Which is better in terms of reliability? Disregarding all the nice looking things in XP and whatever the differences are, which would you rather prefer, again, disregarding all the video editing stuff XP gives you, basically, disregarding all the stuff XP gives for average and below average users?
-
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 vs 2000
- Thread starter HondaF1
- Start date
The Green Bean
Diamond Member
R*200000
Somniferum
Senior member
I use 2000 at work (company policy) and XP at home. I prefer XP. Boots faster, among other things.
vegetation
Diamond Member
2K will install and run decently with very old systems; I have a P166 with 64mb running 2k for a weather station and small web server. Works great.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
XP2000
XP Pro is practically a remodelled 2K. They added a few things, took away a few things, but you can't go wrong with either.
Some people complain about XP because they're "used" to doing things a certain way in 2K, and then it isn't the same in XP.
My roommate does that all the time. Whenever something goes wrong with my system, he always blames it on XP. I'm then quick to point out that XP and 2K are practically the same, and that the problem probably resides in some new software I just installed. I'm always right. It's just plain discrimination.
People are just reluctant to change habits. XP can do pretty much everything 2K can and more.
Some people complain about XP because they're "used" to doing things a certain way in 2K, and then it isn't the same in XP.
My roommate does that all the time. Whenever something goes wrong with my system, he always blames it on XP. I'm then quick to point out that XP and 2K are practically the same, and that the problem probably resides in some new software I just installed. I'm always right. It's just plain discrimination.
People are just reluctant to change habits. XP can do pretty much everything 2K can and more.
W2K does not support hyperthreading. The scheduler does not support it correctly and W2K does not provide the additional API's that XP does for license compliance (for apps licensed to physical cpu's). Do a search if you want to see the zillions of threads already covering this.
Bill
I think they're about equal.
I've used Windows 2K for the last few years, and just started using Windows XP last week on my new system. There's some new stuff and some old stuff, but it's practically the same.
Though, I also believe the choice depends on your system. With really kick ass or new systems, I would go for Windows XP just because you can do things like test out WMP10, and because there might be better driver support for newer things.
I've used Windows 2K for the last few years, and just started using Windows XP last week on my new system. There's some new stuff and some old stuff, but it's practically the same.
Though, I also believe the choice depends on your system. With really kick ass or new systems, I would go for Windows XP just because you can do things like test out WMP10, and because there might be better driver support for newer things.
I agree with KJI
Here is my experience with it all...
W2K seems to play better with older SCSI hardware and a few other more niche type hardware products.
I have installed WXP on a fairly broad spectrum of PCs and after tuning the OS a bit, I can get it to run not too bad on a K6-2 450 with 256 MB RAM.
Personally, my inclinations are that XP is best for home or digital media rich office work and 2K is better suited for general office PC use.
Jason.
Here is my experience with it all...
W2K seems to play better with older SCSI hardware and a few other more niche type hardware products.
I have installed WXP on a fairly broad spectrum of PCs and after tuning the OS a bit, I can get it to run not too bad on a K6-2 450 with 256 MB RAM.
Personally, my inclinations are that XP is best for home or digital media rich office work and 2K is better suited for general office PC use.
Jason.
Canterwood
Golden Member
What an absolute load of bull. :disgust:
Can't agree with that highly educated response Canterwood.
I am slow as hell to adopt the latest greatest from the Vole and I can tell you I have been very pleased with the performance and stability of XP SP1 on my systems at home. (Note I waited to use XP until SP1 was out) I have also yet to find a stability problem from SP2. Of course I turn off Security center and the other goofball toys that were added in SP2.
As far as performance is concerned, the default config of XP (Home or Pro) has so much useless eye candy turned on that even an awesome system will seem a tad slow responding. Things like fade in menus and font smoothing to name just a few. Go to properties of my computer and then advanced, then performance settings. There are more than a dozen stupid little eye candy settings in there that usually just slow a system down.
Again, W2K for business use is fine, but media rich work (Including gaming) is much better off on WXP.
I am slow as hell to adopt the latest greatest from the Vole and I can tell you I have been very pleased with the performance and stability of XP SP1 on my systems at home. (Note I waited to use XP until SP1 was out) I have also yet to find a stability problem from SP2. Of course I turn off Security center and the other goofball toys that were added in SP2.
As far as performance is concerned, the default config of XP (Home or Pro) has so much useless eye candy turned on that even an awesome system will seem a tad slow responding. Things like fade in menus and font smoothing to name just a few. Go to properties of my computer and then advanced, then performance settings. There are more than a dozen stupid little eye candy settings in there that usually just slow a system down.
Again, W2K for business use is fine, but media rich work (Including gaming) is much better off on WXP.
Canterwood
Golden Member
The response was as educated as dguy's post.
What he said was bull.
XP is not a good deal more stable than 2000, and doesn't suffer huge compatibility problems.
You can even enable compatibility mode (aka XP) if you really need it.
I'm not saying that 2000 is as compatible as XP, but it does a pretty good job.
I agree that XP is stable, I never said it wasn't, but its no more stable than 2K. Thats a fact.
I also agree that XP is more geared towards media and gaming, however I have done both on a 2K box with great success and without any problems whatsoever, either in speed or compatibility.
I'm not flaming XP or starting a flameware (That can wait for next months 2000 v XP thread), but sometimes statements like dguy's just annoy me.
Anyway, enough said. 🙂
Basically, the OP was asking which is better in terms of stability.
Answer: They're both pretty much the same
In terms of compatiblity: I think XP is slightly better.
You can't really go wrong with either.
If you're about to change OS, and you can't decide between XP and 2K, I'd probably suggest XP. If you're already running 2K, there really isn't much reason to upgrade unless you simply want to.
Answer: They're both pretty much the same
In terms of compatiblity: I think XP is slightly better.
You can't really go wrong with either.
If you're about to change OS, and you can't decide between XP and 2K, I'd probably suggest XP. If you're already running 2K, there really isn't much reason to upgrade unless you simply want to.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
