For Overall Preformance - Win2k or XP

[Harris]

First of all, I'll appologize - I bet you guys here this damn question every day, but I'd like to know. My new system comes soon (a7nx8, 2400+, ti4200 128mb, 256ddr) and I'm wondering which OS will have me the best preformance in games and general tasks. I have used both OS's and I like both of them equally (right now I'm running 2k Pro).

Does one have better drivers than the other ?

Thanks,
/Harris.

 

[Lonyo]

They have the same drivers generally (graphics card, DirectX etc). I'd stick with 2k, less bloatware. I have XP and 2K dual boot and am using 2K for pretty much everything (except messing about with desktop shells, big mistake there)

 

[BlueWeasel]

I agree with Lonyo in the way that W2K "feels" more streamlined due to the lack of eye candy that is present in XP.

I used XP for several months and loved it. However, I felt like it was using slightly more system resources than W2K used. So, I switched back to W2K a few months ago.

 

[ProviaFan]

Windows 2000 feels faster, but if it's not compatible with some of your games, try Windows XP instead. You should be ok with 256MB of RAM in 2k, but if you are a power user, you should probably bring your total RAM up to 512MB for a little more performance. If you're using Windows XP, 512MB is much more beneficial to performance than it is in Windows 2000 (though even in 2000 you will notice some difference).

 

[Maxelhombre]

You can always take most of the bloat out of XP by disabling the eye candy. When you do that they are almost identical. XP seems to play games much better - especially the older ones (I just installed and ran Frogger for Win95 and it worked perfectly). If you think you'd ever need the extra features that XP offers, you might as well get it. The prices are similar.

 

[FuriousBroccoli]

Every new OS is slightly slower than the last, but each new OS is also years of work and improvements by a crack team of developers. Speed might be the first thing you see, but it'll be the last thing that counts. If you really care about the few % (and you shouldn't on a machine like yours), then you can tweak it and remove the extras like the visual improvments to the interface.

 

[MGMorden]

Originally posted by: FuriousBroccoli
each new OS is also years of work and improvements by a crack team of developers.

Um, the MS developers? A crack team? They might be on crack, but they surely aren't crack in any positive sense of the word. It took them from Windows 95 to Windows 2000 before they could even make an OS that didn't run like some Fischer Price joke, and now that they finally get an OS that doesn't run like it was made for kids they make the newest one look like it was made for kids . . ..

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: tdas2

Originally posted by: jliechty
Windows 2000 feels faster, but if it's not compatible with some of your games, try Windows XP instead. You should be ok with 256MB of RAM in 2k, but if you are a power user, you should probably bring your total RAM up to 512MB for a little more performance. If you're using Windows XP, 512MB is much more beneficial to performance than it is in Windows 2000 (though even in 2000 you will notice some difference).

On the Windows 2000 Professional CD there is a program called ACL.exe , does the same features such as compatibility mode. And if you dont believe me when I say Windows XP has large overheads, try loading a few Internet Explorer windows open along with maybe a office document of your choice, and have a look at task manager...

I know Win2k has the compatibility features, but from what I've heard, Windows XP's are slightly better. Also, I do believe WinXP has larger overheads. Unless lots of system services are tweaked, it will consume much more RAM than Win2k on a default install (I have tried both, and know from personal experience) - in fact, that's why I went back to Win2k from WinXP while I had 256MB of RAM; WinXP was just too slow. Now that I have 512MB of RAM, I may go back to Windows XP, but at the moment I'm perfectly happy with Windows 2000.

 

[mboy]

I am running XP pro on a bunch of new rigs at work (wanted 2k but they shipped the wrong ones so stuck it out wioth XP pro)
AMD XP2000 with 256mb ddr (-32 for shared video memory)
Tunred off a BUNCH of of the bloat, got it down to 21 running process by default and it is using roughly 80mb of ram (not including video)
and they are plenty fast. Of course my rig is running 640MB total ram and it is flying

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: mboy
I am running XP pro on a bunch of new rigs at work (wanted 2k but they shipped the wrong ones so stuck it out wioth XP pro)
AMD XP2000 with 256mb ddr (-32 for shared video memory)
Tunred off a BUNCH of of the bloat, got it down to 21 running process by default and it is using roughly 80mb of ram (not including video)
and they are plenty fast. Of course my rig is running 640MB total ram and it is flying

Windows XP is ok on 256MB of RAM, but for the power user (think Photoshop w/ some 600 dpi images + several copies of mozilla + Norton AV + Folding@Home + KDFold + Terminal Services client + Outlook + other misc. stuff) like me, it does get a little sluggish. Windows 2000 is a little less sluggish in the same scenario, so that's why I use it. But, I know some people who use Windows XP on a PIII 600MHz with 96MB of RAM, and it runs plenty well enough for them (even with the Luna interface!). Of course, they're AOL [l]users, so it's not like they'd notice the difference...

 

[TheJTrain]

Regarding the Compatibility Mode issues:

I've heard that for WinXP you need to install an application, then enable Compatibility Mode for that specific application. Is this the case for Win2K as well? I picked up the double-CD value pack of Fallout/Fallout 2, and Win2K wouldn't even let me install it. WinXP let me install it, and it seems to run fine even without using Compatibility Mode. What do I need to do to get it installed on Win2K?

Jason