which is faster/nicer/stable'er - generally better?
Printable View
which is faster/nicer/stable'er - generally better?
It depends on your system specs and computer usage.
I have both :P
Like 2000 pro better
if u like the graphics in xp and u have a fairly decent computer. probably a bit more than 600mhz and at least 256mb ram, stick wi xp, if not get 2000 its alot faster, i had xp on a k6-2 550 with 256mb ram and it was awful sluggish, win me was also startin to get slow and crap, so i put 2000 in and its perfect
my specs: Athlon 1Ghz, 256mb
but i'm planning a upgrade
xp should run alright on that im guessin, but its really up to you if u want the hassle. and if u like the look just stick with xp if u have it.
or just turn the themes and fancy bits off
Win2k on p2 400mhz 192mb ram runs like a bird on a tree :lol:
Win2000 Pro.
:lol: :lol: :lol: PUNK DONT USE IT...WINDOWS XP OR 2OOO
I WILL SEND U MY NEW DAM GOOOOOOD WINDOWS 2OO3 SERVER (WEB OR STANDARD OR ENTERPRISE)...AH ONE THING CAN'T GIVE TO ENTERPRISE
GIVE ME DAM UR HOME ADDRESS. I MAIL 4 YA (EXPRESS 1DAY IS FREE) JUST PAY DAM STAMP(DONT KNOW HOW MUCH) B) B) B)
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: I FORGET...WINDOWS SERVER 2003 STANDARD ON MY UGLY 1) NOTEBOOK (XEON3-5OO, 2GIG/RAM,50GIG/HARD) WINDOWS SERVER 2003 ENTERPRISE ON MY
BEAUTI 2) SERVER (XEON4(DUAL)-4GHZ, 100GIG/RAM, 1000GIG/HARD)
:D
HOW LOVELY.......
Your so full of shit...
On your current specs you should go with 2000 pro. The 1 ghz processor would work okay with xp, but it runs like crap on 256 mb ram. Even with 512 mb and an amd 2000+ xp runs slower than 2000 does on a system with specs near your's right now. The options and convenience of changing settings in xp is its main draw, it never claimed to run like lightning. Stick with 200 pro til you upgrade. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by DarthInsinuate@14 July 2003 - 18:00
my specs: Athlon 1Ghz, 256mb
but i'm planning a upgrade
ok to sum up
2000 - Faster but more complicated
XP - Slow but nicer interface and pretty colours
Both - Same capabilities?
is that right?
there isnt anything complicated about 2000, its set out basically the same as xp.
well its probably the other way, xp is set out same as 2000.
but 2000 will run faster, and use less space aswell. unlike 1gig xp instalations
2000 - I have a ton of software and games and all but one (made for 95/98) work fine on 2000. It's been my experience that anything that says Windows 98 works on 2000 even if it doesn't say it will work on 2000.
XP - Program Compatibility Wizard that is supposed to emulate Windows 98 or any other version of Windows. Apparently doesn't work very well because I keep seeing people on the net saying something that works fine on my Win 2k doesn't work on XP. Maybe they don't know about the Wizard? On the one XP machine I tried it was right there in bold on the start menu and was very simple to set up so I guess it just doesn't work very well.
Believe me, I tried XP Pro, the 2600 build. That cd burner built in sucked too. I was going to try to crack the activation but decided to not bother; it just wasn't as good as my Windows 2000 Pro on the other computer so I put 2k on both.
Both are very stable though, barring viruses (ah, just 2 words yet so much pain ;) ) but I guess XP just has a fancier interface. Something I could live without myself.