Now What's The Better Choice, W2K SP3 or WXP SP1?

[CyberGenX 0]

:x

 

Just upgraded to 2 New Maxtor 80Gig 7200RPM ATA 100 drives with the 8MB Cache Buffers. A great deal at $106 each. Will be running IDE RAID 0 Stripe. I have run both XP and 2K SP2, now I am toying with the idea of XP again. My first few eXperiences were not that great with XP, being an OEM builder and on there beta lists I had XP LONG before it was out.

 

This will be the last upgrade for the year and I want to run the superior OS. What do you think now that SP1 for XP is out and SP3 for 2K has been out for a longer run.

 

I use the computer for everything, gaming, internet, All office apps, Digital Photo editing, Digital and Analog video editing (Adobe Premiere) and Visual Basic work and animation.

 

While I wait for the drives to ship I could use a little input...

[adamvjackson 0]

Windows 2000, SP3... Hands down.

[Admiral LSD 0]

I'm going to maintain my stance that Windows 2000 sucks until the day I die.

 

In other words: XP SP1.

[hardtofin 0]

Quote:

I'm going to maintain my stance that Windows 2000 sucks until the day I die.

In other words: XP SP1.

It sucks huh? any particular reason, or is that benign comment as far as your argument goes?


anyway, i would use win2k. i have had a LOT of trouble with RAID 0 is XP most of all my sound was SO choppy it was unreal, i couldnt even play an mp3 as it was bearly audible. i use a sb live 5.1 platinum.

hardtofin

[tHêGhð§tÔfT¡mé 0]

I say XPSP 1 all the way!, xp has alot more features and newer technology then win2k, even with all win2k's service packs installed it doesnt support alot of programs and games that xp does, so if you want something to run properly, then go xp. M$ doesnt put as much time into win2k anymore since xp has been out... win2k was just a waste of money for them, they spend more time thinking shit up to add to xp all the time and its gonna be that way till the next windows is released which won't be for at least another 3 years.

[Tomay 0]

XP has more new features and stuff, but I think it makes the less stable. I've seen more BSOD on XP's than on 2K's. Soon I'll have to make a new install of XP's cos the're starting to act weird. :x I also do most of my gaming on XP's, but the games still run faster on the god old w98.

I suggest you do them both if you can. A multi os system ain't that bad if your computer boots fast

[Dazultra2000 0]

XPSP1, purely because Win2k isn't my friend.

 

From the day I installed Win2K i had problems. It deleted my user profile after one day, deleted other random things during the first week, and then corrupted itself after the first month.

 

I actually preferred winME to it

 

My other machine has Win2K on it, and it works *ok*, although at first it detected my K6-2 500 as a 200MHz chip - which was nice of it. Also windows media player doesn't work on it. If the machine was of decent enough spec to run XP, it would be there in a flash.

 

So I say XPSP1 8)

[clutch 1]

It depends on the hardware and situation, but of the two I would go with XP SP1. It's odd that it wouldn't work with the other person's RAID 0 config, as I have two workstations using that (one with a SCSI controller, the other with an onboard HPT372 controller) and they worked great even before SP1.

[CrazyKillerMan 0]

RAID 0 on a Promise Fast Trak 100 and on A7V333 MBLite promise controller work fine before and after SP1 on Windows XP.

[CyberGenX 0]

What makes XP so much better? I feel it's a little bit bloated with MS's attempt to include every piece of f*ckin software they could duplicate i.e. .zip support, ICS, Firewall, Desktop sharing, video editing, etc. I am looking for stability more than performance, my hardware will carry the performance. Decisions Decisions. Still need to be convinced of XP.

 

Round 2

 

Here are my specs:

[Four and Twenty 0]

i am kinda sick of XP

I like .NET alot cause it has all the good stuff from xp and you can turn on what ya need.

 

But if i was to use a non beta it would be 2k all the way.

I had 2ksp3 on one of my servers for a couple days and then i installed .net again. I liked good old 2k though it worked just fine.

[tHêGhð§tÔfT¡mé 0]

well look at it this way...u dont go play $450 aussie dollars for a copy of xp pro in da shop and then say oh hell with it i'll use my old version of win2k cuz i think ive seen 1 less BSOD, it all really depends on what type of hardware ur running and what u wanna use the OS for whether its for games or office shit. If ya prefer win2k go for it and if ya not sure then stick with win9x lol and if ya still can't hack the technology of win9x go DOS hehe

[CyberGenX 0]

Darnit the vote is 50/50!!!!!!

[DosFreak 2]

Install both and pick urself.

 

The SP1 for XP definetly makes the deciding factor since if SP1 wasn't out then it wouldn't be an option, IMO.

 

Even so XP is still too annoying for me. That's why I'm still dual-booting (2K/XP) and likely still will be when 2K support is dropped and none of my hardware works in it anymore.

[CyberGenX 0]

I have had both installed already, I was just looking for a little help in the deciding area before my drives get here.

[Admiral LSD 0]

Quote:

Install both and pick urself.

heh, I did that a year ago and 2000 (and ME) got the boot

[Curley_Boy 0]

It all depends on whether your setup prefers 2k or XP and the only way to find out is through trial and error.

 

Niether OS 'sucks' its all down to personal peference and machine setup. If you don't like the 'bloat' in XP then turn off all the fancy effects and background services... and there are plenty of registry tweaks on the net to disable the notifier.. messenger etc.

 

Personally I had 2k on for about a year... my sound card stutterd and crackled and it took many SPs, driver updates and hardware swapping/reconfigs to stop it from BSOD'ing.... not to mention all the memory errors and app crashes I had! SP3 was the last straw as it effectivly killed the OS!

 

Under XP Pro I had a few teething problems but once those were out of the way and I tweaked it to my liking I would *never* go back, its far more stable and system restore + recovery console has given me a virtually bullet proof OS

[adamvjackson 0]

Quote:

SP3 was the last straw as it effectivly killed the OS!

How's that? Can you explain what you mean? What was it about SP3 that 'killed' W2k?

[CyberGenX 0]

Well my drives are here. I have been running XP for the last 2 days on one of my older drives. It's ok, SP1 still hasn't fixed some issues I had almost a year ago with XP. It still hogs more memory than Windows 2K, here are some examples.

 

 

-->Windows 2K SP3 Fresh install and fresh reboot

It used 116MB with Outlook Express and Nero 5.5 running.

 

-->Windows XP SP1 Fresh install and fresh reboot

It used 198MB with Outlook Express and Nero 5.5 running.

 

-->Windows 2K used only 163MB for Premiere 6.02

-->Windows XP used a 324MB CHUNK for Premiere 6.02!!!

 

Just sitting at desktop with nothing open, XP uses about 14% more RAM.

 

Both OSes had the same services running (about 9 total) and XP had System Restore disabled, All the effects OFF and Themes disabled. Both used the latest VIA Drivers and the same versioned Hardware drivers i.e. Nvidia Dets, SB Live Drivers, etc.

 

So it looks like Windows 2000 SP3 WINS!!!!! Screw XP, bloated Windows ME lookin pile of sh^t. I guess I will try this again when SP2 Comes out or .NET. Thanks all.

[CyberGenX 0]

Running 2000 SP3 and it is fantastic!!!!! Love my new drives!!!

[DosFreak 2]

.NET should be better for ya. (As odd as that sounds.....) Seems MS devoted most of their attention to shoveling out XP for the home users. XP Pro was a byproduct of that marriage.

[Jason B 0]

Bah. You made the wrong choice.

[CyberGenX 0]

Why do you say that, 2K seems to run way better on this machine, and I am happy. So how is that wrong? ;(

[Admiral LSD 0]

Quote:

.NET should be better for ya. (As odd as that sounds.....) Seems MS devoted most of their attention to shoveling out XP for the home users. XP Pro was a byproduct of that marriage.

heh, if .NET follows the trend of previous MS server OS's how is the average user going to be able to afford it seeing as you not only have to buy the OS but a minimum of 5 client licences to go with it? You aren't promoting obtaining it through "unofficial" channels now, are you?

[DosFreak 2]

Nope. Your putting words in my mouth. All I said was that .NET should be better for ya. For those of use that work at large corporations, using our Volume Licenses's for training purposes works out wonderfully.