• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Win 2000 vs Windows Xp

M

Macros The Black

Junior Member
Ok, first off here is system specs
P3 933
256 RAM
128 MB Video Card

Now, it's not the best but it works. I am currently running windows xp pro, but it doesn't run as fast as it should.

If I switched to 2000... anybody think it would run better? I do some gaming on it, nothing crazy like Doom 3 or anything.

So if I switched to 2000.. do you think I would get more out of my system?
 
If I were in your situation, my time spent going back to 2000 would be worth the $30 for another stick of 256 (or more) to make XP run smoothly.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
The difference would be minimal at best.
Click to expand...

BS...
there would be a significant difference... wxp is a ram hog and runs like crap with less than 512 in my experience, also since you have an 'older' processor, win2k would definitely make your comp feel faster and prolly be more responsive etc
most games should work fine in 2k
 
Originally posted by: franguinho
Originally posted by: Nothinman
The difference would be minimal at best.
Click to expand...

BS...
there would be a significant difference... wxp is a ram hog and runs like crap with less than 512 in my experience, also since you have an 'older' processor, win2k would definitely make your comp feel faster and prolly be more responsive etc
most games should work fine in 2k
Click to expand...

If you disable visual optimizations in XP, it's not very different from 2000.
 
BS...
there would be a significant difference... wxp is a ram hog and runs like crap with less than 512 in my experience, also since you have an 'older' processor, win2k would definitely make your comp feel faster and prolly be more responsive etc
most games should work fine in 2k
Click to expand...

BS...
They're basically the same OS, most of the differences are in the UI and are able to be disabled.
 
Originally posted by: werk
If I were in your situation, my time spent going back to 2000 would be worth the $30 for another stick of 256 (or more) to make XP run smoothly.
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up.

Kick it up to 512 MB RAM and you should run fine.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
BS...
there would be a significant difference... wxp is a ram hog and runs like crap with less than 512 in my experience, also since you have an 'older' processor, win2k would definitely make your comp feel faster and prolly be more responsive etc
most games should work fine in 2k
Click to expand...

BS...
They're basically the same OS, most of the differences are in the UI and are able to be disabled.
Click to expand...

i agree with the previous dude that contradicted me in that xp stripped of the eyecandy is really close to 2k... but seriously, i've experienced this first-hand:
xp is more memory-hungry than 2k and with only 256mb available to start with, the 2k machine will be more responsive and have more RAM available at any given time for whatever you're doing.
 
Check blackviper.com and turn off all unnecessary services in XPro. You might notice a slight difference from it.
 
Originally posted by: P0ldy
Check blackviper.com and turn off all unnecessary services in XPro. You might notice a slight difference from it.
Click to expand...

No. There is no reason to disable services. If a service is not in use then it won't use up any recources.

As for the OP's question just get XP and turn off the visual effects so it looks like 2K. I think it looks better anyway and it should runa bit smoother for you.
 
Originally posted by: franguinho
i agree with the previous dude that contradicted me in that xp stripped of the eyecandy is really close to 2k... but seriously, i've experienced this first-hand:
xp is more memory-hungry than 2k and with only 256mb available to start with, the 2k machine will be more responsive and have more RAM available at any given time for whatever you're doing.
Click to expand...
Based on personal experience, I agree. W2K is bearable in 128MB, XP is not, no matter how many "extraneous services" that you disable. The changes that they made to XP's memory-management under the hood seem to react worse in worst-case scenarios, XP was (re-)designed to run with more physical RAM than W2K was, IMHO.
 
Yup increase the memory to 512 MB if you can. Otherwise Win2k will be significantly faster than WinXP on your current system
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top