Xp Vs 2000 [Archive] - FileSharing Talk

sparsely

10-13-2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by nikita69@13 October 2003 - 20:51
Win 2000 Advanced Server is not only the best, yet it's the most stable OS MS have to date.
but it's not a desktop OS...it's not meant for that.

Anyway...2000 is very good, but XP has some features that I don't like being without, and if resources are a
problem just turn of visual styles, menu fades, etc.

LTJBukem

10-13-2003, 10:29 PM

Why do you like 2000 better? I understand that a lot of people can't abide all the wizards and the theming, but it's very easy to turn them off.

The fact is that both OS's are built on the same kernel. One significant advantage that XP has is being able to run the core Windows system from memory, rather than paging it to disc, although this does require plenty of RAM.

And i agree with Sparsely. Why are all these kids claiming to be running a server OS? Oh yes, because apparently it's more stable. Well i have had no stability issues with Windows since i ditched Windows 98 and started using 2000 3 years ago. I cannot remember my system ever crashing since then, not once.

Johnny_B

10-13-2003, 10:34 PM

System Restore and Device Driver Rollback are two good features available in WinXP and not in 2000.

clocker

10-13-2003, 10:34 PM

Netweiser,

What does 2000 do better than XP?
Why do you like it a "little " bit better?

djweiser

10-13-2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by clocker@13 October 2003 - 22:34
Netweiser,

What does 2000 do better than XP?
Why do you like it a "little " bit better?
well, i dont know. they both look and feel the same to me. but XP has some annoying features which make u seem like a total thick sh*t and i dont like them. and win2000 dont use so much ram.

LTJBukem

10-13-2003, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by -netweiser-+13 October 2003 - 22:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (-netweiser- @ 13 October 2003 - 22:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-clocker@13 October 2003 - 22:34
Netweiser,

What does 2000 do better than XP?
Why do you like it a "little " bit better?
well, i dont know. they both look and feel the same to me. but XP has some annoying features which make u seem like a total thick sh*t and i dont like them. and win2000 dont use so much ram.[/b][/quote]
:lol:

I do know what you mean. But really though, just turn all those annoying wizards off, and XP will use the same amount of ram if you switch off all the eye candy.

Although, having said all that, 2000 is a great OS. I'm not knocking it, i use 2000 all the time for work. It's just that you stated your preference but didn't explain why. Now you have though. :D

clocker

10-13-2003, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by netweiser-@13 October 2003 - 15:38
and win2000 dont use so much ram.
Fair enough.

How much RAM do you find it takes to put 2k up on the screen as opposed to XP?

Livy

10-13-2003, 11:23 PM

xp with every little peice of crap i can turned off, :D

using xplite aswell to get rid of some crap. xp has that little edge over 2k for looks, i dont means themes etc, but just the start button and icons etc, look a bit better

kurtsl0an

10-13-2003, 11:25 PM

xp only takes more ram if u have the performance set 2 adjust fer better appearance. :D

xp is easier fer my users on the network - that's y i like it more.

ps - xp loads MUCH quicker than 2000.

LTJBukem

10-13-2003, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by kurtsl0an@13 October 2003 - 23:25
xp only takes more ram if u have the performance set 2 adjust fer better appearance. :D

xp is easier fer my users on the network - that's y i like it more.

ps - xp loads MUCH quicker than 2000.
Hmm. You really sound like you know what you're talking about.

"xp is easier"

"fer my users"

"the network"

Aye right. :lol: :lol:

The only network you've got is the spots on your face.

kurtsl0an

10-13-2003, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by LTJBukem+13 October 2003 - 23:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LTJBukem @ 13 October 2003 - 23:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kurtsl0an@13 October 2003 - 23:25
xp only takes more ram if u have the performance set 2 adjust fer better appearance.  :D

xp is easier fer my users on the network - that's y i like it more.

ps - xp loads MUCH quicker than 2000.
Hmm. You really sound like you know what you're talking about.

"xp is easier"

"fer my users"

"the network"

Aye right. :lol: :lol:

The only network you've got is the spots on your face. [/b][/quote]
i like u - ur funny.

honestly - i am the network admin at an engineering firm but also consult for a client base of 20.

good call though - u got me - i'm a fake. :lol:

Wolfmight

10-13-2003, 11:47 PM

Xp runs just like 2000 when eye candy is turned off. I benchmarked useing pcmark in both o/ses .. same speed.

kurtsl0an

10-13-2003, 11:49 PM

biggest reason i like xp more is cuz it seems 2 handle plug and pray a lil better. there r about a dozen users w/pocket pc's and most have xp. fer some reason the 2000 pc's lose the connection 2 the pda, and wastes my time settin it back up fer them.

also better w/memory sticks as it usually has driver.

LTJBukem

10-13-2003, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by kurtsl0an's sig
i have 37 copies of "like a prayer"Is this true? I think this is hilarious, but that's on the assumption that you're joking. You are joking, aren't you? :D ;) :blink:

LTJBukem

10-13-2003, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by kurtsl0an@13 October 2003 - 23:49
biggest reason i like xp more is cuz it seems 2 handle plug and pray a lil better. there r about a dozen users w/pocket pc's and most have xp. fer some reason the 2000 pc's lose the connection 2 the pda, and wastes my time settin it back up fer them.

also better w/memory sticks as it usually has driver.
Better handling of plug and pray, eh? Ahmen to that. :lol: :lol:

kurtsl0an

10-13-2003, 11:52 PM

yes - joke. ask MM and he'll tell u y. :lol:

LTJBukem

10-13-2003, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by kurtsl0an@13 October 2003 - 23:52
yes - joke. ask MM and he'll tell u y. :lol:
Nah. I don't have any time for that spamming freak. <_<

MUSLEMAN

10-14-2003, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by LTJBukem+13 October 2003 - 19:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LTJBukem @ 13 October 2003 - 19:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kurtsl0an@13 October 2003 - 23:52
yes - joke.  ask MM and he'll tell u y.  :lol:
Nah. I don't have any time for that spamming freak. <_< [/b][/quote]
thats rich coming from some one who does not even know how to use the edit tab http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/w/thumbs.gif

clocker

10-14-2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by LTJBukem+13 October 2003 - 16:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LTJBukem @ 13 October 2003 - 16:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kurtsl0an's sig
i have 37 copies of "like a prayer"Is this true? I think this is hilarious, but that's on the assumption that you're joking. You are joking, aren't you? :D ;) :blink: [/b][/quote]
Oh no, I think he is serious.

If you don't have at least one copy of Like A Prayer and the screenshots to prove it, then you haven't been to Questions/Problems World, boss...

kurtsl0an

10-14-2003, 12:05 AM

i smell smoke - but can't c any flames yet. :)

MUSLEMAN

10-14-2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by clocker+13 October 2003 - 20:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 13 October 2003 - 20:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by LTJBukem@13 October 2003 - 16:50
<!--QuoteBegin-kurtsl0an's sig
i have 37 copies of "like a prayer"Is this true? I think this is hilarious, but that's on the assumption that you're joking. You are joking, aren't you? :D ;) :blink:
Oh no, I think he is serious.

If you don't have at least one copy of Like A Prayer and the screenshots to prove it, then you haven't been to Questions/Problems World, boss... [/b][/quote]
only if you have a speed problem or your files don't connect boss, and i changed it to van halen's right now clocker you happy now http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/r/sgrin.gif

LTJBukem

10-14-2003, 12:13 AM

Hmm. Let me see. 7000 posts / 135 days = 51 posts per day. Add a minimum 10 posts per day for off topic.

That makes 60+ posts every day for the last four and a half months.

There's no denying it Musleman. You are a spamming freak. :lol:

MUSLEMAN

10-14-2003, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by LTJBukem@13 October 2003 - 20:13
Hmm. Let me see. 7000 posts / 135 days = 51 posts per day. Add a minimum 10 posts per day for off topic.

That makes 60+ posts every day for the last four and a half months.

There's no denying it Musleman. You are a spamming freak. :lol:
what ever you say boss keep judging a book by its cover it just makes you look that much more intelegent http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/w/thumbs.gif
god i wish i was smart as you are :lol: :lol: :lol:

LTJBukem

10-14-2003, 12:22 AM

Oh right, so haven't you made over 7000 posts on this board in four and a half months?

kurtsl0an

10-14-2003, 12:27 AM

what was the discussion on this forum again?

MUSLEMAN

10-14-2003, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by LTJBukem@13 October 2003 - 20:22
Oh right, so haven't you made over 7000 posts on this board in four and a half months?
hey boss i already said what ever you say man, as i said i wish i was smart like you
walk around and think i was so smart and put other people down to make myself feell better, and be quick to judge with out knowing the facts, i mean god if i could only be like you as a matter of fact i think 99% of this forum would like to be so intelegent like you http://www.klboard.ath.cx/html/emoticons/beerchug.gif keep up the good work

but one question you have been here almost 10 month with 220 posts thats 22 post a month and not even 1 a day now should i arive at the conclusion that you don't participate in this forum or that you are different person and you do things differerntly?? or do you have a double standard??

good day bosshttp://www.klboard.ath.cx/html/emoticons/beerchug.gif

clocker

10-14-2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by kurtsl0an@13 October 2003 - 17:27
what was the discussion on this forum again?
I think it was 2k v. XP.

One of these days I'll get off my ass and dual boot the two and then I'll know...

Kunal

10-14-2003, 05:33 PM

xp is better, full stop! its newer got alot better plug and play support, it luks better, loads in 15seconds, where as 2k takes 45 seconds + (on my amd xp 2000+ system :D )

fr600

10-14-2003, 06:17 PM

Yes I also agree that XP is far better than 2k...

nikita69

10-14-2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by fr600@15 October 2003 - 00:17
Yes I also agree that XP is far better than 2k...
RESULTS WILL VARY
No matter how good your systems may be, they're only as effective as what you put into them.

Experts disagree that XP is better than 2k.

kurtsl0an

10-14-2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by nikita69@14 October 2003 - 18:21
Experts disagree that XP is better than 2k.
i've read both sides - xperts choosin xp over 2k and vice versa.

i myself will stick w/xp.

chinook_apache

10-14-2003, 09:28 PM

i dunno who it was and they said xp is too comerical and i rekon it is. like here in the uk xp home is like preloaded on all new pc's. i still prefer 2k. its very stable compared to hogging xp which hogs tons of ram! im currently running .net server 2003 and i find that just as stable as 2k and it doesnt hog the ram like xp. ppl fall for xp's new sleek look but thats another farce from m$!
conclusion
Windows 2000 better

Kunal

10-14-2003, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by chinook_apache@14 October 2003 - 21:28
i dunno who it was and they said xp is too comerical and i rekon it is. like here in the uk xp home is like preloaded on all new pc's. i still prefer 2k. its very stable compared to hogging xp which hogs tons of ram! im currently running .net server 2003 and i find that just as stable as 2k and it doesnt hog the ram like xp. ppl fall for xp's new sleek look but thats another farce from m$!
conclusion
Windows 2000 better
ive ran both xp and windows 2k in the past, XP doesnt hog RAM if you have a half decent PC and is lots better! ive ran XP on a p3 850mhz, with 512SD RAM, with zero problems aswell!

LTJBukem

10-14-2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by nikita69+ 14 October 2003 - 18:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nikita69 @ 14 October 2003 - 18:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Experts disagree that XP is better than 2k.[/b]....... and 9 out of 10 cats choose whiskas. :D

XP and 2000 are pretty much the same, they are both nt based operating systems, built on the same kernel.

XP is more 'user friendly' with all its wizards, theming and folder options. But it takes two seconds to turn all that off, then both OS's use pretty much the same system resources.

Me, i just like the look of XP. Even using the windows 'classic' visual style, it still looks nicer. Sure 'Luna' is awful, but there are some really nice themes out there. As for system resources, RAM is so cheap these days.

http://www.sighost.us/members/spicydel/xp.jpg

Here i've got XP, winamp3, and kazaa lite running, and i've still got almost 500 mb's of ram free.

<!--QuoteBegin-chinook_apache@ 14 October 2003 - 21:28
i dunno who it was and they said xp is too comerical and i rekon it is. like here in the uk xp home is like preloaded on all new pc's. i still prefer 2k. its very stable compared to hogging xp which hogs tons of ram! im currently running .net server 2003 and i find that just as stable as 2k and it doesnt hog the ram like xp. ppl fall for xp's new sleek look but thats another farce from m$!
conclusion
Windows 2000 better [/quote]

:lol: Yeah mate, that's some really conclusive reasoning. And why the hell are you running a server os?

Livy

10-14-2003, 10:12 PM

u have about 500mb free, but that over 270mb used i think.

with classic style all the crap turned off, i get a pretty quick boot and tweaked quite a bit like services etc.

after a boot, using taskmanager i have about 90mb physical ram used, and 60mb pagefile used. i could prob free a little more if i was to tweak it even further as a gaming profile with nothing at all running really

LTJBukem

10-14-2003, 10:24 PM

I should have mentioned that i have NT executive paging disabled, so core windows system is run from memory rather that paged to disc. Also, i have recently clean installed, and have not yet made the visit to black vipers site to turn off all the unnecessary services.

Livy. I hear what you're saying, and on a budget system 2000 would be the best bet. But otherwise, when ram is so cheap, is it a consideration?

EDIT:- smilie > :)

Also, looking now. With Halo running, and KazaaLite, i still have 400mb of spare ram.

Livy

10-14-2003, 10:28 PM

mines is an xp system aint exactly class, 1500 athlon xp, 320mb ram, ati 64mb mobility, its a laptop, i like xp better than 2k, its just the icons looks etc and things. i had xp on my desktop, 550mhz amd k6-2, with 256mb ram, it was just a little to laggy. its got 2k on the now, but ive yet to get round to tweaking it. but it runs perfect on that

Keikan

11-10-2003, 08:12 PM

Woh wait stop here

15seconds to start up on xp? 45 sec to start up on 2k?????

Dude takes me 5 min to start up on 2k!!!!!!

But nothing's worse then slow start ups i hope my new computer will start up 2k fast...... :unsure:

clocker

11-10-2003, 08:27 PM

15 seconds?

I just timed mine- from dead off to fully functional desktop (little hourglass thingie blinks off) took 21 seconds.

15 seconds.

Boy, do I feel lame.

Kunal

11-10-2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by clocker@10 November 2003 - 20:27
15 seconds?

I just timed mine- from dead off to fully functional desktop (little hourglass thingie blinks off) took 21 seconds.

15 seconds.

Boy, do I feel lame.
clocker ur pc's pretty slow isnt it :lol:

Edit: this doesnt seem to happen now :( its more like your 21 seconds, suppose its time for a format :lol: