XP or 2000? Simple question - not so simple answer perhaps...

[Bananadude]

I've been using Win2k for quite a while now, and it's been very kind to me. Few hiccups now and again, but nothing's perfect. I'm in the process of building an all new system though, and i'm wondering whether i should make the step up to XP. The new system is as follows;
P4 2.4GHZ (533FSB), ASUS P4S8X MBD, 512MB RAM, RADEON 9700, x1 80GB WD HD, x1 40GB WD HD, x1 20GB MAXTOR HD, plus the usual DVD, CDRW etc.

I've had little experience with XP, but what i have experienced has not been particularly enjoyable. Still, from what i hear it's not all that bad. I have heard of numerous problems with games though, and i would be using it for that quite regularly. Also will be using it for genreal web stuff, and graphic design related things.

I don't know how much difference it will make to my spec & how it performs, and also if i will even notice much in terms of the day to running of things. Apart from the appearance of XP being a bit slicker & smoother than 2000, i really don't have any idea what the differences are!

Anyway, I would like to get people's thoughts on XP vs 2000, and if changing to XP is going to be something i will live to regret, or make me wonder why i ever doubted it in the first place!

All comments and advice welcome...

 

[dguy6789]

I have been running windows Xp Pro since the day it came out. I upgraded from win98SE. It has been by far the most stable os i have ever used. Theres a catch, you need plenty of ram to push it though. I have experienced it with 256, 384, and 512 megs of ram. Dont go less then 256. 256 is plenty for casual gaming and other stuff, 384 is good for hardcore gaming and some video editing. And 512 and higher is for everything. I have used 2000 once, it was pretty good as well, but not quite as stable as xp.

 

[MedicBob]

If you are happy using 2000, stick with it. XP doesn't add that much to the OS except for some bloat and Windows ME like add-ons.

If you decide to go with XP, only go Pro. Imagine not being able to secure the OS like you could with 2000, XP Home doesn't allow alot of creative/needed changes that 2000 and XP Pro does.

 

[DannyBoy]

Originally posted by: MedicBob
"If you are happy using 2000, stick with it." XP doesn't add that much to the OS except for some bloat and Windows ME like add-ons.

If you decide to go with XP, only go Pro. Imagine not being able to secure the OS like you could with 2000, XP Home doesn't allow alot of creative/needed changes that 2000 and XP Pro does.

err 1 question, how you plan to use 3 dif sized hdd's and 2 cd drives?

dan

 

[IdahoB]

There really is no reason not to move to XP with that setup. The OS really is rock stable, works better with games (in my experience I must add) and just seems to feel smoother, boot faster and look prettier. I know the last doesn't really matter, but what the hell.

It's the first time I've not been envious of my mac owning friends. XP rocks. 2000 is stable, but why live in the past?

 

[Bananadude]

"err 1 question, how you plan to use 3 dif sized hdd's and 2 cd drives?"

The WD80 would go as master on the Promise SATA controller and the WD40 as the slave. Maxtor20GB as the Master on the ATA/133 primary and DVD as the slave on this controller. CDRW on the secondary ATA/133 as master.

So has no-one had stability problems with games in XP? I've heard of GTA3 for example being a bitch to run.

 

[IdahoB]

I've had no problems whatsoever, and to be honest, there's always going to be one game that doesn't like one particular OS. What I will say is that patches are more likely to be forthcoming for games on XP than on 2000.

 

[dullard]

As long as you turn off the useless Windows clutter, XP is as good or better than 2000 in every way I can think of. The only problem I've ever noticed is on another thread in this forum (it occasionally mutes wave sounds and I have to unmute it). Other than that, I see no reason I'd ever want to go back to 2000.

 

[PCMarine]

My rule of thumb is always:
Less than 1ghz and less than 256mb RAM => Windows 2000
Faster than 1ghz and more than 256mb RAM => Windows XP

 

[CSFM]

Less than 1ghz and less than 256mb RAM => Windows 2000 ?????? LOL

I have an XP1800 with 1Gig of RAM.... LOL

I have and will only ever use Win2K for my own PC's at home until XP pulls up it's socks. I use XP at work and Win2K at work as well as Win2K SBS. Win2K is a hell of a lot better than XP at this stage. Not to say that with every new service pack XP might get better, this remains to be seen.

Don't get me wrong though. I am not saying that Win2K is the be all and end all. It has it's fair share of problems too. I have my main PC at home running just Win2K and the current installation has been going strong for 16 months without too many problems. (Nothing that can't be fixed quite easilly).

Last night I was having troubles with Win2K though on a friends computer he bought over to get fixed, wouldn't detect modems, wouldn't see CD Roms, wouldn't do a few things. Took and hour and a half to trace the problems down and now it runs like a dream.

XP seems to be a little more of a pain when you first get it started, but I am using it right this very second...

The people I have found that complain most about XP are those who don't really know what they're doing with a PC and those who have just come from using Win98.

Just an opinion......