-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Win2K or WinXP
- Thread starter Dug
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2002
- Location
- Philadelphia, PA
im gonna have to go with xp
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Location
- Corner of No and Where
I've been running Win2K for quite a while- love it: Stable, fast, easy to tweak and likes being overclocked (as long as your system is stable)
I just got a WinXP pc from work: changed to the windows classic interface right away, locations and methods of changing parameters are not quite as intuitive or easy, and it seems to be a LOT slower than Win2K. Its a laptop so I'd expect some loss in speed but wow! It is a lot slower than my 900mhz Athlon was at default with 2000.
Gotta go with Win2K all the way!
I just got a WinXP pc from work: changed to the windows classic interface right away, locations and methods of changing parameters are not quite as intuitive or easy, and it seems to be a LOT slower than Win2K. Its a laptop so I'd expect some loss in speed but wow! It is a lot slower than my 900mhz Athlon was at default with 2000.
Gotta go with Win2K all the way!
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2002
- Location
- Very Southern California
I agree about the slowness, even w/ 512 megs of ram, but man is my system solid!!! 
I would NEVER go back to 98. Couldn't tell you about 2000, but if I ever decide to change again (for some unknown reason), I'd go with 2k.
I was in your position before and I went with XP, figuring if I didn't like it I'd just change over to 2000. I just figured I'd never know if I didn't give it a try. It turns out I really like XP and it's been a month now and NO (knock on wood) crashes!! None. No BSOD's or anything. Since my beast is performing so consistantly well, I can't see changing operating systems.
A PC that boots in 30 seconds and has no crashes. Ya' gotta' love that action!
...just another 2 cents
[edit] Oh, yeah, my beast: P4 1.5ghz w/512 megs of Kingston pc2100 ram [edit]
I would NEVER go back to 98. Couldn't tell you about 2000, but if I ever decide to change again (for some unknown reason), I'd go with 2k.I was in your position before and I went with XP, figuring if I didn't like it I'd just change over to 2000. I just figured I'd never know if I didn't give it a try. It turns out I really like XP and it's been a month now and NO (knock on wood) crashes!! None. No BSOD's or anything. Since my beast is performing so consistantly well, I can't see changing operating systems.
A PC that boots in 30 seconds and has no crashes. Ya' gotta' love that action!
...just another 2 cents
[edit] Oh, yeah, my beast: P4 1.5ghz w/512 megs of Kingston pc2100 ram [edit]
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Location
- Sheboygan, Wisconsin
I'd say go with XP tho I have never used W2K. So far my rig is very stable. I love the lay out and how much faster it is. Before this I was using 98S.E. and man this thing blows that right out of the water. Seems like everything runs so much faster, but that just my $0.02.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2002
- Location
- southwest louisiana
I VOTE XP
I have used 2000 pro for a year. Very stable no crashes. But everything is a plugin for this OS. I just upgraded to XP about a month ago. I am now using XP pro which is a true 64 bit processing engine. I saw an immediate speed increase in tribes on line and also video clips off internet. The extras that come with it such as Media, etc are nice too. This is a very stable OS. Just make sure you have updated drivers for all your hardware before you start to upgrade. Also......, DO NOT JUST UPGRADE, do a new format and fresh install. I also like the NTSF format as it gives u more megabytes and is faster.
I have used 2000 pro for a year. Very stable no crashes. But everything is a plugin for this OS. I just upgraded to XP about a month ago. I am now using XP pro which is a true 64 bit processing engine. I saw an immediate speed increase in tribes on line and also video clips off internet. The extras that come with it such as Media, etc are nice too. This is a very stable OS. Just make sure you have updated drivers for all your hardware before you start to upgrade. Also......, DO NOT JUST UPGRADE, do a new format and fresh install. I also like the NTSF format as it gives u more megabytes and is faster.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
I use W2K at work and XP at home. I should have gone with W2K at home! XP has been nothing but trouble for me from the install (on a clean install, it took me 3 tries). XP is not nearly as stable as W2K.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Location
- Ottawa, Canada
Win2K is better between the two in my opinion.
WinXP is Win2K with some graphics. Win2K is stable as a rock but Win XP is a good change as the 3d GUI is something nice to look at and go for Win XP if you have 384ram+..
It runs pretty good when tweaked I'm also looking forward for the service packs.
WinXP is Win2K with some graphics. Win2K is stable as a rock but Win XP is a good change as the 3d GUI is something nice to look at and go for Win XP if you have 384ram+..
It runs pretty good when tweaked I'm also looking forward for the service packs.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2002
- Location
- Very Southern California
Ok, I take that back about slowness... I did a little tweaking!
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2001
- Location
- Mother Earth...
before installing XP check is all of your hardware is supported... XP is relatively new and as we know still has some bugs which will be corrected with a service pack...
my vote goes to w2k...
although consider Linux Mandrake 8.1 as alternative... I love it...
my vote goes to w2k...
although consider Linux Mandrake 8.1 as alternative... I love it...
