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

Win 2000Pro or Win XP Pro?

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

Karl04

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Location
Suffolk, VA, USA
I was wondering, which should i put in? I think that Win 2000 Pro would be more useful since it has been out for some time and all the issues have been worked out rite? but will the office XP run on the win 2000pro?

512mbs of ram is a must rite? how about 768mb would that be even better?

Karl
 

Big Nuttz

Always one step ahead of jdmcnudgent
Joined
Jan 10, 2002
Location
Toledo, Ohio
Yes Office XP will run on 2000 Pro. With the RAM do you plan on overclocking? Overclocking is the only issue I've seen because of RAM.
 

flyingember

Registered
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
256 is the practical min on xp. 2k can still run with less.

more useful? what are you doing?
in a business environment 2k is better
but for the average home user xp has some decent features that make it worth getting.
note: home is not meant for networking

rite??? :rolleyes:
 

Tecumseh

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2002
Location
Ohio
For a seti/folding farm machine W2KPro is better. For all around
computing it's a toss up, but XPPro plays better with some
of the plug-n-pray stuff.

I use both. Both are good if you are not ready to make the
inevitable jump to Linux. You will sooner or later. :D
 

Disputant

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Location
Chicago, IL
What kind of ram? XP didn't run so well on my old XP1600+ system with 512 mb SDRam installed. Runs fine on my my DDR system.

I was very happy running Window 2K Pro with Office XP before I switched. The only reason I changed to XP was that I wanted to learn to use it so I could support it.
 

Tecumseh

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2002
Location
Ohio
Disputant said:
What kind of ram? XP didn't run so well on my old XP1600+ system with 512 mb SDRam installed. Runs fine on my my DDR system.

I was very happy running Window 2K Pro with Office XP before I switched. The only reason I changed to XP was that I wanted to learn to use it so I could support it.

Getting experience with XP is a good reason to use it on a daily
basis. I agree completely with this.

I have seen many machines running XP Home and XP Pro and I
think that 512 MB of RAM should be enough. Clearly 128 MB is
not nearly enough. I think the min should be 256 MB. Most of
the guys I know are using 384 to 512 MB. I personally use 1 GB
but that is overkill for daily use unless I am crunching something.

Your old system should have run just fine with 512 MB of RAM. I
suspect that there was something else going on to hose the
system.
 

rogerdugans

Linux challenged Senior, not that it stops me...
Joined
Dec 28, 2001
Location
Corner of No and Where
I have a personal preference for Win2K, but since SP1 came out all my reliability and stabilty complaints about XP have gone away.

Avoid XP Home, IMO: XP Pro is the one to get if you decide on XP.

2K feels a bit faster and is easier to tweak, IMO, and I personally don't need the few extra things XP has: native cd-burner support, game compatibility or the "wizards".
If yo want those things, get XP Pro, if not I'd suggest 2K.
 

Disputant

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Location
Chicago, IL
Tecumseh said:


Your old system should have run just fine with 512 MB of RAM. I
suspect that there was something else going on to hose the
system.

When I said XP didn't run so well on my old system, I only meant that it was much slower than Win2K Pro on the same box. It was stable and all, but XP seamed to bottleneck the system, even with good Crucial Ram. That machine turned into a 2K machine, then XP again, and now it runs Mandrake.

My mistake when I built that particular system was that I didn't make the switch to DDR Ram and I still regret that decision.

I run XP Pro at work on a P2 400mhz machine with 256 mb of SDRam. It is slow, but extremely reliable, can't remember the last time I even rebooted the thing.
 

Tecumseh

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2002
Location
Ohio
OK, I understand. XP does do a lot of stuff that wastes CPU cycles
grinding the "rounded" window graphics and such.

Mandrake is cool. :)
 

Disputant

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Location
Chicago, IL
Tecumseh said:
OK, I understand. XP does do a lot of stuff that wastes CPU cycles
grinding the "rounded" window graphics and such.

Mandrake is cool. :)

Just learning myself, I thought Mandrake would be an easy distrib to start off on. So far I am really liking it, I worked on Unix for several years so it has been easy.

I think at some point when the harware I order starts to come with built in spyware, I will start using Linux more. Not that I have anything to hide, but more out of principle.
 

Oni

Oni-ni-Kanab;, Ninja Hippo eater Moderator
Joined
Apr 5, 2001
Location
St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
Between the two, no matter what I'm doing, I'd take 2000 over XPanything.

Win2k is faster right out of the box, and doesn't have half of the requirements of XP. It's just as stable, if not more so, and doesn't have all of the bloat that XP has.

It also doesn't have the gaudy Fisher-Price Interface (Yes, I know you can turn it off. No, most people don't), that sucks up even more of your computers CPU cycles and RAM. Cycles and RAM you could be using to Fold or SETI :)
 

Tecumseh

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2002
Location
Ohio
I'd like to see just how much is lost in speed doing SETI or
folding. I'm sure someone who hangs out here can give us
actual numbers. I suspect that not too much is lost if the box
is just crunching i.e. no GUI stuff.


Five years from now most of us will be using Linux. The
sun is finally setting on M$. :D It will all come down to money.
IT managers will start getting fired for blowing money on M$
when Open Source choices are available. :)
 

NBK19

Member
Joined
May 5, 2002
Location
Kentucky
What's wrong with Windows 2000 and Games ? I had XP. I ditched it for Win2K Pro "SP3". The games run just as good. "If not better" On win2K Pro with SP3. So what's up with that ?

If I were asked right now. 2K/Xp I would definantly say 2K !
 

MrX

Registered
Joined
Oct 22, 2001
If you do anything more than play a few games or crunch you'll be missing out on a lot by opting for Windows 2000(win5). If you start getting into the NOS (network operating system) and systems management you will see that Windows XP(win5.1) is better than its predecessor.
 

Kendan

Senior Punk
Joined
Aug 27, 2001
Location
Dark side of hell
MrX said:
If you do anything more than play a few games or crunch you'll be missing out on a lot by opting for Windows 2000(win5). If you start getting into the NOS (network operating system) and systems management you will see that Windows XP(win5.1) is better than its predecessor.

I am sitting here on a Win2k box. Can you go into detail about what XP can do that Win2k can't. I have been looking for a reason to get XP pro and have not convinced myself yet. With the way you are describing it You could very well convince me to try it. So if you can give as much detail as humanly possible I am sure it will help the thread starter as much as it would help me. Thanks.
 

Wommalong

Member
flyingember said:
256 is the practical min on xp. 2k can still run with less.

more useful? what are you doing?
in a business environment 2k is better
but for the average home user xp has some decent features that make it worth getting.
note: home is not meant for networking

rite??? :rolleyes:

I got WinXP running on a PentiumPro 200MHz:eek: with only 128MB ram... no problem at all, ok not as fast as the 'sig' but no problems going strong
 

Oni

Oni-ni-Kanab;, Ninja Hippo eater Moderator
Joined
Apr 5, 2001
Location
St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
MrX said:
If you do anything more than play a few games or crunch you'll be missing out on a lot by opting for Windows 2000(win5). If you start getting into the NOS (network operating system) and systems management you will see that Windows XP(win5.1) is better than its predecessor.

*cough*FUD*cough*
 

coldmop

Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
I am sitting here on a Win2k box. Can you go into detail about what XP can do that Win2k can't. I have been looking for a reason to get XP pro and have not convinced myself yet. With the way you are describing it You could very well convince me to try it. So if you can give as much detail as humanly possible I am sure it will help the thread starter as much as it would help me. Thanks.

also interested, multiple session login!! nice, integrated remote control nice
 
Last edited: