Xp Vs 2000

[MUSLEMAN]

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 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 boss

[clocker]

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]

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 )

[fr600]

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

[nikita69]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 &#064; 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.

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

XP is more &#39;user friendly&#39; with all its wizards, theming and folder options. But it takes two seconds to turn all that off, then both OS&#39;s use pretty much the same system resources.

Me, i just like the look of XP. Even using the windows &#39;classic&#39; visual style, it still looks nicer. Sure &#39;Luna&#39; is awful, but there are some really nice themes out there. As for system resources, RAM is so cheap these days.



Here i&#39;ve got XP, winamp3, and kazaa lite running, and i&#39;ve still got almost 500 mb&#39;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&#39;s. i still prefer 2k. its very stable compared to hogging xp which hogs tons of ram&#33; 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&#39;s new sleek look but thats another farce from m&#036;&#33;
conclusion
Windows 2000 better [/quote]

Yeah mate, that&#39;s some really conclusive reasoning. And why the hell are you running a server os?

[Livy]

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