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.
I agree with koby. Win2k is rock stable for me and supports any hardware I've tried to use. It also has a good GUI (XP's is no better) and support for almost everything XP supports. Almost every game out there has a Win2k patch by now, and I've run many DOS games (like Doom, etc) in Win2k just fine - with sound.
As for comparing Windows to Linux, well, the Windows GUI is about 10X better than XWindows...even with the latest Gnome/KDE. However, if you NEVER use a GUI, then Linux is better and more stable. Hence, Linux is a good server/developer platform, but Windows is much better for end users; especially gamers.
So who is WinXP for? Well, those people that don't really know what they want in an OS...but the salesman can pitch that its the newest, prettiest, most virus friendly OS yet. Ok, thats a little harsh, but is at least partially true.
------------------
TBird 880 (oc 110 x 8) /
ABit KT7 (YH) VIA 4.29 /
256 MB PC133 RAM /
TNT2 16MB (oc 160/160) Det 7.58 /
Maxtor 5.1GB 85120A8 & 40GB 5T040H4 /
ESS 1869 & NetGear FA311 10/100 NIC /
Win2k Pro SP2
i have 98SE right now and am thinking bout upgrading to win2k, now for win2k should i change my hard drive to NTFS or will it still run fine on fat32? what are the differences?
One of the main reasons I upgraded to XP Pro is the ability to Terminal Server into any XP box. 2000 only allows this on servers. I work from home a lot and this can be a real life saver!
------------------
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.
Aesop
With my experience NTFS is a better choice for XP and Win2k, because it's the native file system of those two. FAT32 was introduced with Win98 and it's not bad, but a NTFS is far superior.Quote:
Originally posted by haze69:
i have 98SE right now and am thinking bout upgrading to win2k, now for win2k should i change my hard drive to NTFS or will it still run fine on fat32? what are the differences?
NTFS has a more efficient "file indexing" with helps when you have you system locked up and you want to reset manually. Normally with Win98se, before the OS booted (when it was reseted manually) it would run scandisk and you could have bad file clusters. With NTFS it doesn't need to run scandisk and you don't need to worry about 'bad file clusters' because of how the file indexing works. Anyway this is way to long for me so I'll hurry up with the rest.
NTFS is known for:
Efficient File Indexing
Win2k & XP native file system
Can use up almost all you the hd and still get good performance
Improved Securtiy
Alright I'm outta here...
stick with win2k! i decided to go back to win2k after using winXP for a month. winXP sucked... it was slower running apps and the only good thing about it was boot up time. the network options in XP are a joke.
------------------
The person who said it can't be done should not interrupt the person doing it
Dell Insprion 4000
PIII 700
320MB RAM
8MB ATI Rage 128 Mobility
20GB IBM DJSA 220 HDD
Windows XP Pro
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.
I run Windows XP Pro on my home desktop and Windows 2000 Pro on my laptop. I have an equal list of likes and dislikes of both.
I think overall there's much better driver support from various component manufacturers for Win2k. The implementation of Creative's LiveWare is better, for one, IMO.
FAT32 was introduced with Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2.Quote:
FAT32 was introduced with Win98 and it's not bad, but a NTFS is far superior.
------------------
PIII 850 @ 952 (112x8.5)
256 megs Crucial PC133 CAS2
Radeon 8500 Retail
Adaptec Firewire
SB Live Platinum 5.1
Quick network
My 3DMark2001 Score
[This message has been edited by IT_Slave (edited January 08, 2002).]
I wouldn't switch at all. Maybe dual boot but not switch. I have them both and I like 2k over XP. When they get all the bugs and drivers fixed for XP then maybe.
------------------
Enjoy life. There's plenty of time to be dead.
"Live as if your were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever."
-Mahatma Gandhi
i think we all know why it ran so slowlyQuote:
Originally posted by qmul:
stick with win2k! i decided to go back to win2k after using winXP for a month. winXP sucked... it was slower running apps and the only good thing about it was boot up time. the network options in XP are a joke.
P4 [email protected] 133mhz fsb
gainward gf3ti 500
sb audigy platinum
creative inspire 5300
256mb PC800 ram
2x60GB hd
16x pioneer dvd rom
24x lite-on cdrw
------------------
Ma$e
one think i can tell ya' is that if you have Windows 2000 Pro with all of that latest bug fixes and upgrades, stick with it.
Dont bother to upgrade form windows 2k pro to XP pro right at the moment. wait, Microsoft are releasing some bug fixes for XP...
------------------
Have A Nice Day!
***My System***
Got Hardware? (GH?)
AMD's Forum
VR-Zone Hardware Forums
I would definately stick with 2K at least for the near term. I keep hearing far too many security issues with XP right now.
------------------
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!