XP Pro or 2000 Pro?

[fbrdphreak]

My Dad has a really old HP notebook with something along these lines:
AMD K6-2 ~400Mhz
192MB RAM (Gonna upgrade that soon)
~6-8GB

I have XP Pro on there now, but will have access to a ~ahem~ legal copy shortly which I was going to reload on there. However, I also have access to Win2K Pro (Gotta love being a computer engineering student 😉). All he uses it is for e-mail/internet. Which one would run the best on his system as is or with more RAM? I remember reading somewhere that 2000 is a little faster overall (i.e. uses less resources) but I dunno. Thanks in advance

 

[wallsfd949]

2000. I wouldn't run XP on anything less than a PIII -800 w/256MB of RAM. At this point, I can't think of a reason to run XP on older hardware.

We have several AMD 800Mhz machines with 128MB RAM. They were running Windows XP slowly even with the eyecandy turned off. Upon my suggestion W2k was loaded for a noticible improvement in speed.

 

[dc5]

anything under 1ghz cpu will be faster on windows 2000. (most of the time)

 

[redbeard1]

2000. XP makes those old AMD's grunt.

 

[peacemaker1ps]

I use 2000 pro on 800mhz notebook. only has 128mb ram

 

[BurnItDwn]

2000, however, 2000 is the only microsoft product I ever recommend for anyone.


EDIT: Ok I lied ... Microsoft Mice are Decent as well

 

[vegetation]

Win2k for sure. Uses far less memory than xp. 128mb works fine with it, while I wouldn't dare run xp on such a setup.