Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Ok I have a brand new comp here. I used 2000 on my last comp, I liked it more than 98 and it wasn't fast enough I dont think for XP. The old one was
AMD Athlon 950 @ 1045
256mb PC100
Geforce 2 GTS
20gb HDwell I just built a new computer yesterday figured it was time, the parts are
Sempron 3200 @ 2.6ghz 1.4V
1gb DDR2 667 4-4-4-11
ECS Nforce4 4M AM2
e-Vga 7600GT CO KOnow what I need to know is will XP offer me anything over 2000 that I need, i game, and just got CSS with this comp because I love CS 1.6. Will i see a tangable diffrence between the two, or just stay with 2000 till i get another gig of ram and just buy Vista?
There will be more software around that runs on XP and it will be a better match for your new hardware.
I wouldn't rush to Vista. Wait until SP1 so that the major bugs have gone.
DerekW
0 
You'll have to toss a coin.....
If W2k does all you need then I'd be tempted to wait for Vista SP1 and spend your money on that. You might get other opinions tho.
DerekW
0
well i play games mainly, nothing else to be honest, except check email and send a few IM's when i dont game and im not at work
0
Stay with 2kPro until it no longer does the job for you!
_________________________
Embrace paranoia, they ARE out to get you!
0
XP is basically 2000 in a prettier package. There's no point upgrading if Win2K SP4 does what you need.
I'm a little curious about your new system though. I know the 3200+ is cheap ($37 at newegg), but for about $15 more, you could have gotten an A64. I see you've got it overclocked by a fair amount...what speed are you running the RAM at? And why DDR2-667 instead of DDR2-800? As for the board, I'm sure that was a choice based on price.
0
As the previous poster said...Windows 2000
is the same thing as XP, minus about 5% of
the features. It doesn't eat half the RAM
that XP does, doesn't utilize half the CPU
cycles, doesn't *even* thrash the HD as
much, and even tends to boot quicker. You
also retain many, if not all of the
essential security settings, pretty much
everything works the same way. XP is built
on NT/2000 - essentially, the same Kernel,
just with a good 10, 20 thousand lines of
code added. XP looks pretty, but 2000 runs
like a raped ape - and for gaming, I'd say
definitely stick with 2k, unless it just
won't run. And even then, sometimes you can
kinda fool it into working with the NT
compatibility mode (if that feature has
been like AutoPatcher'd in or something).
It's really just a matter of whether or not
you like a prettier graphical interface,
the few extra features that XP offers (ooh,
WMP11...), and hogging potentially 50% more
resources than if you were running 2000.
0  |
 cant hit F1 to agree to ...
|
Windows 2000 on SATA disk...
|
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
