• 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.

Windows Xp just "Win 2000 with eye candy" dont insult Win 2000

S

serenedream

Junior Member
I'm sick and tired of people making statements such as, "Windows 2000 is just Xp without the Eye candy". Windows 2000 is by far the superior OS it has stability and speed something sadly lacking with the slow, bloated and unstable Xp.

As for gaming in my recent benchmark XP scored a great 9505 but on 2000 it was a fantastic 10006 YES thats right higher on 2000, now you may say so what 5% but every gamer knows that every little helps it can be the difference between running RTCW at 1280x960 32bit or 1600x1200 32bit.

Click below to see my system specs if intrested as to what machine the benchmarks were conducted on

This thread has become a flame war. We frown on the deliberate flame bait that you have posted.

AnandTech Moderator
 


<< Im sick and tired of people saying 2000 is just Xp without the Eye candy, 2000 is by far the superior OS, stability and speed as for gaming in my recent benchmark my score on XP was 9505 on 2000 it was 10006 YES thats right higher on 2000, so as for XP be better for gaming go suck my ****.

Click below to see my system specs. >>


Is there a point to this, or is it just a rant? I can't even decode what your saying... It's all just one bloated sentence... You run windows2000, whoop-de-doo! I run 2x FreeBSD boxes, 1x 2k box, and 1x XP box... Do I get an award now? Besides, does a benchmark difference of 501 out of 9000+ mean anything? Hardly 5%... Personally, I've got no beefs with either XP or 2k. At first I was rather reluctant to use it (XP), but now I have it running damn stable(for windows) on a 566mhz cellery w/ 512MB RAM...
 
"You run windows2000, whoop-de-doo! I run 2x FreeBSD boxes, 1x 2k box, and 1x XP box... Do I get an award now? "

I think your the one trying to impress.
 
whats up with this? why in every forum i go to is there people that start pointless arguments. i was sick of 'vestax vs technics' in my DJ forums. both OS's have pros and cons. both are good. both are from microsoft 🙁
 
5% increase on a benchmark isn't going to make the difference between being able to run RTCW at 1280x960 32bit or 1600x1200 32bit. Benchmarks aren't everything.
 


<< I'm sick and tired of people making statements such as, "Windows 2000 is just Xp without the Eye candy". Windows 2000 is by far the superior OS it has stability and speed something sadly lacking with the slow, bloated and unstable Xp. >>



It seems to me some Win2K users are doing the flamming where XP is concerned,for the record I`ve been using WinXP for last 6 months and it`s rock stable,if you got a problem with that tough, it`s your problem not mine ,as for this is better then that ,what`s the point?

We all use what we think is the best OS & there`re many happy 2k/XP users out there.



<< Windows 2000 is by far the superior OS it has stability and speed something sadly lacking with the slow >>



Hmm funny how I also have speed ,stability with XP,sounds like user error to me 😉.
Little tip ,if you don`t like WinXP then don`t install it,no need to start a flamming thread.


🙂



 


<< I'm sick and tired of people making statements such as, "Windows 2000 is just Xp without the Eye candy". Windows 2000 is by far the superior OS it has stability and speed something sadly lacking with the slow, bloated and unstable Xp. As for gaming in my recent benchmark XP scored a great 9505 but on 2000 it was a fantastic 10006 YES thats right higher on 2000, now you may say so what 5% but every gamer knows that every little helps it can be the difference between running RTCW at 1280x960 32bit or 1600x1200 32bit. Click below to see my system specs if intrested as to what machine the benchmarks were conducted on >>



As usual the problem is between the chair and the keyboard. There is not a MS operating system that I have used that I've had a problem with, and I've used them all. If you know how to set up XP, it is just as fast if not faster than 2000.
 
I'm not going to say Win2k sucks or anything, but XP runs just fine for me. If you like Win2k better we're happy for ya, W2k is a good OS.

Starting threads like these make you seem like a child starving for attention or something.

Your statement "slow, bloated and unstable XP" makes you come across as an idiot to me. You got 1 out of 3 right at least about XP, although I doubt you know which one.
 


<< Your statement "slow, bloated and unstable XP" makes you come across as an idiot to me. You got 1 out of 3 right at least about XP, although I doubt you know which one. >>



cough*bloated*cough!
 
I think, Mr. Serenedream, that before you come to a forum and start posting your opinions on computers that you should begin to take a look at facts...and I hardly call a benchmarking difference of 501 a difference in performance. Perhaps you would get on everyone's better side if you were to at least use fact instead of opinion to support your arguments, but for you to post your arguments in these forums is an insult to your existence. I have been running XP for months now, and I haven't had any problems whatsoever. Just go home, son.
 
I liked both OS, but XP is much easier to install for me, runs just fine, and Win2k is yesterdays OS. Time to move on. Its a good thing that most people do not guage an OS by the gaming benchmarks.
 


<< Its a good thing that most people do not guage an OS by the gaming benchmarks. >>



I agree completely. For me, its stability first, then performance. While I have no indication that XP is an unstable operating system, I have every indication that 2k is [ a stable operating system ].
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top