WIn2k to XP

[dmw16]

Im thinking about finally upgrading my main PC to XP. My computer is mainly used for gaming and school stuff. Would i get much benifit by going to XP?
thanks,
-doug

 

[stash]

There have been many posts on this topic, search is your friend.

Some people will say that you will see an increase in the speed of your games going to XP, but I personally don't see it. I ran XP as my primary OS for about 6 months and found it to be very stable, but no more than Win2k. I hated the default GUI, and had to hack away at it to get it to look the way I wanted. One nice thing about XP is that it boots noticeably faster. On the other hand, Win2k is very stable, runs most games, and you dont have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get the GUI to look like, well, Win2k.

If you had a free or discounted copy of XP, I might say give it shot, but 99 bucks for home and 199 for professional upgrades for some extra bloat and a Fisher Price interface is not worth it, in my view.

 

[TheOmegaCode]

If you had a free or discounted copy of XP, I might say give it shot, but 99 bucks for home and 199 for professional upgrades for some extra bloat and a Fisher Price interface is not worth it, in my view.

I don't agree 100% with the "Fisher Price" interface, but I do agree that paying $99 to upgrade from 2k to XP is not really worth it, IMO. I got XP through my job, we have an open licensing system, and I ran it at home before we took the plunge at work (to see if we would run into any issues).
I'd say that it's stable, but no more so than 2k. I've had it crash on me several times, and I've had it run sluggish after using memory and cpu intensive processes (I hear there is a prog to clear up any unused memory) which essentially requires a reboot. Also, I feel XP's activation scheme is foolhearty, it only makes things more difficult for those who do buy the operating system. Any script kiddie would just download Pro...

 

[Gooberlx2]

I agree 100% with STaSh. I XP just seems like a bloated Win2k with crap I don't need. (albeit I like that they brought back msconfig....but I can just get that for win2k now) XP seemed to use more memory than 2k, atleast for me. I dunno....I just like win2k more. I think was/is M$'s best OS. I like not having to d!ck around with the GUI to make it look like win2k (just as stash said), I like that I don't have to d!ck with sysoc.inf to uninstall a whole slew of crap I don't need, I like that there's no irritating features to disable (like error reporting) and I like that win2k seems to be friendlier with video cards. (I can't tell you how often I get a "recovered from a serious error --> details --> some bullsh!t with the video card" at work...though my work machine is a serious POS...oh yeah...I have updated the vid drivers and windows updated). Anyway...win2k is essentially a no frills XP, IMHO. XP is obviously more user firnedly though.....built in CDRW support...and all the other "common tasks" is nice for average users I s'pose.

Anyway, that's my $0.02. I still have my XP disk...so we'll see when they release a decent service pack. Maybe I'll clean install it again.

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: STaSh
There have been many posts on this topic, search is your friend.

Some people will say that you will see an increase in the speed of your games going to XP, but I personally don't see it. I ran XP as my primary OS for about 6 months and found it to be very stable, but no more than Win2k. I hated the default GUI, and had to hack away at it to get it to look the way I wanted. One nice thing about XP is that it boots noticeably faster. On the other hand, Win2k is very stable, runs most games, and you dont have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get the GUI to look like, well, Win2k.

If you had a free or discounted copy of XP, I might say give it shot, but 99 bucks for home and 199 for professional upgrades for some extra bloat and a Fisher Price interface is not worth it, in my view.

What he said.😎

 

[MrGrim]

I wouldn't call that an upgrade.