Which OS is best? 2

[DRV1]

Just a quickie - I have the discs for Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP Pro (Currently using).

Which system would I be better with and why?

I usually spend most of my time browsing the web, d/l music and movies, and playing a few games - Doom 3, Halo etc.

System:
XP1700+
Abit NF-7 MB
512MB RAM
80GB HDD
FX5600 Graphics

 

[bcastner]

For your requirements XP.
It is preferred for games, music and other consumer level applications.

 

[DRV1]

Why is it preferred?

Some people say that 2000 is the better system because it is not so bloated

 

[bcastner]

Load XP with no programs and you use around 84 mb of ram. Win2K around 64 mb. With todays memory density and prices I do not see bloatware. Independent testing of Win2k vs. XP without exception should equivalent or greater performance from the XP kernel relative to Win2k.
Overall, when you compare Windows XP with Windows 2000 they're pretty evenly matched. On systems with +600Mhz processors and 512Kb of RAM, our XP installations run just a hair faster than the same systems running Windows 2000. XP also has a definite advantage over Windows 2000 on Pentium 4 processors and newer AMD processors.

From ZD Labs:

• Faster startup performance: Windows XP is on average 34% faster than Windows 2000 and 27% faster than Windows 98 SE.

• Better run-time performance: This measurement refers to the speed at which Windows XP performs tasks while your computer is running. Improvements in Windows XP runtime performance are evident in application startup and time and resource management. For example, average application startup on Windows XP is 25% faster than Windows 98 SE and equivalent to Windows 2000 Professional.

• Memory and Performance: In systems which include the recommended memory requirement of 128 megabytes of RAM, Windows XP is consistently superior to previous versions of Windows.

• Windows XP offers dramatically faster startup and resume times, highly responsive applications, and other new features such as Fast User Switching and an enhanced user interface.

There are differences in the feature set. System Restore, Driver Rollback, Remote Desktop, Group Policy enhancements, are some of the many features of XP not found in Win2k.

This is kind of an old debate, but either OS should serve. Windows 2000 Professional is no longer sold by Microsoft, so for a new computer Windows XP is essentially your best and only choice, although XP does offer a downgrade license for Win2k.

 

[DRV1]

Thank you - I will stick with XP

 

[pcnetgeek]

Bcaster, you get a star for that one my friend, great post and recap

::.I may not know it all, but I still approach it with confidence to figure it out::.

 

[cdogg]

Bill is back to his old ways! Miss hearing your opinions about site issues in the RT.



~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[bcastner]

Thanks, dogg.

 

[Kovax]

I would say Windows 2000. XP has a lot of nice features but causes much overhead.
I just dont like it.

Knowledge is best used when shared with others.

 

[cdogg]

Nah, anything in XP can be disabled if needed.

Part of the reason why 2000 is NT 5.0 and XP is NT 5.1 has to do with the fact that there's not much difference between the two. Many of the differences that do exist, however, are notable. Better DirectX integration, updated driver support, and a revamped file management system gives XP the edge in my opinion.

There's nothing 2000 can do that XP can't. But the opposite is not necessarily true. Perhaps that's the bottom line...


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[pweegar]

cdogg:
If I'm not mistaken, isn't XP, at least the Pro version nothing more than Win2k core with enhancements? Many enhancements, yes, but it's still Win2k at it's core.

There are several things I dislike about XP that I would not consider putting it on my homne PC. First iss the need to register with MS. I feel it's none of their business what is on my computer, If I want to change hardware once a day/week/whatever it shouldn't break the OS and need re-regestering. Second, If I don't want to register my software, that should be MY busines, mot MS, and thrid, XP has made to many changes to the GUI, it's almost like re-learning windows. Win2k is fairly stable for me, I know how o use it well, and it doesn't force me to register anything, if I don't care to.

Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[cdogg]

Many enhancements, yes, but it's still Win2k at it's core.

That was precisely my point. Both OS's are nearly identical with exception of a few enhancements. In an office environment, the enhancements may not mean much. To those concerned with multimedia, latest software compatibility (like Adobe Premiere 7.0 which only runs on XP), and overall quickest benchmarks may prefer to take the XP route.

I'm not much of a gamer, but 3D and overall PC benchmarks are preferably tested from XP. There have been some issues with the speed at which OpenGL and DirectX calls are executed from within a Win2K environment. That's where tighter DirectX integration really makes a difference in XP.

The argument about the GUI doesn't fly with me. Any of the "extras" in that department can be turned off to look practically identical to 2000.

My last 2¢ discussing a matter of preference...


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[bcastner]

XP does not require registration.
XP does require activation.
No personal information is demanded by XP activation.

For an excellent discussion of activation:

http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm