Help
Thx
For heavy internet and games which is better WinXP/Win2k?
#4
thatsteveguy 
- enthusiast
- Group: Members
- Posts: 310
- Joined: 13-July 01
Posted 27 October 2002 - 03:24 PM
Win2k all the way. it's just winxp without the pretty colors and the resource hogging crap you don't need.
I've used both and much prefer 2K over XP.
S
I've used both and much prefer 2K over XP.
S
#6
Mr.Guvernment
- veteran
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 04-January 01
Posted 27 October 2002 - 06:28 PM
XP is FAR more compatible then 2k, even with sp3
Go Xp if you got more then 128 mb of memory and just like 2k, u can turn off alot of services u don't need. XP is also a more stable, for me, then 2k - XP running idol after boot up uses 88mb of mem on my system (see work comp - pIII 933)
a while back i put 2k back in a, and i hoestly B.S.O.D it 7 times in less then an hour. - i dunno what was up - put XP back in, no problems. - not to mention various games would not work in 2k, and yet they did work under XP.
Also, for the internet, don't matter, that is more for browsers (or is that what u meant?) IE is all good, Mozilla is worth a try though, it is nice, although me personaly have not seen the gain in speed that some on here say.
Go Xp if you got more then 128 mb of memory and just like 2k, u can turn off alot of services u don't need. XP is also a more stable, for me, then 2k - XP running idol after boot up uses 88mb of mem on my system (see work comp - pIII 933)
a while back i put 2k back in a, and i hoestly B.S.O.D it 7 times in less then an hour. - i dunno what was up - put XP back in, no problems. - not to mention various games would not work in 2k, and yet they did work under XP.
Also, for the internet, don't matter, that is more for browsers (or is that what u meant?) IE is all good, Mozilla is worth a try though, it is nice, although me personaly have not seen the gain in speed that some on here say.
#8
Mr.Guvernment
- veteran
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 04-January 01
Posted 27 October 2002 - 07:00 PM
I am not sure exactly, but i know a few people here have posted links to sites and that
maybe do a serarch under
Xp services
May bring something up.
Although with a system like yours, you would not notice a lag. i don't turn off any services and my comp boots up in less then a min.
maybe do a serarch under
Xp services
May bring something up.
Although with a system like yours, you would not notice a lag. i don't turn off any services and my comp boots up in less then a min.
#12
HELLBRINGER
- addict
- Group: Members
- Posts: 468
- Joined: 27-June 01
Posted 28 October 2002 - 04:43 AM
I don't think theres much of a difference... I used Win2k when it came out for about a year and a half, then when XP came out I got that and have been using it now for almost a year... I do lots of internet, and lots of games... I never seemed to have very many problems with either. They both work quite well. I guess most of the time its just a matter of opinion. Which ever you like better I'd go with.
Good luck.
Good luck.
#13
adamvjackson
- Pooh-Bah
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2174
- Joined: 26-August 02
Posted 28 October 2002 - 05:32 AM
I think this was the link for Windows XP services... Note that Windows 2000 Services listing is there, too... http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm
#15
adamvjackson
- Pooh-Bah
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2174
- Joined: 26-August 02
Posted 01 November 2002 - 06:11 AM
As I have said before, if you must buy one, buy WinXP, as it will be supported longer. If you already have both, then it's really a toss up. IMO, you really can't go wrong with either.
#17
adamvjackson
- Pooh-Bah
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2174
- Joined: 26-August 02
Posted 02 November 2002 - 08:51 AM
Well, try highlighting it with the mouse cursor, that should invert the text color, possibly making it easier to read... Not my site... Actually, the site owner was on TechTV's Screen Savers about 2 months ago.
#18
pr-man
- old hand
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1030
- Joined: 19-February 00
Posted 02 November 2002 - 06:28 PM
Ok well question. If win2k and winxp are the same kernel with different skins essentially. Then why would support for win2k fall off? I mean shouldnt drivers and programs for XP work the same on win2k?
#19
adamvjackson
- Pooh-Bah
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2174
- Joined: 26-August 02
Posted 02 November 2002 - 09:11 PM
What I meant was offical MS support, and it can vary from case to case on backwards compatiblilty. My understanding is that 2k/XP is not the same code, but very similar.
#20
tweaked
- member
- Group: Members
- Posts: 162
- Joined: 26-February 00
Posted 04 November 2002 - 09:14 PM
for games, i would say xp all the way, not all games, but ALOT of games (especially older ones) run better and faster on xp.
case in point gta2 ran ALOT faster on my friends winme box with a 500 mhz processor and 128 meg of mem than it did on my 1 gigger with 512 mem on win2k...
but now that my old 2k box is xp, it runs blazingly fast.
if you play alot of games, XP is well worth it, even if it does eat a few more resources.
BTW, all the programmers at my work that are transitioning from 2k to xp say there are substantial differences in how 2k and xp treat programs that are running. I don't really understand what they are saying specifically... but i'll try to break it down as best i understand.
2k is more like a proof of concept OS, they threw it out and said lets give this a try, 2k maybe an NT OS but it isnt like any other OS internally before it.
a revolutionary jump rather than evolutionary...
XP is based off of the same Kernal as 2k, but it is NOT the same kernel.
XP is not just a cosmetic change, MS went back and said... "ok, here is what we did wrong, lets optimize this and take it to the next level".
hence better game performance and other whatnots.
Alot of drivers that are win2k and xp compatibile is because it is rather easy with these two OS's to have slightly different code in the driver package for either OS.
programs that were specifically tailored to run on win2k however sometimes need some redesign to work on xp, they are different enough to cause some difficulties for SOME programs and programmers... at least that what my programmers here at work claim.
anyway, i ramble too much.
for home use AKA games and internet, XP definately.
case in point gta2 ran ALOT faster on my friends winme box with a 500 mhz processor and 128 meg of mem than it did on my 1 gigger with 512 mem on win2k...
but now that my old 2k box is xp, it runs blazingly fast.
if you play alot of games, XP is well worth it, even if it does eat a few more resources.
BTW, all the programmers at my work that are transitioning from 2k to xp say there are substantial differences in how 2k and xp treat programs that are running. I don't really understand what they are saying specifically... but i'll try to break it down as best i understand.
2k is more like a proof of concept OS, they threw it out and said lets give this a try, 2k maybe an NT OS but it isnt like any other OS internally before it.
a revolutionary jump rather than evolutionary...
XP is based off of the same Kernal as 2k, but it is NOT the same kernel.
XP is not just a cosmetic change, MS went back and said... "ok, here is what we did wrong, lets optimize this and take it to the next level".
hence better game performance and other whatnots.
Alot of drivers that are win2k and xp compatibile is because it is rather easy with these two OS's to have slightly different code in the driver package for either OS.
programs that were specifically tailored to run on win2k however sometimes need some redesign to work on xp, they are different enough to cause some difficulties for SOME programs and programmers... at least that what my programmers here at work claim.
anyway, i ramble too much.
for home use AKA games and internet, XP definately.
