Help me choose OS for secondary PC/ file server

[Leros]

I have an older PC: Cerlon P3 @ 1250mhz w/ 512mb ram.

Tasks:
Bit torrent (been using Azareus)
File server - Windows File Sharing
HTPC - WMP and Winamp

Thats about all it does. I have had it running 2000 pro for over a year. I have to reinstall the OS today, but since 2000 is no longer supported should I switch to XP?

I don't want to learn Linux or buy anything. I already have licensed versions of both XP Pro and 2000 Pro. Which one do you think I should use?

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Debia--!! Oh.. Umm..

I thought 2000 is still supported by microsoft. Besides that, it doesn't really matter too much. I would say just go XP with no fancy gui.

 

[stash]

but since 2000 is no longer supported

False.

That said, I would go with XP simply because it is a better OS.

 

[spyordie007]

XP

 

[Leros]

XP it is. I was afarid it would slow things down. My school PCs (P3 900mhz 256mb ram) run REALLY slow with XP, so I'm kinda scared about performance.

 

[imported_dakota81]

Originally posted by: JToxic
XP it is. I was afarid it would slow things down. My school PCs (P3 900mhz 256mb ram) run REALLY slow with XP, so I'm kinda scared about performance.

256mb ram with probably a decent amount of apps, versus 512mb ram with very few apps running - makes a huge difference.

With enough ram and minimal app usage, XP can run smoothly on even 400MHz machines. But obviously no 400MHz machine can be an HTPC like you'd want...

 

[spyordie007]

My school PCs (P3 900mhz 256mb ram) run REALLY slow with XP

It shouldnt have been too bad with 256 so long as you were running a small set of apps at one time. Obviously there are all kinds of considerations here, but as a general rule of thumb XP doesnt use much more RAM than 2000 (the apps that you run on it are the real killer).

 

[PingSpike]

I'd go with 2k myself. XP does use more ram than 2K. Sorry it does. Strip everything down on both and it still comes out ahead. Both should run fine with 512mb of ram however...that should be plenty for your tasks, but lets not pretend XP is more streamlined then 2K because it simply isn't. Try running 2K on a machine with 128mb of ram, its a little rough...try running XP with 128mb of ram, its horrible. XP and 2k are pretty much the same, except XP has some new features that make it friendly to more users.

If you're looking at buying a license of windows XP for this machine when you already have 2K I advise against it. Its a lateral upgrade at best, so its just not worth the money if you already have 2K anyway. In addition, I find XP activation annoying....but you may not be planning on making hardware changes on this machine very often so that could be a non-issue for you.

 

[spyordie007]

I'd go with 2k myself. XP does use more ram than 2K. Sorry it does. Strip everything down on both and it still comes out ahead. Both should run fine with 512mb of ram however...that should be plenty for your tasks, but lets not pretend XP is more streamlined then 2K because it simply isn't. Try running 2K on a machine with 128mb of ram, its a little rough...try running XP with 128mb of ram, its horrible.

I said XP doesnt use much more RAM. It does use more, but probably not more than 10% is the OS itself; applications tend to make the biggest differance.

XP and 2k are pretty much the same, except XP has some new features that make it friendly to more users.

This is not exactly true, however it's outside of the scope of this topic. XP is much better than 2k, but very few of the improvements have anything to do with file serving.

 

[darkplayer]

Definetly XP, memory shouldn't be a huge issue if you're not running big applications.

 

[ProviaFan]

XP is fine, so don't worry about the performance. School computers tend to suck, period, and are not a good relative measure of performance. The computer labs that I have the unfortunate displeasure of having to use from time to time have 2GHz+ P4s with 512MB or more of RAM, and they feel roughly equivalent to how I remember my AMD K6-2 450MHz with 192MB of RAM feeling; it's all in how much proprietary crap they load on the systems for whatever reason (custom login security systems, for example - and I have to ask WHY is NT style login not good enough already?!? oh well).

 

[Griswold]

If it worked fine for a year with w2k, stick to it. You dont need the bloat of XP for that usage, do you?

These "because XP is so much better but i'm not going to tell you why" comments are quite annoying, dont listen to it.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Griswold
If it worked fine for a year with w2k, stick to it. You dont need the bloat of XP for that usage, do you?

These "because XP is so much better but i'm not going to tell you why" comments are quite annoying, dont listen to it.

You want to keep your system running, right? XP's firewall may help keep malware off your machine (of course you can install a firewall on 2000). XP will also be supported longer than 2000 (with security updates and patches and such) so you will not need to upgrade and reinstall the OS for a few extra years. If you use your computer for only the things you initially set out to do, turn on the firewall, and don't browse the internet then your computer should run fine for years to come.

 

[montag451]

As long as you have an uptodate firewall, I can't see why it matters if your system is working but the OS is 'unsupported'.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Genx87]

You still get patches for Win2K.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JToxic
XP it is. I was afarid it would slow things down. My school PCs (P3 900mhz 256mb ram) run REALLY slow with XP, so I'm kinda scared about performance.

XP is a pig on 256MBs.