which OS is the best for gaming?

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: WT

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.

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.

These are 3rd party.

edit: FF doesn't work for everyone. I can't use it to view several of my work related sites. It's not a blanket answer.

You can alway load 3rd party software on XP as well. Your reasons are not a compelling reason to use 2K.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: WT

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.

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.

These are 3rd party.

edit: FF doesn't work for everyone. I can't use it to view several of my work related sites. It's not a blanket answer.

You can alway load 3rd party software on XP as well. Your reasons are not a compelling reason to use 2K.

They are if you already own it. Why buy a new operating system when it doesn't nothing your old one can't?

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
They are if you already own it. Why buy a new operating system when it doesn't nothing your old one can't?

Dude, your talking to a guy who just switch to XP on his gaming rig like 3 weeks ago. You ain't gotta convince me.

However there are benefits to XP over 2K, that doesn't mean you will make use of those benefits, and they aren't limited to the few things mentioned here in the thread. Like I said it'd take a long time to dispel many of the misinfo in this thread.

Folder synchronization anyone? Sure it can be done with batch files, but with synch., why?

Vista will introduce xImage, should we still use Ghost/Arcronis because we own it?

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: PingSpike
They are if you already own it. Why buy a new operating system when it doesn't nothing your old one can't?

Dude, your talking to a guy who just switch to XP on his gaming rig like 3 weeks ago. You ain't gotta convince me.

However there are benefits to XP over 2K, that doesn't mean you will make use of those benefits, and they aren't limited to the few things mentioned here in the thread. Like I said it'd take a long time to dispel many of the misinfo in this thread.

Folder synchronization anyone? Sure it can be done with batch files, but with synch., why?

Vista will introduce xImage, should we still use Ghost/Arcronis because we own it?

"Because we own it." Man, I hate that phrase around my office. Just one example of many: our CTO doesn't want me to switch from IIS to Apache. Why? Because we already paid for Windows Server (though we are adding more). Nevermind that Apache is more popular, more secure, more responsive, more feature-ful, free and IMO easier to administer.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: ForumMaster

That doesn't make any sense, they are the same OS. The difference between XP Pro and XP Home are a couple features, the rest is the same. They have the same stability. In gaming, there is zero difference. Don't know what you mean by fresh boot, I leave mine running just fine.

Windows 2k was unstable compared to XP, no reason to get something older and less capable.

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:

Duuude! WTF.
wrong wrong wrong