Which is faster

Nandro · Aug 10, 2006

Just curious if XP or 2000 is more stable for overclocking? I had heard a while back that 2000 handled higher clocks better. I was wondering if anyone had any experience on 1 system to see if one was better than the other.

Padingle · Aug 10, 2006

I have also heard that 2000 is better, XP is notorious as a crasher. 2000 is more stable in terms of manipulative overclocking. But if you want a secure overclocking machine then i think you should try out Windows server 2003, you can get a 180 day trial from microsoft. It doesn't have as much GUI rubbish as windows, but if you dont want fancy gui then i would switch,,,, or at least test it out. --> link for 180 day trial-->

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/trial/default.mspx

Know Nuttin · Aug 10, 2006

I've found that 2K did allow for a bit more of an overclock than XP (very small in my case) but Server 2003 allowed less than XP. YMMV

klingens · Aug 10, 2006

Imho you can't say which is better. Just as OCing itself it is often a lottery: why is one chip clocking 100MHz higher than the other one of the same type?

Nandro · Aug 10, 2006

I don't know, some OS's are just inherently more stable than others. Believe it or not, when I worked at NASA a couple years back, the only OS they used asside from the programmers and debelopers was windows 98. Their reasoning was all the problems had been documented and if you came across one that wasn't it was your job to write up an official guide to fixing the issue. Needless to say, 98 worked very well for them. There were a few people especially exec's who had XP and the servers were all solaris along with whatever that side of the building did. I didnt have clearance to get in there, but they used something called hummingbird I believe to reach the windows side. The Unix servers had been up well over 2 years with no issues, so I would say thats stable. I just want to know if peoples experience leads them to believe that 2000 clocks better because its more stable and can handle little issues better. Seems like they have messed with XP to the point that no 2 systems are even remotely close. I may revert to 2000. Is 2000 just as good at games as XP?

klingens · Aug 10, 2006

At windows DirectX games, yes it's as good. For DOS games it sucks. Also it is more stable: less code -> less bugs and issues -> more stable. In the future it might become less stable than XP however: there is no support anymore for win2k so errors and bugs won't be fixed anymore. Since XP and 2k are very very close, they both often have the same bugs. While XP bugs found will still be fixed, win2k ones won't.

Nandro · Aug 10, 2006

I like to think that over a 6 year period they have found most of them, however I know thats just naive. To be honest it just seems to take longer to reinstall xp all the time as much as I do it due to testing and messing it up. 3K seems easier to reinstall in that regard.

Ascii2 · Aug 10, 2006

klingens said:
there is no support anymore for win2k so errors and bugs won't be fixed anymore...While XP bugs found will still be fixed, win2k ones won't.

This is a falacy.

Skeith · Aug 10, 2006

Personaly I find 2000 just as stable as XP, however XP seems to run more efficiently on mid to high end machines. For instance on my parents duron 1600+ XP runs almost twice as fast and efficient as 2000, and on my sempron 2500+ @2016Mhz XP out performs W2k by over 4x. XP also seems to run smoother. However 2000 is much easier to work with when creating a secure multi access network. (at least if you know the protocalls) I used to perfer W2K but now Im going to stick with XP. PS windows vista is horrible. And yes there is support as hundreds of buisnesses and schools still use W2K daily. I still get updates and fixes for W2K on a regular basis on my web server (which runs W2K)

However W2K seems to be performing oustandingly on my sisters machine. It is a 600Mhz Celeron coppermine. Stock 66Mhz bus x9. I changed the bus to 100Mhz and the chip runs fully stable at 100Mhz x9. 900Mhz. Thats a 50% overclock with out changing core voltage. No problems as of yet. Im not certain if its W2K or the Processor/Mobo combination that are giving it this ecceptional OC, but im betting on the latter.

benbaked · Aug 10, 2006

klingens said:
I the future it might become less stable than XP however: there is no support anymore for win2k so errors and bugs won't be fixed anymore. Since XP and 2k are very very close, they both often have the same bugs. While XP bugs found will still be fixed, win2k ones won't.

Microsoft was saying something similar last year with the Service Pack 4 Update Rollup, saying it was going to be the last of Win2K updates. I'm still getting new Windows Updates on that box, also at work. I hope they keep on updating it for a few more years, 2K is one of my all-time favorites.

Skeith · Aug 10, 2006

Also I would like to add that I ran XP on a P150, 150Mhz chip for 2 months because I blew my AMD k6 500Mhz, and it ran beautifully and smooth. Took 20Min to boot though. Never got W2K to run on that chip though. kept crashing and locking up because the chip was too slow.

Ascii2 · Aug 11, 2006

benbaked said:
Microsoft was saying something similar last year with the Service Pack 4 Update Rollup, saying it was going to be the last of Win2K updates.

I believe you may have misinterpreted a written statement during and near the release of Update Rollup 1 for Windows 2000 SP4. Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, acording to Microsoft Corporation, would be the last Service Pack released for Windows 2000.

Updates should still be release until much longer (I forgot the month and year).

klingens · Aug 11, 2006

Microsoft was saying something similar last year with the Service Pack 4 Update Rollup, saying it was going to be the last of Win2K updates. I'm still getting new Windows Updates on that box, also at work. I hope they keep on updating it for a few more years, 2K is one of my all-time favorites.

Windows 2000 left mainstream support phase june 2005. They provide extended support til 2010 which basically includes security hotfixes only. There won't be any ServicePack or Rollup anymore.

Ascii2 · Aug 11, 2006

klingens said:
Windows 2000 left mainstream support phase june 2005. They provide extended support til 2010 which basically includes security hotfixes only. There won't be any ServicePack or Rollup anymore.

There should not be any more Service Packs released for Windows 2000; Update Rollups (collective of hotfixes) may be released. Hoxfixes do not necessarily have to be the security type (they tend to be though).

klingens · Aug 11, 2006

It's what MS said: nothing else than security hotfixes. No improvements via hotfixes anymore.

Jimbob7 · Aug 11, 2006

With all my intels incl the dothan in windows 2000 would make me drop my overclock by 50-100mhz. I've heard the same things with A64's as well.

RJARRRPCGP · Aug 11, 2006

Nandro said:
Just curious if XP or 2000 is more stable for overclocking? I had heard a while back that 2000 handled higher clocks better. I was wondering if anyone had any experience on 1 system to see if one was better than the other.

LOL! That reminds me of when I was OC'ing my T-bird and Windows 98 SE was handling higher OCs than Windows XP. That was back in 2002.

That was before I started using Prime95. But, if I run Prime95, the truth will come out, reguardless of Windows version, AFAIK! That was because it was unstable.

Windows 98 SE didn't make my T-bird work as hard as Windows XP.

RJARRRPCGP · Aug 11, 2006

klingens said:
however: there is no support anymore for win2k so errors and bugs won't be fixed anymore. Since XP and 2k are very very close, they both often have the same bugs. While XP bugs found will still be fixed, win2k ones won't.

Wrong. Windows 2000 is still supported. There will be bug fixes until at least 2010.

Nandro · Aug 12, 2006

[With all my intels incl the dothan in windows 2000 would make me drop my overclock by 50-100mhz/QUOTE]

That stinks. I have been hearing very conflicting stories, so as far as I can tell they are about even. I don't know as many people who use W2003 server so that would have to be something I try I guess.

klingens · Aug 12, 2006

You have heard conflicting stories since it's all chance luck and happenstance. I wrote earlier why this is so.

Which is faster

Disabled

New Member

Senior Member

Member

Disabled

Member

Disabled

Member

Member

Folding/SETI/Rosetta Team Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Disabled

Member

Similar threads