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

2000 All The Way!!! (Well Mostly)!

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Some people would agree, other's wouldn't. I prefer 2000, I still don't understand what it is about XP that has so many people turned on to it.
 
I have XP on my main rig and W2K on my other two rigs. They're networked together (of course). The thing I like about XP the most is that it's very easy to set-up individual user accounts on the computer. I know how to do it in W2K, but it's just easier in XP. Other than that though, W2K is the best.
 
ThePerfectCore said:
Some people would agree, other's wouldn't. I prefer 2000, I still don't understand what it is about XP that has so many people turned on to it.

I think XP is more n00b friendly and looks pimp out of the box.

You can see where I stand on the issue <sig>
 
Agree with you Win2K is the best M$ OS out there. I Like OS where you can lock things down and have some security. To me learning a OS is playing the Ultimate Video Game.:)
 
EarthShogun said:
Agree with you Win2K is the best M$ OS out there. I Like OS where you can lock things down and have some security. To me learning a OS is playing the Ultimate Video Game.:)

agreed, I love 2K, its a lot of fun. I have 2k installed on my 2 main rigs, 98SE on the rest (HDD size limits) and dual boot the other comp between 2K and 98 (for gaming reasons)

Also got RedHat 8.0 installed on a really old comp, but thats dead right now.

I despise XP:mad:, it looks fruity, its bloated, when I got only half my stuff worked on it, looks cheesy, took forever to install, several useful progs and hardware didnt work on it, it had an annoying interface (like hiding everything but the "most used" icons on desktop and control panel, the irritating firewall built into it(though easily disabled its still a pain), the limitations of home edition(I had Pro). Its retarded when it comes to; SCSI, RAID, services, servers. :D

Soooo, LONG LIVE 2K!!! :clap:
 
I had many problems with Xp pro so i went back to 2K, 2K is the Best Microsoft OS out there, some compalilty issuses with games, but they can be fixed.
 
Win2k is the best MS OS so far. I am gaining respect for Win2k3 though, but I havn't played around with it much.
 
The only thing I disliked about win2k was when i had a steel panthers 2 moment besides that Ive never really looked back n if i really want to I can play it on the dual boot!!!!!
Nice 2 c Im not the only one that thinks win2k is the best os out of microsofts offerings , xp although good just has 2 many annoying flaws and as for me i have to laugh!!!

Oh back to the days of windows 3.1 and calmira(Win 3.1 skin to look like 95 , and later editions 98!!!)
jon aka mapleleaf!
 
The only thing I dont get is when people make fun of how win XP looks. Is it not common knowledge that you can make XP look just like win2k? If you want, you can make XP look like OSX. In fact, you can make it look pretty much any way you want. You may not think of this as an advantage (I would disagree) but its certainly isnt a disadvantage.

Also, much of the bloatware can be turned off.
 
I like both Oses. For slower systems, I go with 2000, for newer systems I go with XP. I like the simple feel of 2000. but XP does has slightly faster bootup time for me.
 
Yeah... xp have style xp :) but win 2k have windowblinds too ,although
it doesnt integrate into everything ,which looks very weird :(

and in XP , i sometimes get explorer error .. ( it just restart the explorer )

anyone know how to make 2k much more prettier?? :D
 
MrMarbles said:
The only thing I dont get is when people make fun of how win XP looks. Is it not common knowledge that you can make XP look just like win2k? If you want, you can make XP look like OSX. In fact, you can make it look pretty much any way you want. You may not think of this as an advantage (I would disagree) but its certainly isnt a disadvantage.

Also, much of the bloatware can be turned off.
\

The point to be made here is, yes it CAN be turned off, but the point is all that junk should not be there to begin with. And yes you can make it look a lot like 2K, but you shouldnt have to. After all, its XP not 2K. they should've come up with a default style that didn't look so cheeesy to begin with and we wouldnt have to tweak the heck out of it just to make it usable.
 
Ok, not quite sure what you meant but making XP look like win2k takes 2 seconds, no tweaking required.
Right click desctop -> Properties -> Appearance Tab -> Windows Classic Style .. Done
That was my point all along. In the looks department, XP is AT LEAST as good as win2k, but can be much more. I am not a fan of the default toys-r-us look. However, I value the fact that I dont have to stick with it.

As to all the bloatware, I agree that it does take a little more tweaking. However, I am sure there are people out there that find this 'bloatware' useful. I guess if it is that much trouble for you to turn the unnecessary stuff off, then win2k is the better OS for you.
 
If I were to buy an OS for my wife right now, I'd buy her XP for this reason: I built her a box about 2 weeks ago with my old hardware (much faster than her 400 mhz celeron!) and put 2k on it...thought she'd like it as much as I do. I was wrong. She's begging me now to put windows ME back on it ("What happened to spider solitaire? Who's my administrator? You??? Why do I have to use a password? Where's my old screensaver? Why doesn't this AOL thingamajig work right? It used to work fine before you screwed everything up!")

Point of the story---XP has it's place. The same people will love it that loved ME as much as my wife does.

I use 2k because (1) I have a personal grudge against product activation [I dont like it...lets leave it at that...no need to debate the issue and beat that dead horse anymore] and (2) 2k is an excellent OS without the bloat XP carries, and XP offers little [if any] upgrade value to me.

OT - quick question. Some of you have mentioned that you dual boot with 98se for gaming. I'm a gamer, and everything I've played so far does just dandy on 2k. Am I missing something? Why is 98se better for gaming?
 
OT - quick question. Some of you have mentioned that you dual boot with 98se for gaming. I'm a gamer, and everything I've played so far does just dandy on 2k. Am I missing something? Why is 98se better for gaming?

I can think of two good examples right off the bat - Black & White, and NFSIII, Hot Pursuit. Black & White doesn't play nice with XP, and usually crashes out at random times. Lionhead still hasn't released a patch to fix the issue (or other issues), so people are stuck with either 2kPro or 98SE to play the game on.

For NFSIII, I have first-hand experience with. A few months ago, I wanted to get back to my days of flying through canyons at 180+ mph, with the punk/speed metal blaring, and all that jazz. Well, NFSIII hated Windows 2000. It would have flickering geometry, sometimes it would alt-tab out for no apparent reason, and other times just crash to either

1 - screen freeze,
2 - blue screen, or
3- desktop.

Games like SimCity4 and UT2k3, on the other hand, almost require an NT 5.x OS to run properly. UEd 3.0 for UT2k3 crash frequently on 98SE, and so does uPaint.

98SE also supports realmode DOS programs, while NT 5.x doesn't.
 
as far as im aware win2k doesnt support "real dos based games"??????????????????
Like I said only prob I had was tring to play steel panthers 2 , besides that runs every game i wish to plau unreal max payne etc etc , win2k i personally believe is cool!
Im another one who doesnt believe in product activation!
Its just a microsoft way off gettin wot they want , and thats not wot im about!
Xp has its place , just a shame its on the shelf really!
jon aka mapleleaf
 
Back