• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Dual core...Windows 2000 or XP?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

PingSpike

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Location
Vermont, USA
I've got a dual core rig with an A64 X2. Its currently running windows XP because I couldn't find my 2K disk when I had to reinstall. And while it runs alright, I still prefer windows 2K and since I've found the disk and am thinking about reinstalling in the near future I feel like it might be time to switch back to old faithful.

I've heard some conflicting things on dual core functionality. I know 2K will work fine since it supports dual processors out of the box...but I've heard a few people say it doesn't use them as efficiently as XP however they never elaborated as to why. Is there anything to this?
 
Other than further optimizing the kernel for multi-CPU platforms, I can't say there's much more for me to add.

Technically speaking, XP should be designed to manage resources better than 2K at the cost of being more resource-hungry. Then again, a well-tuned XP install can be made to leave a footprint no bigger than that of 2K.

It took me a long time to get away from 2K for XP, but it grew on me. You just have to stick with it long enough. I didn't think it could ever be better than XP, but I do believe it to be now.
 
I guess my question is...is XP further optimized for dual core? I haven't had much luck finding anything to indicate it is. No benchmark comparisons or anything really.

I certainly understand your point though...why think about it, just go with the newer one since its a safe bet.

I don't know if other people have had this experience...but I've had better luck getting some of my older games to work with 2K and I don't know why that is. I'm kind of going back and forth.
 
Well, it's a redesigned kernel. It uses a different multiprocessor driver than 2K, so I'd have to say it is.

As far as benchmarks go, well, I have never relied on a synthetic test to tell me how my system is going to perform in what I do. That's just me though.

What may be most important is the software design and how it interacts with different OSes. Most current software has been designed to operate more efficiently on XP than 2K. Not to say that it won't run fine on 2K - just more efficient on XP.

There are alot of factors other than OS + MPS.

I'd stay with XP - final answer for the million :]
 
Back