Well, XP's been very stable for me. The only BSODs I've ever seen in were caused by a dodgey NVIDIA driver -- an update got rid of them all.
What you're seeing is most likely more mature third-party drivers. MS have spent a lot of resources on their WHQL testing lab since 2000's release, and by eliminating the most common mistakes driver writers do, they've also immensely increased the perceived stability of the OS. But go back to 2000 SP4 using modern device drivers, and I think you'll find it every bit as stable as XP. I certainly measured up-time in months as a 2000 user back in the day. I dare say most people focus more on PSU and memory quality now adays as well.
_That_ said, Windows 2000 is not hyperthread aware. Its scheduler will see the HT virtual CPU as a real core and you run the risk of it scheduling real work to it inappropriately. At first I thought this was a problem with dual Xeon setups, but I've seen postings that indicate there are issues with regular single CPU P4 systems as well. YMMV, but it makes more sense to use the latest OS for the latest hardware. (OTOH we all use AMD, so this was just nitpicking)
I'm sorry, but regardless of stability issues (yes Windows 2000 is less stable than anything based off the XP codebase) Windows 2000 is almost dead as a desktop (thank god).
Yes Win2k is better than it was ... but XP is leaps and bounds better in every conceivable way. It is at a point now where support for Windows 2000 is slowly being dropped so why go waste your money on an OS that will be out of support even from MS in 3 years! There are a couple of games released recently which didnt support Windows 2000 (it's monday morning and I cant for the life of me remember which), hardware support will go the same wayas soon as Vista ships next year.
All in all... unless you can find like a £10 copy of win2k.... I wouldnt waste my time on it when there is a far superior, better supported, gaming OS. I would recommend PRO over home because its a few quid more but ya wont get caught with ya pants down should you need one of its features.... but home is just fine too.
Yes Win2k is better than it was ... but XP is leaps and bounds better in every conceivable way. It is at a point now where support for Windows 2000 is slowly being dropped so why go waste your money on an OS that will be out of support even from MS in 3 years! There are a couple of games released recently which didnt support Windows 2000 (it's monday morning and I cant for the life of me remember which), hardware support will go the same wayas soon as Vista ships next year.
All in all... unless you can find like a £10 copy of win2k.... I wouldnt waste my time on it when there is a far superior, better supported, gaming OS. I would recommend PRO over home because its a few quid more but ya wont get caught with ya pants down should you need one of its features.... but home is just fine too.
I beg to differ.
Win2k is NT 5.0. XP is NT 5.1. The number of kernel changes (for the sake of stability) is as far as I know nil, nothing, nada. Same kernel, same basic stability. There's no magic "don't crash here" code. If you can point to relevant kernel changes, now would be a good time to do so. Mark Russinovich wrote an article about the differences IIRC, that might be a good place to start your research. (after all, I could be wrong -- it's been a while since I read it)
*Feature* wise there were changes, but even then we're talking about incremental changes. Certainly nothing that would keep apps from working under Win2k. Plus with XP you gain various annoyances that are enabled by default.
I too prefer XP (well, actually I prefer Win2003), but if the user's needs are being met with Win2k, then there's no need to upgrade. Win9x/me was a different story, as Windows Toystation just isn't a proper operating system.
Web surfing & games? (& hyperthreading disabled) Might as well stick with Win2k. I seem to recall something about slightly more integrated direct-x with XP, but I've never seen anyone benchmark the difference... Developing applications? No doubt, upgrade to Windows 2003 immediately!
Get XP Home or Pro. Win2000 was a great upgrade over Windows 3.x but there are new games that require WinXP (don't run on 2000). For that reason alone get XP.
HECK NO!!! Don't even consider using POS Windows 98/ME for gaming. It is a good thing when games and applications don't support POS Windows 98/ME. Windows 2000 should still be supported because it is still a good OS even though it is getting older based on its time of release. but it isn't really the time of release that matters. It is the quality of the OS and how new the code is. Windows 2000 uses a modern code base where as POS Windows 98/ME use ancient code that was never designed to multi task or be true 32-bit.
Windows 98/ME should have died as soon as Windows XP was released 4 years ago. So from the point of 4 years ago, all applications and hardware should have been Windows 2K/XP/2003 only when it comes to the Microsoft OS computing world. Of course Linux and other good non-MS operating systems should be supported too.
Don't run at all, or just refuse to install?
There are plenty of games that won't install on OS'es that haven't been tested by the publisher (really stupid). By editing the relevant .msi files, you can often get games to install under 64-bit Windows, Vista, Windows 2003 and other "problematic" operating systems... I wouldn't be surprised if the same applies to Windows 2000.
(Example of a non-future proof game: Rome: Total War -- but edit the .msi file and you'll be fine -- check out planetamd64.com for other titles like that)
Kinda skimmed through second page but it has probably already been re-stated though. As far as I know W2k was far more stable than XP ever was. I mean, sure people can say XP is newer and blah blah blah, but IMHO 2k didn't have half the problems XP had(still has). Don't remember a single BSOD on 2k unless it was something I personally(user error) f'ed up.
I use XP now(pro) and it definetely just...crashes for no reason at times and there's a lot of software out there that when installed improperly(or it just doesn't like you and your hardware), it rips your pc to shreds.
Just my 2 cents.
I use XP now(pro) and it definetely just...crashes for no reason at times and there's a lot of software out there that when installed improperly(or it just doesn't like you and your hardware), it rips your pc to shreds.
Just my 2 cents.
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
If your XP is crashing for no reason, it's something wrong with your computer. Anyone will tell you that. XP is the most stable OS Microsoft has ever put out, anyone will tell you that too.
There is absolutely no reason to choose Win2k, I don't care what anyone here says. It's older, less functional, and outdated. You will have no support for 2k, and pretty soon more games won't support it. There is ZERO reason to go with an older OS, ZERO. 2k fanbois can exit thread now.
98 fanbois can die now.
Lol. So lets get this straight.
Win2K crashes on your PC, so its the OS thats unstable.
XP crashes on someone else's PC, so its their computer thats unstable.
Okaaayyyyyyy!
It seems to be just you repeating yourself over and over in the hope someone might believe you.
I would actually put Windows 2003 code as the most stable to date, with 2K and XP following.
Why, when you're making it such fun.
I wouldn't have been quite as harsh as that.
Well ok, maybe I would if they'd said use WinMe! :Q
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
Precisely. I'm infallible, but you're not. So when something doesn't work for me...its because its crap. When something doesn't work for you...its because you screwed up.
I don't think XP is bad, its based on the mature 2K platform afterall. But it doesn't really offer much over 2K. Times may change and we'll see it fade away, microsoft is doing its best to speed the process...but right now, if you're on 2K, XP is a lateral upgrade, if that.
WT
Diamond Member
- Sep 21, 2000
- 4,816
- 60
- 91
No votes for Win95 yet ??? Sheeshh ....
I currently use W2K, and I guarantee my stability is right up there with XP, since its basically the same kernel minus all that fluff shyt that eats up RAM and makes you think you need 512 instead of 256 to function properly. Obviously there are going to be varying opinions, but I gotta laugh when its stated that XP is more stable than W2K. You won't see a BSOD in XP, it just reboots the damn PC. Now that I have that out of my mouth, I will say that I am upgrading to XP Pro on alll of my PCs (via the Action Pack) due to the writing on the wall, known as MS making all of their games NEED XP to play. Ridiculous horeshyt you say ?? I agree, but they can now force any W2K hangers-on to upgrade if they want to game. Remember, MS was the company that considered games a passing fad back in the mid-90's until they finally put a crew together to develop DirectX. Now they offer AoE III and DS2, as well as other good selling games, so I figure its worth the investment in some silly gaming way.
I currently use W2K, and I guarantee my stability is right up there with XP, since its basically the same kernel minus all that fluff shyt that eats up RAM and makes you think you need 512 instead of 256 to function properly. Obviously there are going to be varying opinions, but I gotta laugh when its stated that XP is more stable than W2K. You won't see a BSOD in XP, it just reboots the damn PC. Now that I have that out of my mouth, I will say that I am upgrading to XP Pro on alll of my PCs (via the Action Pack) due to the writing on the wall, known as MS making all of their games NEED XP to play. Ridiculous horeshyt you say ?? I agree, but they can now force any W2K hangers-on to upgrade if they want to game. Remember, MS was the company that considered games a passing fad back in the mid-90's until they finally put a crew together to develop DirectX. Now they offer AoE III and DS2, as well as other good selling games, so I figure its worth the investment in some silly gaming way.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
Kinda like you skipping over the part where you need to backup your assertions with some sort of basis other then "I hate it, therefore it sucks!"
Regardless, SLI is the only one I've seen brought up.
Unless you're an ultra highend fiend, SLI isn't worth the investment. Anand says so. I know I don't plan on dropping the cash for two ultra high end video cards. And when upgrade time rolls around, I'll be better served by picking up a newer card from the next generation then digging around for a similar old one.
Anyway, that whole thing stinks of a little behind the scenes play by microsoft...but I haven't done enough research to find out. I can't think of any reason they couldn't implement it. SLI isn't something I keep up on the details of much however, since I don't forsee it benefitting me. I can't afford high end stuff.
As WT correctly pointed out, our hand will be forced on the upgrade to XP. Not because of any basic deficiencies in the OS, but because of created limitations. If you prefer XP, that is fine. Its a great OS. But I disagree with 2K being unstable. I've had better luck with it in that regard here at work then I have with XP...but I think thats just because the XP users seem to get into more trouble for some reason.
not true, in terms of the interface, u r right that 2k is similar to xp, but in the background,
the kernel is quite different. win 2k was based on the NT kernel while XP is based on the
win 95/98/98se kernel. so there is a slight difference. anyhow, 2000 is more stable then xp but xp is better for gaming as it is better supported.
:thumbsup:
XP home is a fantastic OS for gaming. If it is a home PC and you don't need to tie up to your company domain / ad then just use home. I must agree w/MrChad - there is quite a bit of misinformation in this thread.
Edit: If you're buy a new pc or doing a new install of your HD, IMHO it is crazy *not* to use one of the flavours of Windows XP out there for gaming.
Edit: If you're buy a new pc or doing a new install of your HD, IMHO it is crazy *not* to use one of the flavours of Windows XP out there for gaming.
Phoenix86
Lifer
- May 21, 2003
- 14,644
- 10
- 81
Just because people haven't posted them doesn't mean there aren't differences.
XP supports all the new security fixes in SP2. This includes a more functional firewall, built in pop-up blocker, info bar, etc. There is no equal for this in W2K.
Really there are quite a number of differences, many not so visible. Anyways, either are great for gaming, I *just* switched my gaming rig from 2K to XP when I got my new rig. Why was I still using 2K? I never needed to reload it since it was installed a couple of months after XP was released (didn't want to use XP at the time, too new).
edit: It'd take me a week to cover the inconsistancies between this thread and the truth.
WT
Diamond Member
- Sep 21, 2000
- 4,816
- 60
- 91
Firstly, the firewall. Key word is more functional, as in less suckage. No equal for that in W2K, so I consult my nearest tech guy (me) and install the free Kerios 2.15 firewall. Its more functional than Windows built in firewall (ie: less suckage)and it filters outgoing as well.
Nextly, the built in pop up blocker for W2K would be Firefox, but since that hasn't been out forever, I would then use PopupStopper 2.6, another freebie that doesn't even have a splash/nag screen.
Lastly, the extensions to Firefox make it so much more advanced than IE that it isn't even a fair discussion. Several free utilities cover any necessary or even eye candy appeal for a given OS, with Microsoft choosing to not provide OS security patches to make the OS safer to use. Thats obviously by design. Now I am not arguing the outcome ... please don't feel that is my contention, I simply feel that an OS discussion is just not going to please all of the users all of the time. You cannot force a Ford guy to love Chevys and vice versa. Given my situation even three months ago, I would chose W2K, but I know I cannot hold onto it like Linus does his blanket, I do have to move on and update ... only because I had no choice.
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
FF isn't built-in, and requires many downloads just to get all these plugins, whereas there is Opera that has it already built-in and is more secure than both of these browsers combined. It's also faster.
NONE of that even helps your W2k arguement, which is fruitless. WinXP is the better OS, hands down. Win2K has NOTHING on XP. NOTHING.
Fixed.
Well, one thing 2K doesn't have is activation, which is big plus for me as I'm often changing and testing out different bits of hardware on my rig.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter