poll: windows 2000 or windows xp?

[kduncan5]

I personally don't have any reason to switch from Windows 98se. It's done a fine job for me... -kd5-

 

[bmacd]

Originally posted by: BCYL

Originally posted by: dighn
xp

2000's boot time really ticked me off

I get very similar boot times between XP and 2k...

besides, who cares about boot time when you can run your machine for months without rebooting?

one of the smartest things i've read on this board.

-=bmacd=-

 

[BCYL]

Originally posted by: kduncan5
I personally don't have any reason to switch from Windows 98se. It's done a fine job for me... -kd5-

Win9x's memory leak (resulting from it's poor memory management) would be a good reason to switch

 

[Electrode]

If you put a gun to my head and made me install one of those 2, I would pick Windows 2000. But even it sickens me. I can't stand anything except UNIX-based OS's, although I do run a copy of Windows 2000 Server, hacked up beyond recognition to make it act like UNIX, within the confines of VMware.

 

[bmacd]

Originally posted by: Electrode
If you put a gun to my head and made me install one of those 2, I would pick Windows 2000. But even it sickens me. I can't stand anything except UNIX-based OS's, although I do run a copy of Windows 2000 Server, hacked up beyond recognition to make it act like UNIX, within the confines of VMware.

and how did you manage to do something like that? What mods?

-=bmacd=-

 

[Amused]

I see no difference in stability between XP and 2K. They are both equally stable on both my rigs, and are infinitely more stable than ME and 98SE. I've also installed XP on a number of friend's and family member's machines. All were as stable as 2K.

What I do see a difference in is game performance. My games run slower on 2K, but run as fast as they did on 98 in XP.

So, in short, I prefer XP.

As for people calling XP bloated, well, big deal. All you need is enough RAM and it runs just as fast as 2K. In fact, I have never seen a case when XP EVER seemed slower than 2K in any task, even on machines with only 256MB of memory.

 

[Electrode]

bmacd: Here's what I did:

1. Install cygwin
2. Make C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\cmd.exe a symlink to bash
3. Made it run bash on startup (couldn't figure out how to make it boot to a commandline without loading the GUI) in fullscreen
4. Installed X, and Fluxbox, my favorite window manager
5. Compiled every *NIX app I could on cygwin, and ran the rest remotely

The only problem is that normal windows GUI apps can not be used while the X server is running. Once I find a rootless one, all will be well in the world, and I might even be tempted to go back to daul booting! :Q

 

[PeeluckyDuckee]

2k

 

[dawks]

If you have stability issues with 2k or XP.. (XP more specifically) its most likely due to bad-hardware, over-clocking, or bad drivers. XP is incredibly stable.. All I can say is, my system has crashed twice since january when I installed XP. Once was from ATI drivers blue screening me.. and once from when I tried to play half-life.. (heh)

Once you disable un-needed services, my XP takes only 63megs of memory (as indicated by taskmanager) on boot. I dont think I have been able to get 2000 that low yet.. maybe 65megs.. So XP really isnt bloatware..

XP boots usually somthing like 15 seconds faster then 2k pro.. and if you run bootvis it can be even lower. I managed to get a duron 800 with 256megs PC 133ram and a 10gig 7200rpm harddrive to boot to a usable state in 12seconds.

XP's theme feature is very nice. www.themexp.org

XP's driver set is also significantly larger. I couldnt get my soundblaster to work properly in 2k.. but it works without a hitch in XP. Along with my USB burner.. Doesnt work at all in 2k.. yet it works perfectly in XP.

2k works good enough for many.. but in my eyes, XP is much better.. I guess it depends on what you like really.. just like anything.

 

[dawks]

Originally posted by: Electrode
bmacd: Here's what I did:

1. Install cygwin
2. Make C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\cmd.exe a symlink to bash
3. Made it run bash on startup (couldn't figure out how to make it boot to a commandline without loading the GUI) in fullscreen
4. Installed X, and Fluxbox, my favorite window manager
5. Compiled every *NIX app I could on cygwin, and ran the rest remotely

The only problem is that normal windows GUI apps can not be used while the X server is running. Once I find a rootless one, all will be well in the world, and I might even be tempted to go back to daul booting! :Q

Electrode.. I could be totally off.. but what if you changed the windows shell from explorer.exe (the windows GUI) to say.. cmd.exe. I havent tried it with cmd.exe.. but if I recall correctly, i've done it with calc.exe. All it loads of course is calc.exe heh..

Might work?

 

[J3anyus]

2K. It's been around long enough that most of the bugs have been worked out, unlike XP. Plus, it seems like a lot of stuff just isn't compatible with XP.

 

[yakko]

XP

 

[Electrode]

DaZ: That's what I did. What I meant by "making it boot to a command line without loading the GUI" is that it would not load any graphics code whatsoever, like when you boot to the recovery console from the install CD. However, I don't think that is possible.

If M$ wants to be taken seriously in the server market, fixing this should be a priority. If I can't install, configure, run, and debug it without a video card, it's not a server OS.

 

[krystalogik]

Originally posted by: PipBoy
XP is Microsoft's most stable OS. What many people call "bloat" are options that are easily disabled, or reconfigured to look like they way you're used to.

I think the time it takes to do make it look and work like you want it to is easily justified by XP's Stability, memory management and device support.
XP Pro all the way!

 

[pillage2001]

Whatever you do, no WinME!!!!!!!

 

[hans007]

one problem i discovered with xp , i sthat the "let the machine manage virtual memory" option is disabled by default. instead it makes a swap space of 1.5 times your real memory i think. what happens is say you are transferring lots of stuff on kazaa, or whatever. and kazaa crashes. well it runs out of memory eventually for some reason, and puts up a message and you have to reboot. if you set it to let the machine manage it, itnever happens.

 

[chickendinner]

Originally posted by: yakko
XP

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Windows 2000 is more stable, but XP starts up a lot faster (after yet another crash ). SP3 for Windows 2000 should improve its stability even further, while SP1 for XP will prevent 50% or more of the people here from updating anymore afterwards
(The FCKGW key will get blocked etc)

 

[dighn]

Originally posted by: BCYL

Originally posted by: dighn
xp

2000's boot time really ticked me off

I get very similar boot times between XP and 2k...

besides, who cares about boot time when you can run your machine for months without rebooting?

xp boots significantly faster on my computer (like 1/2 the time it takes to boot 2000)

i don't leave my computer on overnight unless i'm downloading something... the noise bothers me (the FOP32 is loud), it wastes electricity and the moving parts go bad quicker.

 

[darren]

win 2k
"if it aint broke, why fix it?"

well it wasnt broke for me at least.

 

[KahunaHube]

if you took away all the cosmetic features in XP, i think most people would choose 2000

 

[Maggotry]

XP. I went from 95 to 98 to XP. Skipped ME and 2K so I can't make a valid comparison to them.

 

[baretta]

i upgraded from win98 to win2k 2 years ago. today i would upgrade to xp (and disable all the bells and whistles) if i was still using win98.

Since you'ar currently using w98 go with XP.

 

[UberNeuman]

WinXP is your OS of choice.

 

[Swag1138]

2K.

Only Windows Ill ever use. I just cant get used to XP.


Though I did have a 4 year install of windows 98. By the time I decided to upgrade to 2K, the registry was fux0red beyond belief I just wanted to see how long I could run it till it died,.