I currently have Win2K Pro and am thinking of switching to XP. Is this a good idea? I do a lot of gaming and need the best performance possible. You can check my system specs by clicking the link in my sig.
------------------
***
My Specs
Printable View
I currently have Win2K Pro and am thinking of switching to XP. Is this a good idea? I do a lot of gaming and need the best performance possible. You can check my system specs by clicking the link in my sig.
------------------
***
My Specs
Stay with what you got pal. Xp is a Fisher-Price version of 2000.Quote:
Originally posted by Gladius:
I currently have Win2K Pro and am thinking of switching to XP. Is this a good idea? I do a lot of gaming and need the best performance possible. You can check my system specs by clicking the link in my sig.
You know.. that is what I was thinking. It looks as if it is made for people with little experience. I do need more flexiblity than it can offer I think. Im going to stick to W2K
------------------
***
My System Specs
Huh? Windows XP IS more flexible than Win2k but it's just not worth upgrading.Quote:
Originally posted by Gladius:
You know.. that is what I was thinking. It looks as if it is made for people with little experience. I do need more flexiblity than it can offer I think. Im going to stick to W2K
------------------
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor
stay with W2KPro
------------------
abit vh6II
Celeron 600 oc'd to 898
IBM 30 gig 60 gxp deskstar
Matrox G450
1 gig crucial ram
Win 2000
Philips cheap sound card
Mitsumi CD
HP CD-RW (from Wal-Mart)
A-Open tower case w/300psu
A learning experience and everyone here is just a ton of help!
Well, when you guys say it's a Fisher-Price version of Win2k, do you mean visually or technically? Because Even though Windows 2000 looks more technical, you can do more in WinXP as in more in-depth.
-Kalsim
------------------
----------
WindowsXP Pro Clean Install | AMD Athlon "T-Bird" 1200 | 512MB PC133 | Soyo K7VTA-B KT133 | 300 Watt P/S | 20GB Maxtor Ata-100 7200 RPM | 52x Creative CD-ROM | TDK 16x10x40 CD-RW | PNY GeForce3 Ti500 'Stock' 240/500 w/ DetXP 23.11 | Creative Sound Blaster Audigy | Netgear FA311 NIC | Fans: 1 case intake, 3 5 1/2" bay coolers, 1 case out, 1 Antec Jet Cool (works great!)CPU, 1 mobo, 1 video card
-3DMark2000-
1024x768x32: 8239
-3DMark2001-
1024x768x32: 5850
-Villagemark-
1024x768x32: 74 FPS
I would stick with 2K, they bothe use the same kernal, XP just has an extra fancy GUI to suck some more life out of your CPU, and an OS emulator that you do not need for any thing that is Win32. Plus no activation to worry about.
There's no big reason to go from W2k to XP. Some UI tweaks, some additional compatability support, not a whole lot else. It you were running 98 or ME, then I'd say definitely upgrade.
I'm running both XP and W2k, and it's possible to make XP look almost exactly like W2k, if that matters to you.
I upgraded from 2K to XP just recently and aside from the new Luna interface it aint all that different. Just the odd tweak hear and there.
I was speaking to a microsoft consultant though nad he said he thought there was a difference in how XP pro and Home edition traet games: i.e Home Edition has better compatibility?
Dunno how true it is though.
------------------
800MHz duron
128Mb PC133 SDRAM
Creative DXR3 + 6x DVD
Creative CDRW 31r 12w 10rw
20.1Gb HD
Dual Monitor ATI Radeon VE
SB Live 5.1 Player
ZIP 100
Windows XP pro / Linux Mandrake 7.2 KDE
How exactly is XP more flexible than Win2K?Quote:
Originally posted by AMD_Man:
Huh? Windows XP IS more flexible than Win2k but it's just not worth upgrading.
------------------
-BR
Win2K/XP Tips and Tweaks-The Slaughter House-
SF Linux Hippy Club
"It is the soldier who fights for the flag, dies for the flag, and who's coffin is drapped by the flag, that gives the protestor the right to burn the flag."
Stick with what you have. If you had say 98SE or ME then probably I would recommend you to upgrade to win2k or xp. But since thats not the case, stick with 2k https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/6.gif
------------------
*My specs*(been alive since 6/25/01)
AMD T-Bird 1.33ghz
Thermaltake SK6 w/ ASII
Asus A7M266
Lian Li pc-60
512mb ddr sdram
2 IBM60xp 60GB drives
Pioneer 106S 16x
Plextor 16x/10x/40x
Visiontek Geforce3
SBlive! Audigy mp3+
Win 98SE/windows xp professional (dual boot)
i would go with xp even though it is rather pointless to go from 2k to xp they new interface is more inviting. Im tired of looking at the same old grey menus year after year. I like the new blue toolbar and green startbutton, and all of the friendly wallpapers that accompany the new os
------------------
Ma$e
Grey menus.....you can change your color scheme you know..... win2k is awesome, stick with it!!Quote:
Originally posted by fbs1992:
i would go with xp even though it is rather pointless to go from 2k to xp they new interface is more inviting. Im tired of looking at the same old grey menus year after year. I like the new blue toolbar and green startbutton, and all of the friendly wallpapers that accompany the new os
The way you have complete control over the interface of the OS. Also, the new panels at the left save a couple of clips.Quote:
Originally posted by BloodRed:
How exactly is XP more flexible than Win2K?
------------------
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor
I know some Linux users are going dis me for this but I still gotta say that W2k is the best OS I have used. Linux just doesn't have enough software or hardware support to make it an everyday OS. W2k is definately the most stable version of windows I've ever used and game compatibility is a lot better than I expected when I first got it. I haven't used XP yet but I'm big on system security and XP has a lot of security holes in it right now so I haven't even considered the upgrade yet.