.

There's alot of "pretty" things in XP, but most of it I'd never use..
eg: Movie Maker, CD Burner Software, the new Interface, Switch User (i like that one), et cetera.

[Vfrjim1]

Go with 2k, I tried XP pro for 3 months, still too many bugs, maybe when sp1 or 2 comes out, will try it again.

[Gerst240]

win 2k is the winner for sure xp is just a bloated version of it anyway that uses more memory and is prettier sorry to offend any xp lovers just dont see an actual reason to get rid of 2k when i have used it for years and it i use it at work when you have something good you dont get rid of it i had xp installed on my other computer didnt like it way too pretty and didnt find one thing different than 2k other than the remote desktop and i have no need for that here or work we use landesk it is a pretty nice program :)

[Emericana]

if we are talking stock vs stock settings then Win 2k def.

However once you tweak xp by disabling the services that you dont need, you get back all of the memory that you would have lost otherwise. I run win xp using "classic" settings so i dont have any of those ghey themes or anything installed on it so that makes it run a lot more faster also.

i really like how much more custimizable win xp is than 2k if you spend the time to learn where all of the hidden settings are.

win xp also has a few great features which i think are a huge benefit to overclockers. For example. i had been running my computer on a 204FSB for around 2 weeks. Then all of a sudden, after xp loads, i try to open a program, and it says it is not there because the file has been currupted. great i think, a currupted harddrive. so i restart the computer just to see if it was only a one time thing. low and behold before xp started it a wizard came up (right after the system posted, not inside the xp interface) and it fixed all of the currupted files for me. very very very cool indeed.

also, i really like how in xp if you are into opening .exe files with Reshacker so you can change the graphics and stuff if you ever mess up, you can always go into safe mode. in safe mode there is a special account called administrator which allows you to fix all of the problems by loading the default settings. I know for a fact that while win2k has a administrative account, you generally use that as the default user so if you mess stuff up you are f$%ked.

those are the reasons why i think winxp is a better overall os.

oh yeah compatibility mode is great. the only way i can get adobe premiere 6.0 to work is by running it in windows 98 mode.

[triflux]

hmmmm I was wondering if you could transfer the ustheme material to win2k I know how newibish it sounds hahah though if you did that there would be no point to have 2000 HAHAHAH

well you guys put up so really great points I have both and will continue to use both though I have to say win2k is very very speedy and boots fast aswell.

thanks

[su root]

Originally posted by Emericana
However once you tweak xp by disabling the services that you dont need, you get back all of the memory that you would have lost otherwise. I run win xp using "classic" settings so i dont have any of those ghey themes or anything installed on it so that makes it run a lot more faster also.

You still have to remember that all of the hooks are still there, whenever XP goes to draw any window, it has to sit there and ask itself:
"I'm about to draw a window. What does the user like for his/her settings, classic or xp?"
then it has to do a registry lookup for the answer, then finally load the needed graphics, and draw the window.

Even the classic desktop lags when you bog the system down, and that bothers me.

However, i'd have to say the best feature of XP is the boot time. The worst thing about it would be it's needless allocation of resouces. If you run XP with the minimum amount of RAM, your system will crawl, simply because it'll thrash your hard drive.. it uses too much ram for it's own good.

[Emericana]

hey that thing you said about the classic setting vs the theme and it having to look for a reg value is not true.

there is a service for themes. both classic themes and colorful ones. if you turn the service off it defaults everything all the time to win2k like look. It saves around 15megs of ram by doing this also.

[Steelforge]

Hmmm?

XP sounds like a good excuse to feed my wife as to why I need more RAM. :D

[Biohazard]

i use XP Pro and 2k Pro but i think that XP is that much better! Yeh it may use more ram but so wot! like i dont have enogth in 384mb! nut then agern wen 2k runs on my 150Mhz,32mb Laptop!

But never going back agen!

Once u go XP u dont go back!

[su root]

As I mentioned above, it's the way it refreshes that I don't like... I caught this screencap while it was redrawing the screen. It's a resource hog, especially for the interface.

Computer Specs:
Celeron 1Gig with 256Mb SDRam.

Note that I'm only running 2 programs, and it is lagging while trying to redraw the screen. (the programs are resouce-intensive.. but still... I've never caught win2k doing this.. even installing the same programs.)

[13oots2]

I did not have this problem with Norton Antivirus home edition. Why corporate if you only have the 2 PC's in your sig, it is designed for businesses and admistrators. Unless you are networking a minimum of 5 PC's it is not worth the extra $350 or resources.

Edit Sorry I just spotted previous post. Sorry sorry sorry Ouch kicks himself for not reading. Wont edit origanal post as I need to suffer humiliation Ouch

[DanFraser]

Originally posted by su root
As I mentioned above, it's the way it refreshes that I don't like... I caught this screencap while it was redrawing the screen. It's a resource hog, especially for the interface.

Computer Specs:
Celeron 1Gig with 256Mb SDRam.

Note that I'm only running 2 programs, and it is lagging while trying to redraw the screen. (the programs are resouce-intensive.. but still... I've never caught win2k doing this.. even installing the same programs.)

I have two comps with XP, and one used to have 256MB ram (DDR) and the main one 512MB. The 256MB always did that, until I changed the swap file, shrink it man! My current 768MB ram machine has only 512MB for its swap file, and I never see that anymore!

256MB is plenty enough, but XP cant fill that on its own to cause drive thrashing, so limit its ability to drive thrash, and it will use ram better, so loading quicker!

Current song being played: Queen (George Michael tribute) - Somebody To Love

[Emericana]

generally when somebody says they have corporate edition they are not from a corporation. i have the corporate editon also and have had it since august 2001 :)

[triflux]

is it just me or is XP built for todays top machines I heard your machine should be 1ghz and over and have atleast 64mb of sdram but we all know you should have atleast 256 when running xp.

Anyhow I have to agree win2k is a speedy little guy, but I am on all the time and I love eye candy and my machine a p4 with rdram does not suffer from lagging as an older computer would.

[rivercom9]

Those who know what to disable in XP to make it a more usable OS should collaborate to write up an article or something to tell others how to make XP more truely "user friendly" and a lot speedier.

[Emericana]

Follow this website. Takes like 30 mins to disable all the right services for your machine. you need to read every one and decide what is right for your computer:

http://www.blkviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

After doing that i gained 150 3dmark points also as well as about 80megs of ram.

also make sure you go into gpedit.msc and fool around with the settings in there

EDIT: Yeah i def agree that you should have atleast a 1ghz computer and 256 PC133 to run win xp. It was pretty slow when i had it on a 850mhz athlon and 256pc133 but it was not THAT bad.

[su root]

Originally posted by 13oots2
I did not have this problem with Norton Antivirus home edition. Why corporate if you only have the 2 PC's in your sig, it is designed for businesses and admistrators. Unless you are networking a minimum of 5 PC's it is not worth the extra $350 or resources.

Edit Sorry I just spotted previous post. Sorry sorry sorry Ouch kicks himself for not reading. Wont edit origanal post as I need to suffer humiliation Ouch

Yeah, it's one of the machines I use @ work.. I didn't build the image for it... i'd like to kick the person who did though... there are so many problems with it...

At home I use Norton Antivirus 2002 Home ed.

I also didn't have a say in the specs of the machines :( being a contractor sucks. These computers, however, run it pretty nicely... I also set up P4 1.5Gigs that also run XP, and I find that those ones lag more than the Cele1Gigs... :D

[Vovan]

Originally posted by Oni
If you like looking at pretty things that suck up a lot of space/RAM, install XP. If you like functionality, stability and compatability, install 2000.


..?? compatibility...???
NO lol!

The real compatibility shows NT <3.5 (microcore)