Win 2KPro or XP Home

TQB

Member
Apr 2, 2004
78
0
0
I just finished building a pc for the wife and I was originally going to put Windows XP Home in it for her. But recently I have been thinking maybe I will put 2K Pro in it for her and use the XP Home for the gaming rig.

Was wandering what one you guys think would fit the need better for a gamer XP Home or 2KPro.
 

hopejr

Senior member
Nov 8, 2004
841
0
0
IIRC, Win2k didn't have as much hardware support at WinXP Home, so WinXP Home may be better. but I also know people who haven't had any problems with Win2k and gaming, probably due to service packs eliminating the deficiency. However, note that it doesn't seem like any more service packs are coming out for 2k, because of longhorn development taking all the time. It says that somewhere in another thread.
 

techwanabe

Diamond Member
May 24, 2000
3,145
0
0
The only reason I would go with 2K is lack of memory since XP is a memory hog. Depending on how much memory she has and what she is running, you should make your choice based on that.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
I use win2k Pro Sp4 ATM for gaming. Really, there isn't much diff in gaming whether you're using 98se, win2k or XP (other than D3 won't run on 98se).

Fern
 

Link19

Senior member
Apr 22, 2003
971
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
I use win2k Pro Sp4 ATM for gaming. Really, there isn't much diff in gaming whether you're using 98se, win2k or XP (other than D3 won't run on 98se).

Fern

It's a good thing that Doom 3 won't rn on Windows 98SE. It's about time all games due away with those jibby piece of JUNK operating systems in WIN 98/ME!!!!! So far, Doom 3 is the only one that has done it. All games should start doing it now!!
 

Link19

Senior member
Apr 22, 2003
971
0
0
Originally posted by: crimson117
Yes, WinME blows chunks, but Win98 and Win98SE weren't all that bad!

Your right that 98SE wasn't that bad, but Windows 98 original version was horrible from what I remember!! But Windows 98SE was much better. But the bottom line is anything based off Windows 9X is horrible for multi tasking and resource intensive tasks. Windows 98SE was alright for an older computer with just a few applications installed, single tasking, and running applications that aren't CPU and/or RAM intensive. I don't know all the technical details, but this is from what I've heard and it does make sense. Therefore, any software that's even somewhat CPU and RAM intensive should dicth support for Windows 98/ME all together!!! Same with hardware chipset drivers for the latest hardware. What do you think?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: Link19
Originally posted by: crimson117
Yes, WinME blows chunks, but Win98 and Win98SE weren't all that bad!

Your right that 98SE wasn't that bad, but Windows 98 original version was horrible from what I remember!! But Windows 98SE was much better. But the bottom line is anything based off Windows 9X is horrible for multi tasking and resource intensive tasks. Windows 98SE was alright for an older computer with just a few applications installed, single tasking, and running applications that aren't CPU and/or RAM intensive. I don't know all the technical details, but this is from what I've heard and it does make sense. Therefore, any software that's even somewhat CPU and RAM intensive should dicth support for Windows 98/ME all together!!! Same with hardware chipset drivers for the latest hardware. What do you think?

I think there are too many peeps, businesses and individuals still using these old OS's. See below:

The study, released this week by technology consultant AssetMetrix, found that more than 80 percent of companies still have some machines using Windows 95 or Windows 98. Of those companies still using the older operating systems, an average of 39 percent of desktops were running either Windows 95 or Windows 98.

"We found a significant occurrence of Windows 9x," said Steve O'Halloran, managing director for the research arm of AssetMetrix. The study looked at 372,129 PCs from 670 companies ranging in size from 10 to 49,000 employees.

The size of the business did not seem to dictate how prevalent the older operating systems were, with larger companies as likely as smaller ones to have a high prevalence of older operating systems. In total, Windows 95 made up 14.7 percent of operating systems, and Windows 98 made up 12.5 percent. Windows 2000 was the most common OS, running on slightly more than half of machines, while its predecessor, Windows NT4, was still used on 13.3 percent of desktops.

Windows XP, the most current version of Windows, was found on just 6.6 percent of the machines.

Consumers are also still widely using Windows 98. Google reported that 29 percent of searches done in September came from machines running Windows 98, as compared with 38 percent from Windows XP-based PCs and 20 percent from Windows 2000 machines.

Fern
 

yelo333

Senior member
Dec 13, 2003
990
0
71
Originally posted by: ShaqDiesel
If you've got 512MB or more of memory, use XP.

AFAIK, this is a moot point both when you have win2k, and once you have applied the Unofficial 98SE SP, in the case of 98SE. Would you care to backup your comment?
 

Link19

Senior member
Apr 22, 2003
971
0
0
Consumers are also still widely using Windows 98. Google reported that 29 percent of searches done in September came from machines running Windows 98, as compared with 38 percent from Windows XP-based PCs and 20 percent from Windows 2000 machines.

Do you think most of those computers running Windows 98 have a 1GHz CPU or faster with more than 128MB of RAM. I sure hope not!! I mean if that's the case, some people have got to get real and get over their little fantasy that Windows 98 is a quality operating system that is better than Windows 2000 and XP!! Windows 98/ME ought to be shot to death by now being such junker operating systems!! Phasing out compatibility for Windows 98/ME may be the only way to get all those Windows 98 users to upgrade their OS. I mean, I guess it makes sense to support them for application or hardware that don't require a halfway modern system to run. But my goodness!! Why the heck support those junk operating systems in WIN 98/ME for applications or hardware devices that require a minimum of a 1.3GHz or faster CPU and 256MBMB or more RAM to run???? I mean those jibby operating systems got to be phased out eventually!!! I mean Windows XP has been out for over three years by now. People still sticking their loyalty to Windows 98 even for their new PC need to get real and get a copy of Windows 2000 or XP. They will be happy in the long run.
 

ShaqDiesel

Member
Jan 30, 2003
101
0
0
Originally posted by: yelo333
Originally posted by: ShaqDiesel
If you've got 512MB or more of memory, use XP.

AFAIK, this is a moot point both when you have win2k, and once you have applied the Unofficial 98SE SP, in the case of 98SE. Would you care to backup your comment?


I just think XP is better as long as you have the memory for it, and IMO, 512MB is the sweet spot.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
win 2000pro

the only operating system you may ever need.

super stable
not copy protected
designed for networking
multiple monitor support

will work with as little as 64meg of memory