Help
Is there amy reason for a home user who games, burns dvd-r and cd-r, encodes videa etc to install Win2k pro SP4 as their OS as opposed to WinXP pro SP1?
Win2k pro question
#2
mezron 
- enthusiast
- Group: Members
- Posts: 241
- Joined: 19-June 02
Posted 28 November 2003 - 08:45 AM
Couple things off the top of my head...
They already own a copy of Win2k. XP doesn't offer enough more than 2k to justify the upgrade price for some.
Personal aversion to product activation. There are a lot of people that fall into this category.
Real or percieved, some people think 2k is faster than XP.
They already own a copy of Win2k. XP doesn't offer enough more than 2k to justify the upgrade price for some.
Personal aversion to product activation. There are a lot of people that fall into this category.
Real or percieved, some people think 2k is faster than XP.
#3
CyberGenX
- addict
- Group: Members
- Posts: 645
- Joined: 16-September 00
Posted 28 November 2003 - 09:35 AM
Being a big Win2K fan I have to say this:
<Windows 2K>
Has less fluff/bloatware
Doesn't require activation
Boots a tad slower
Is relatively as fast as XP SP1
Still has DOS support
Is getting old (almost 5 years now)
<WindowsXP>
Has lots o' bloatware
Requires activation from the OS nazis
Boots quick as hell
Is relatively as fast as 2K SP4
Has NO DOS support
Uses more memory than 2K
Is more plug n' play worthy
MS's Flagship OS until 2006!!!!
If you got a GB of DDR and at least a 1.5GHz CPU i would say f*ck it and got with XP.
If you value your resources like water then stick with 2K for another year, then switch. Or do what I do. I use 2K for everyday office sh*t, email, photo editing, CD/DVD burning, creating music, gaming, etc. And I dual boot XP for video editing and some gaming
Also if you are like me you upgrade your computer at least twice a year, this can be a pain with MS's product activation. Having 2K is nice in that respect.
BOTH OSES ARE GREAT!!!! EITHER IS STABLE AND RELIABLE, A FAR STEP FROM THE OLD DAYS - CHOICE BEING Windows 98 or 2000!!! YUCK 9.x kernel ewwwwwwwwwww
<Windows 2K>
Has less fluff/bloatware
Doesn't require activation
Boots a tad slower
Is relatively as fast as XP SP1
Still has DOS support
Is getting old (almost 5 years now)
<WindowsXP>
Has lots o' bloatware
Requires activation from the OS nazis
Boots quick as hell
Is relatively as fast as 2K SP4
Has NO DOS support
Uses more memory than 2K
Is more plug n' play worthy
MS's Flagship OS until 2006!!!!
If you got a GB of DDR and at least a 1.5GHz CPU i would say f*ck it and got with XP.
If you value your resources like water then stick with 2K for another year, then switch. Or do what I do. I use 2K for everyday office sh*t, email, photo editing, CD/DVD burning, creating music, gaming, etc. And I dual boot XP for video editing and some gaming
Also if you are like me you upgrade your computer at least twice a year, this can be a pain with MS's product activation. Having 2K is nice in that respect.
BOTH OSES ARE GREAT!!!! EITHER IS STABLE AND RELIABLE, A FAR STEP FROM THE OLD DAYS - CHOICE BEING Windows 98 or 2000!!! YUCK 9.x kernel ewwwwwwwwwww
#4
shassouneh
- addict
- Group: Members
- Posts: 672
- Joined: 01-July 01
Posted 28 November 2003 - 03:42 PM
2k all the way! (hey that rhymes!)
I see absolutely no reason to use XP. As a matter of fact, I am becoming anti-XP by the second!
As mentioned earlier, XP tends to be a bloated, loaded, and hoggy OS as opposed to 2000. The Activation business (especially if/when u upgrade hardware) is a real hassle, and the OS (XP) just feels sluggish to me.
I am very happy with 2k, and I would HIGHLY recommend sticking with it.
However, if you have the $, I would also look into Server 2003 since it has nice performance, even for every day workstation use (I tried it!)
I see absolutely no reason to use XP. As a matter of fact, I am becoming anti-XP by the second!
As mentioned earlier, XP tends to be a bloated, loaded, and hoggy OS as opposed to 2000. The Activation business (especially if/when u upgrade hardware) is a real hassle, and the OS (XP) just feels sluggish to me.
I am very happy with 2k, and I would HIGHLY recommend sticking with it.
However, if you have the $, I would also look into Server 2003 since it has nice performance, even for every day workstation use (I tried it!)
#5
shassouneh
- addict
- Group: Members
- Posts: 672
- Joined: 01-July 01
Posted 28 November 2003 - 03:43 PM
oops, my web browser posted twice. Sorry! 
#6
adamvjackson
- Pooh-Bah
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2174
- Joined: 26-August 02
Posted 28 November 2003 - 09:08 PM
Quote:
oops, my web browser posted twice. Sorry!
The browser did, or the user did?
#7
thatsteveguy
- enthusiast
- Group: Members
- Posts: 310
- Joined: 13-July 01
Posted 28 November 2003 - 09:27 PM
I agree with all of you. I have used XP twice now and have always gone back to win2k, and I personally always recommend it over xp.
All XP really is is a win2k interface that has been prettied up and filled with bloatware.
Also another pain I find with XP is that regardless of what device drivers you uninstall when performing an upgrade the second you re-boot it just re-installs the drivers you just took out! So I find it's a real pain to do a clean upgrade without the old drivers kicking around.
S
All XP really is is a win2k interface that has been prettied up and filled with bloatware.
Also another pain I find with XP is that regardless of what device drivers you uninstall when performing an upgrade the second you re-boot it just re-installs the drivers you just took out! So I find it's a real pain to do a clean upgrade without the old drivers kicking around.
S
#8
duhmez
- addict
- Group: Members
- Posts: 583
- Joined: 27-April 02
Posted 28 November 2003 - 10:43 PM
I've been using Win2k since RC2. I tried XP for a bit but the added crap justpisses me off and I have to spend alot of time disabling the crap I don't wanna use anyways. (Like the search dog for instance... I thought this was a PRO OS.... Pro's don't need stupid search dogs asking me what I want to do.)
If you do not have either then buy XP from tyhe getgo. It wil be supported longer, and is just as good, really.
As for why someone would dual bot 2k and xp, to edit video in XP, confuses me greatly.
2K and XP can run the same video editing apps just as well, all I use is 2k and I do it all the time.........
If you do not have either then buy XP from tyhe getgo. It wil be supported longer, and is just as good, really.
As for why someone would dual bot 2k and xp, to edit video in XP, confuses me greatly.
2K and XP can run the same video editing apps just as well, all I use is 2k and I do it all the time.........
#9
CyberGenX
- addict
- Group: Members
- Posts: 645
- Joined: 16-September 00
Posted 29 November 2003 - 12:55 AM
After a year of testing the 2 configurations on my rig, XP seemed to not leak memory AS BAD as 2000 did when using Adobe Premiere and loading about 10GB worth of video into the project. Whenever I would close Premiere for a few minutes to do something else, a lot of memory would remain in use. In XP this problem wasn't AS BAD. Also a couple pieces of my video editing collection REQUIRE XP, how do you like that sh*t huh!
#10
zen69x
- member
- Group: Members
- Posts: 125
- Joined: 26-March 02
Posted 29 November 2003 - 03:53 AM
Quote:
After a year of testing the 2 configurations on my rig, XP seemed to not leak memory AS BAD as 2000 did when using Adobe Premiere
This then would be a problem with the app, not the OS.
Quote:
<Windows 2K>
Has less fluff/bloatware
Doesn't require activation
Boots a tad slower
Is relatively as fast as XP SP1
Still has DOS support
Is getting old (almost 5 years now)
Has less fluff/bloatware
Doesn't require activation
Boots a tad slower
Is relatively as fast as XP SP1
Still has DOS support
Is getting old (almost 5 years now)
Emphasis mine. There is no DOS in Win2k it is based on NT 4 which also had no DOS in it. XP is based off Win2k. There is a NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS machine) included with the OS, same as NT before it and XP after it. The XP VDM has a few extras included as to support sound emulation, you can use VDMSound on 2k or XP if you'd like though.
#11
CyberGenX
- addict
- Group: Members
- Posts: 645
- Joined: 16-September 00
Posted 29 November 2003 - 04:59 AM
I don't how it is the app. It behaves the same in both OSes, the memory returned to the system after exiting the program is what was worse in 2K. Nothing changed but the OS.
My reference to DOS was that a lot of DOS apps and games will not run in XP without a lot of tweaking. 2000 seems to have less of a problem.
My reference to DOS was that a lot of DOS apps and games will not run in XP without a lot of tweaking. 2000 seems to have less of a problem.
#12
Copernicus
- member
- Group: Members
- Posts: 139
- Joined: 04-November 02
Posted 30 November 2003 - 01:33 AM
Quote:
I don't how it is the app. It behaves the same in both OSes, the memory returned to the system after exiting the program is what was worse in 2K. Nothing changed but the OS.
My reference to DOS was that a lot of DOS apps and games will not run in XP without a lot of tweaking. 2000 seems to have less of a problem.
My reference to DOS was that a lot of DOS apps and games will not run in XP without a lot of tweaking. 2000 seems to have less of a problem.
Well sort of. DOS games don't like partitions that are NTFS. They like Fat 32 Partitions. Win 9x games seem to really work in XP but I really don't have a lot of not Win2K compatable games.
#13
DosFreak
- Carpal Tunnel
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 3885
- Joined: 04-February 00
Posted 30 November 2003 - 08:42 AM
Sigh..
DOS games do not care about filesystem type.
About the only thing you will notice is that some rar DOS Games/installers will error out on partition sizes that are too big for them to handle. Filesystem is transparent to the application unless it's a program specifically designed to handle the filesystem.
DOS games do not care about filesystem type.
About the only thing you will notice is that some rar DOS Games/installers will error out on partition sizes that are too big for them to handle. Filesystem is transparent to the application unless it's a program specifically designed to handle the filesystem.
#14
Copernicus
- member
- Group: Members
- Posts: 139
- Joined: 04-November 02
Posted 30 November 2003 - 12:39 PM
Quote:
Sigh..
DOS games do not care about filesystem type.
About the only thing you will notice is that some rar DOS Games/installers will error out on partition sizes that are too big for them to handle. Filesystem is transparent to the application unless it's a program specifically designed to handle the filesystem.
DOS games do not care about filesystem type.
About the only thing you will notice is that some rar DOS Games/installers will error out on partition sizes that are too big for them to handle. Filesystem is transparent to the application unless it's a program specifically designed to handle the filesystem.
That's somewhat true but with the amount of years dealing with DOS/Windows I know quite a lot now.
#16
DosFreak
- Carpal Tunnel
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 3885
- Joined: 04-February 00
Posted 30 November 2003 - 07:56 PM
Quote:
That's somewhat true but with the amount of years dealing with DOS/Windows I know quite a lot now.
Somewhat true? I've tested a total of 332 Dos Games on NT4/2000/XP since 1997 and not one of them has failed due to filesystem type......
#17
shassouneh
- addict
- Group: Members
- Posts: 672
- Joined: 01-July 01
Posted 30 November 2003 - 08:44 PM
Games may not care too much about the file system, but some of them care about the kernel. For Instance, Command And Conquer Windows 95 Edition. If you install it on Windows 2000/XP it will not run because it complains about not finding an entry point into the kernel. Trying Application compatibility modes will NOT solve this problem because the game was written to take advantage of win9x/Me kernels
sigh
sigh
#18
Mr.Guvernment
- veteran
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 04-January 01
Posted 30 November 2003 - 10:16 PM
Xp cna be tweaked in about 10 mins to use less blaot and rma then 2k - probelm solved
Activation is a breeze and easy if u got an internet connection - pepole make it out to be this long huge hours on hours long process - it is not!
Xp is moe stable in many cases and more copatible with hardware and software.
XP also has built in crash isolation - the thing that if a progrma crashes it does not kill the O/S - it just kills the app.
XP to me is better and fastre and mroe compatible then 2k is. i f u want gmaing go with Xp or geta 180day trial of server 2003 as it is faster then XP is.
Activation is a breeze and easy if u got an internet connection - pepole make it out to be this long huge hours on hours long process - it is not!
Xp is moe stable in many cases and more copatible with hardware and software.
XP also has built in crash isolation - the thing that if a progrma crashes it does not kill the O/S - it just kills the app.
XP to me is better and fastre and mroe compatible then 2k is. i f u want gmaing go with Xp or geta 180day trial of server 2003 as it is faster then XP is.
#19
shassouneh
- addict
- Group: Members
- Posts: 672
- Joined: 01-July 01
Posted 30 November 2003 - 10:40 PM
Quote:
XP also has built in crash isolation - the thing that if a progrma crashes it does not kill the O/S - it just kills the app.
That feature was available since NT4. It is NOT something new in XP. Windows 2000 has that too.
The idea is that each program is "shelled" so tat if anything goes wrong in it, it occupies a different memory space than other programs so the program will die and everything else stays up.
Windows NT4 and 2000 BOTh have that feature.
If you look at "professional" usage of Windows, you find that most companies stick with windows 2000 for two reasons
1.) Licensing fees
2.) Reliability
Unfortunately I do not have any data to back up this claim, but I am 99.9999% confident windows 2000 is more solid and reliable than XP is.
#20
DosFreak
- Carpal Tunnel
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 3885
- Joined: 04-February 00
Posted 01 December 2003 - 08:05 AM
Quote:
Games may not care too much about the file system, but some of them care about the kernel. For Instance, Command And Conquer Windows 95 Edition. If you install it on Windows 2000/XP it will not run because it complains about not finding an entry point into the kernel. Trying Application compatibility modes will NOT solve this problem because the game was written to take advantage of win9x/Me kernels
sigh
sigh
IIRC, I believe it's the IPX...somethingsomething.dll in the C&C folder. Download an updated ver from Westwood. Unfortunately this will disable networking. This was the situation last time I checked. Only other alternative is to install C&C under Vmware/VPC and play it from there which runs really well.
