• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Poll: what is the OS on your primary PC?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
I've never run any benchmarks, but XP has always felt faster to me than 2K

For me, faster as in browsing through applications or tabbing through windows, or pulling up the start menu.

Even with all the effects turned off on XP, it still seems like it takes longer to browse through things.

One thing I do dislike about 2k is that the boot time on it is really bad. XP definitely was an improvement there.
 

GoSharks

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 1999
3,053
0
76
been using win2k on my desktop since it has been released. i do have xp pro on my laptop since it came with it though...
 

lokiju

Lifer
May 29, 2003
18,526
5
0
I have XP Pro on 3 of my systems and 2003 Server on another and am dual booting to Fedora on one of the XP Pro boxes.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Main rig is WinXP Pro that I got at the student discount, and secondary rig is SuSE Linux 9.1
 

duragezic

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,234
4
81
I used to be diehard win2k, I was like f XP. But then one day I switched to XP and much to my surprise is way better. I have all the garbage turned off and its the same speed and memory usage as win2k basically.
 

NikPreviousAcct

No Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
52,763
1
0
My primary server in the house runs Win2k Pro. My primary desktop runs linux. Yeah, I know that's a little messed up. :p
 

imported_theEman

Senior member
Jul 3, 2004
549
0
0
Yay! There are still a lot of people using Win2K! I primarily use Win2K because even though it may have more bugs than WinXP, it still doesn't hog as much system resources as WinXP does :D.
 

olds

Elite Member
Mar 3, 2000
50,124
779
126
6 machines (4 desktop, 2 laptop) have XP Pro.
1 laptop has 98SE
 

nan0bug

Banned
Apr 22, 2003
3,142
0
0
Originally posted by: Trygve
I've got Win2K pro on my main machine and I had to "upgrade" my secondary/video machine to XP pro a few months back because some of the software I use *only* supports XP pro. I still haven't found anything at all to like about XP over 2K. As far as I can tell, all Microsoft did was to study what people found annoying in their other operating systems and tried to collect and enhance everything irritating about an OS into one.

I guess XP is okay for someone who wants software to hold their hand...and refuse to let go of it.


XP is Windows 2000 with visual styles and bug fixes, moron.
 

Kaervak

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2001
8,460
2
81
2k pro with SP4. Just did a reinstall last night after I royally screwed up the registry. I used XP Pro before but didn't like it. Couldn't customize it the way I wanted it and it was rather crash prone for no apparent reason. It's not a bad OS, I just don't like it.
 

Trygve

Golden Member
Aug 1, 2001
1,428
9
0
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: Trygve
I've got Win2K pro on my main machine and I had to "upgrade" my secondary/video machine to XP pro a few months back because some of the software I use *only* supports XP pro. I still haven't found anything at all to like about XP over 2K. As far as I can tell, all Microsoft did was to study what people found annoying in their other operating systems and tried to collect and enhance everything irritating about an OS into one.

I guess XP is okay for someone who wants software to hold their hand...and refuse to let go of it.


XP is Windows 2000 with visual styles and bug fixes, moron.

You mean *added* bugs, driver and software incompatibilities, and a deliberate effort to make any basic operation that you'd want to do take a few extra mouse clicks than it used to? The annoying "visual styles" I can shut off; I haven't figured out how to fix the rest of the added annoyances.

Oh, yeah, and new "fixes" and "service packs" coming out all the time that disable whatever software I need to use.
 

nan0bug

Banned
Apr 22, 2003
3,142
0
0
Originally posted by: theEman
Yay! There are still a lot of people using Win2K! I primarily use Win2K because even though it may have more bugs than WinXP, it still doesn't hog as much system resources as WinXP does :D.

Thats not really a good reason unless you're too lazy to tweak XP to your liking or you're running something like a P3 or Celeron with less than 512mb of ram.

Even then, I've managed to run Windows XP on a Celeron 600 with 128mb of ram after a lot of tweaking, for no other reason than to see if it could be done and to learn how to squeeze as much performance as possible out of XP without screwing something up on my main machine. It felt faster than Windows 2000 on the same config.


 

nan0bug

Banned
Apr 22, 2003
3,142
0
0
Originally posted by: Trygve
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: Trygve
I've got Win2K pro on my main machine and I had to "upgrade" my secondary/video machine to XP pro a few months back because some of the software I use *only* supports XP pro. I still haven't found anything at all to like about XP over 2K. As far as I can tell, all Microsoft did was to study what people found annoying in their other operating systems and tried to collect and enhance everything irritating about an OS into one.

I guess XP is okay for someone who wants software to hold their hand...and refuse to let go of it.


XP is Windows 2000 with visual styles and bug fixes, moron.

You mean *added* bugs, driver and software incompatibilities, and a deliberate effort to make any basic operation that you'd want to do take a few extra mouse clicks than it used to? The annoying "visual styles" I can shut off; I haven't figured out how to fix the rest of the added annoyances.

Oh, yeah, and new "fixes" and "service packs" coming out all the time that disable whatever software I need to use.


I get things done just as fast or faster on an XP machine than I do on a 2K machine. A little effort in customizing things to your liking goes a long way. Only newbies use mice for most tasks anyway. Keyboard shortcuts are so much better.

I've also never had any software incompatibilities from 2K to XP. I'd be interested in hearing what software is giving you problems.
 

nan0bug

Banned
Apr 22, 2003
3,142
0
0
Really if you can't get XP running with equal or better performance than Windows 2K on a semi-recent machine, the blame comes down to user error or incompetence.

Basically, if you gotta run 2K to have better performance, its because you're lazy. Not that theres anything wrong with that.
 

konakona

Diamond Member
May 6, 2004
6,285
1
0
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Really if you can't get XP running with equal or better performance than Windows 2K on a semi-recent machine, the blame comes down to user error or incompetence.

Basically, if you gotta run 2K to have better performance, its because you're lazy. Not that theres anything wrong with that.

 

Trygve

Golden Member
Aug 1, 2001
1,428
9
0
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: Trygve

You mean *added* bugs, driver and software incompatibilities, and a deliberate effort to make any basic operation that you'd want to do take a few extra mouse clicks than it used to? The annoying "visual styles" I can shut off; I haven't figured out how to fix the rest of the added annoyances.

Oh, yeah, and new "fixes" and "service packs" coming out all the time that disable whatever software I need to use.


I get things done just as fast or faster on an XP machine than I do on a 2K machine. A little effort in customizing things to your liking goes a long way. Only newbies use mice for most tasks anyway. Keyboard shortcuts are so much better.

I've also never had any software incompatibilities from 2K to XP. I'd be interested in hearing what software is giving you problems.

Well, I bought XP Pro because the current version of Avid Xpress Pro (why is *everything* "pro" these days?) only supports XP Pro. ...but it's not compatible with all of Microsoft's "bug fixes," some of which will totally screw up Avid software (fortunately, Avid's technical support section has information on this).

However, installing XP disabled some rather important functions of Adobe Premiere, notably the ability to capture and output video on my system. So you have to upgrade to Adobe Premiere Pro 1.0 (there's that "pro" thing again) which fixes that problem. Adobe has no plans to release a patch for Premiere 6.5, the last "non-pro" version.

But XP SP1 screws up Adobe Premiere Pro 1.0. Fortunately, there's a fix for that. It's called "Premiere Pro 1.5"...but you have to pay for that upgrade, too. (I needed to upgrade After Effects Pro (there's that word again) anyway and some of the other Adobe software I use, so I would have gotten the upgrade regardless, but, still....)

Now, I still haven't gotten the audio working correctly on my SDI card (Osprey 2000 Pro DV--and since it's "pro" too, it ought to be supported, right?) and, though it's less of a big deal, XP keeps "losing" my MOTU 828 firewire audio interface and even when it does recognize it, I haven't been able to get all of its functions working properly yet--but I should probably upgrade it to something more modern anyway.

I didn't have nearly as much trouble going from NT 4.0 to 2K (apart from the drop in stability). The biggest annoyance I ran into there was that Win2K totally screwed up most of my fibre channel HBAs. Of the ones I was using, only the Qlogic models would work with 2K. But, then, the ones that 2K couldn't handle were still supported under Solaris, so that problem could be fixed with a little bit of hardware swapping. Unfortunately, I don't have a supply of spare video and sound hardware lying around to start swapping until I can find out what XP is comfortable with.