Windows XP Pro vs Windows 2000 Pro

[gilgamesh 0]

What are your guys opinions on XP vs 2000? I have used XP Pro for a couple months now. At first I was impressed, but I find myself wanting to go back to Windows 2000 Pro, where there is not as much overhead, like with the skinned GUI and other background services. Do you guys think this is a good idea? I do play lots of games, but XP doesn't seem to have a huge advantage in performance over 2000. Well anyway, thanks for the input.

[Idz21 0]

I've used both and I am also back to Win2k Pro. XP Pro has crapped out on me 4 times on 4 different system setups. It works perfectly fine for about 3-4 months, and then it just dies. Out of nowhere it just completely ceases to function.

 

 

My vote goes towards the more stable Win2k Pro. As far as i'm concerned XP Pro is just a souped up Windows ME.

[Admiral LSD 0]

Getting rid of 2000 Pro (and replacing it with XP Pro) was the best thing I ever did to my PC. Hell will freeze over before I install 2000 Pro on any of my PCs again.

[DosFreak 2]

Search the forums. This has been discussed MANY times before.

[pmistry 0]

Ah XP vs 2000, yeah its been done, but seriously if 2000 does everything you need it to, then why switch up? I am thinking you are concerned with gaming performance and compatibility the most. XP has the most recent patches applied to it, but if all your old games run fine on 2000 then you are goo d to go, all new games support 2000 out of the box.

[gilgamesh 0]

Cool thanks for the responses!

[clutch 1]

One other thing XP is great for, is its use of "Cleartype" on LCD panels. It's *much* nicer on the eyes, and I find myself using my laptop more than my main workstations whenever possible.

[AfterTaste 0]

XP is far superior to win2k. And with alittle tweaking you can strip that os down to nothing if u like. I am an audio engineer and i have become quite fimular with stripping down xp. I found a GREAT site dedicated to stripping down xp for audio processing and what i found out was almost everything you do with an audio box you'll want to do with any normal or gaming machine. Aside from a few things like setting your processor scheduling to background services and such like that. I also don't fool with as many services on my normal and gaming machines either. If any of you guys were to just glance at any of my 5 machines they all look like they are running 2000 aside from the way the Recycle Bin icon looks on the desktop. Now my main audio recording machine might as well be win 95 facetiously speaking. I have just about every service and un-needed app ripped out or turned off that you can think of. And if any of you are fimular with Cinima Craft Encoder I am getting over 3x with de interlacing turned on. It boots up faster then any machine i have ever seen in my life. Now if you guys are like me you probably re-install 6 times a year or more. And your probably saying "damn you have to do all that every time you re-install your machine. Well yes and no. I have set up many reg tweaks that only take a double click to perform. I'm gettig quite fast at installing machines stripped down that it doesn't even phase me anymore.

 

Good Luck and always get rid of what you don't need.

 

A few good places to start

 

http://www.musicxp.net

http://www.blkviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

[Negative Zero 0]

Well thats a very hard decision, although Windows 2000 Pro is very stable and great for a home/buisness setup, i find XP to be faster with games/software, i also noticed that XP/2000 are basically the same in "speed", i use Windows 2000 Pro/Server on a few computers i have laying around for testing and for learning tricks around Windows, but overall i pick XP Pro.

[Mr.Guvernment 0]

Quote:

What are your guys opinions on XP vs 2000? I have used XP Pro for a couple months now. At first I was impressed, but I find myself wanting to go back to Windows 2000 Pro, where there is not as much overhead, like with the skinned GUI and other background services. Do you guys think this is a good idea? I do play lots of games, but XP doesn't seem to have a huge advantage in performance over 2000. Well anyway, thanks for the input.

i did some Xp services tweaks.

i use the old win2k interface and when Xp starts up, i am only suing 68.9mb of memory, as opposed to the 100mb it usually takes, so u can tweak it, but i would stick with Xp as it seems alot more stable then 2k.

Quote:

My vote goes towards the more stable Win2k Pro. As far as i'm concerned XP Pro is just a souped up Windows ME.

that is the FARTHEST!!! from the truth my friend..lol So far! from it- were these older systems? perhaps some hardware not compatible?


i was using since it came out - then one day i went bck to win 2k - within 1 hour i had 7 b.s.o.d's - from that day one i would never go back to win2k.

Xp is Win2k - with a pretty interface and more stability.

[Champion_R 0]

IMHO I reckon XP has horrible disk caching. When copying files (say a couple of hundred MB) or virtualdubbing (direct stream mode), my system is pretty much unusuable because the disk cache pages everything out to disk so the disk cache can occupy all of physical memory.

 

I have also seen it happen on other XP systems. I never remember it happening on 2k pro but it's been a while since I've used 2k pro.

 

But I cannot see myself returning to 2k because there is XP features I can't live without. I just hope that the disk caching will be fixed in the next version of windows.