Guys for a heavy gamer and Internet user which OS is better?

[pr-man 1]

Thx

 

By the way the card listed in my sig is not the card I plan to game with

[uboofer 0]

I have used both in the past and I think both are good. Compatability is the main problem and both seem good to me.

[clutch 1]

I like XP since compatibility seems more "pass-through" than with 2K.

[ClockworkOrange 0]

hey, i use windows xp pro with the following

 

asus a7v266-e

three ata 100 hard drives (swap file on two non os drives)

768 crucial ddr ram

geforce 4 4400 ti

soundblaster live gamer

microsoft natural pro keyboard

microsoft intillmouse cordless

xp 1700

on a 512 sdsl

 

it rocks..

 

i used 2000 pro first, but i found xp alot better, much more stable

[pmistry 0]

XP Pro since it'll give you less hassle with older games.

[Davros 0]

XP is more compatable with gaming imho.

[DosFreak 2]

Try both yourself and see....

[Immortal 0]

XP Pro is definitely better for games that 2k pro, with compatibility, speed (sometimes)and stability!

[Admiral LSD 0]

I've used both and the answer is a resounding Windows XP Pro.

[Brian Frank 0]

For what your asking, go XP. I've found it to be a bit quicker in gaming than 2k. My machines are on 24/7 unless I'm on vacaction or working on them.

[sapiens74 0]

XP, little more stable and games are more compatible

[NTGAMEMAN 0]

I use XP. but got to make sure system is fully supported

if its not just use 2k with sp2 + all those pre-sp3 fixes

don't install sp3 beta..because there is only one beta out..and alot of new fixes have come out now

[Kysio 0]

XP

[serket 0]

xp

[chief 0]

ex-pee...

 

ok ok.. XP Pro

[Paolo 0]

What card are you going to game with? Wanna sell that G550?

[Catdog02 0]

....Win98....

 

I'd go XP. 2000 isn't a gaming platform, even if it IS better than XP.

[DosFreak 2]

2000 is support by many games, Just look at all the games that support XP. See that little 2000 to the left of XP?

[Atreyu 0]

Wow...

I would say Windows 2000. I've had far more problems with XP. For me, Win2k has been a rock no matter if I'm gaming, developing, whatever... XP has been anything but reliable for me. I will confirm, however, that XP ran quake 3 at 20FPS faster than 2k. So in that respect, it sure seems faster. However, I value stability over gaming performance. That's why I like 2k over XP.

 

I'm waiting for service pack 1 then I'm gonna try XP again.

 

After all, read through the thread YOU created here

http://www.ntcompatible.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19442

[thekourier 0]

Geez, never thought I'd see so many people touting XP. I can't speak for XP since I've never used it, but I'm running 2k Server and haven't had any problems. I can play anything that's out, except for older DOS stuff. Sure wish someone would rewrite Crusader: No Remorse for Windows.

2k is rock solid for me. Lately I've played: Counter Strike, MechWarrior 4, Crimson Skies, Commanche 4, BG2, Descent Freespace 2, Silent Hunter 2, IL-2 Sturmovik, and Jedi Knight 2 (awesome game). I hesitate to use XP since I've heard there's some equipment you can't yet get drivers for, and heck, 2k works great.

[GTwannabe 0]

I run 2k, and it's an excellent game platform. Sure, XP may get you 20 more FPS in Quake III, but can you really tell the difference between 159 and 179fps? 2k can be just as fast if you disable unnecessary services and apply all the updates.

 

XP is just to dumbed down. 2000 has a nice clean interface. XP looks like a child's Playskool toy. 2k has a very useful help system. XP is geared towards end users (ie: Is it plugged in? Are you sure? Really? 100% sure???) XP also has a ton of useless crap like system rollback which just chews up space on your hard drive.

[RedStar 0]

win2k and xp are very close kissing cousins.

 

XP has a recent compat. update that win2k must wait for SP3 to get.

 

Stability is the same..win2k comes with a duel processor option. If you want that in XP you have to get the professional edition.

 

As far as speed goes check out this site...

 

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/os/index.x?pg=1

 

(info is a little old but still valid

 

even at high res..there was less than a 1 fps difference in speed.

and as they say..that is covered in the nargin for error.

 

So i say winxp and win2k ==TIE! But XP will have the main support.

So if you are only getting around to buying an O/S now --get XP.

(that XP SP1 is close to release from what i have read).

 

Me, I'm sticking with my win2k

I would personally say win2k is better at gaming but that is only because the XP platform i play on..only has a P4 1.6 ghz and not a AMD thunderbird

[Admiral LSD 0]

Quote:

XP is just to dumbed down. 2000 has a nice clean interface. XP looks like a child's Playskool toy. 2k has a very useful help system. XP is geared towards end users (ie: Is it plugged in? Are you sure? Really? 100% sure???) XP also has a ton of useless crap like system rollback which just chews up space on your hard drive.

You are a ****wit.

[bilston 0]

I agree with Admiral LSD on his post. If you don't like the GUI, disable themes. Thats the lamest (yet most used) excuse for calling XP crap by FAR. System Restore, again, disable it! ffs man...

 

The only problem that I have with it at the moment is that Windows Update wont work on my machine, I think I know why though *cough*

[Admiral LSD 0]

I've been using XP for about nine months or so and even with the new look (which IMHO, is a huge improvement over the old one, especially with the Silver theme.) I've only found a couple of places where XP Pro has been what I would call "dumbed down." Those are the Add Network Place Wizard and the method to which you give your MSN Messenger details. Neither is really a big deal since I only use the MSN one three times (for each of my user accounts) with any reinstall and the Network Place one twice (to add my ISPs web space).