Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Ok everyone which is better and why? I have win2k right now and I am happy with it but is it really worth getting the XP upgrade when I build my new system?? if it ain't broke don't fix it, right??
you awnsered your own question keep win 2k win xp is win 2k with a new skin, and thats about it as far as im concerned. also needs too much fine tuning to run clean. i kept 2000.. ps never crashed once in 2 years or so
0 
Stay with 2000 I tried xp on fat32 but a game didn't work and with a nfts format it worked, but after I boot up i have to wait for a minute or two because my computer hangs for a while until it finds the network cards and it can be very annoying and it did it with either format so i stayed with 2000
0
i find xp to run a little faster after u tweak it a bit....but i personally like 2000 better......i have xp on the laptop and 2000 on the desktop
0
Also 2000 has alot less system requirements. That makes it run smoother. Just keep on getting the service packs.
0
I like Windows 2000 a lot. But I love XP. I'll disagree with everyone else. XP is better that Win2k, no question. XP does everything Win2k does and more. Better support for programs, better support for games, better driver compatability, Remote Desktop via RDP (terminal services). It's a better OS.
Most of the problems others reference like slow boot up finding the NIC is a configuration problem on the part of the user and probably not the fault of the OS.
Having said that, if you truely are happy with w2k then I suppose there is no need to change. But if you like to keep up with and learn the new OSs and have the horsepower to run it, you'll love XP. If it ain't broke don't fix it is fine, but if you follow that logic, you could still be running DOS too.
0
Both are good XP is better for games also I have a notebook XP was able to find all the hardware and handles sleep and hybernate much better than 2000 did. Only thing get more RAM the computer will run much better. Might also want to do some tweaking with the smooth scrolling and menu displays they just seem to cause the apperance to be slower.
0
Running win2k..son in law is running XP. My guru told me YEARS ago to stay behind 1 version so all the bugs get out. That philosophy has NEVER failed me. I completely agree w/the "if it ain't broke" thingee. You don't have to stay in DOS all of your life and if you take that idea as gospel, we would never get past the pencil and paper.
0
It depends on your outlook. Staying one step behind works for some and that's fine. Personally, I'd rather be in the front of the pack.
0
My advice is to go with XP, if you have the system resources to support it. I find XP boots up significantly faster than my W2K machines, even compaired to W2K workstations that have a lot more horse power than some of my XP units, and it's compatable with alot more last-generation software than W2K. You do need to spend a little time tweeking it to get the best all-around performance, but I personally think it is worth the effort. One nice thing about XP I love, particularly on my laptop, is its ability to instantly recognize and install local printers...when I am on the road and need to print at someone's office I just plug and print, no problem.
0
Have ran both 2000 and XP on an 800 mhz with 512 megs of ram. XP screams on it and is a blast to run. 2000 always gave me system resources errors and crashing out on me even though my pagefile sys was set to a gig on a single drive partion. Enjoyed reading responses on 5 and 8. I thing it really just comes down to an individual preference one you have tried both OS's.
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
