[jwl812]

Anyone have any facts relating on how WinXP stacks up against Win2k. I've heard many arguments for both OS's but can't find any constructive or tangible evidence to pursuade me to go with one or the other. Anyone have any links or info on which OS is truly the one to use. There has to be a clear choice. Facts and figures and benchmarks should be able to determine which one is the DADDY.

Thanks in advance.

[uboofer]

In my opinion I would go with Windows 2000. The system requirements on Windows 2000 require a Pentium 133 with 64mb ram. XP is a 233 with 128Mb. I have found that windows 2000 runs just as fast if not faster than XP because the OS does not need as much resources memory wise.

Another reason why I would go with Windows 2000 is because with XP you can only install it so many times before M$ has to have you call them up and tell them what you are doing before giving you a new activation key. Also you can only make so many hardware changes before it deactivates itself. I found out that changing the duplex on my NIC was one change to them even though I never changed the NIC.

One thing that XP has on W2k is the bootup time. My PC with XP was 25 seconds, W2k was 35-40 seconds. BIG DEAL.

[Rhadoo]

Windows 2000 works just fine on my Celeron333 on an Intel LX chipset, and 128MB RAM, which is a pretty slow system. I have found good drivers for my V3 3000 card and everything else in my computer is supported and works. I can even play Diablo 2. Do I really need XP ?