Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Win2k Better Than Xp?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 JamieH

JamieH

  • Members
  • 64 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:35 AM

Posted 11 August 2007 - 10:58 AM

Some say that Windows 2000 is better than XP (I have Home Edition), they say is is faster and more stable. Is this true? Should I downgrade?

Edited by JamieH, 11 August 2007 - 11:01 AM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 dc3

dc3

    Bleeping Treehugger


  • Members
  • 30,714 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sierra Foothills of Northern Ca.
  • Local time:04:35 AM

Posted 11 August 2007 - 11:14 AM

Yes, there are those here that will unequivocally state that it is the best operating system that M$ has ever come out with, it is very stable and is not near the resource hog that XP is. Because of inherent design problem XP has a tendency to bog down after a while, and there are those that will accept this problem and simply reformat and reinstall the OS on a regular basis.

Should you switch to W2k? That I couldn't say as this would be your choice, bu you could do what I did and add another partition and install it and see if you would like to use it as you main OS.

Family and loved ones will always be a priority in my daily life.  You never know when one will leave you.

 

 

 

 


#3 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow


  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:05:35 AM

Posted 11 August 2007 - 07:11 PM

I have several computers that use to run XP. I have switch 8 of 9 back from XP Home to W2k Pro sp4. I would do it again if given the same choice.
W2k, in my opinion, is bullet proof compared to XP Home. I have 1 computer running XP Pro, 1 running W2k Advanced Server, and 1 running NT4 sp6a. Unless you are gaming (which I know little about) you should be well served running W2k Pro on almost any computer, especially older computers.
"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"

#4 DaChew

DaChew

    Visiting Alien


  • Members
  • 10,317 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:millenium falcon and rockytop
  • Local time:07:35 AM

Posted 11 August 2007 - 07:18 PM

Just make sure you are running W2k sp4 and have applied all updates or are behind a solid nat firewall before connecting to the internet.

As lame as xp's native firewall is at least it had one.
Chewy

No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.

#5 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow


  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:05:35 AM

Posted 11 August 2007 - 08:08 PM

Point well made. I would suggest the NAT router no matter which OS you are using, and I would recommend a software firewall also. I run SyGate 5.6, and while dated it is still very effective.
Nice observation DaChew.
"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"

#6 JamieH

JamieH
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 64 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:35 AM

Posted 12 August 2007 - 12:13 PM

- I like games, but I don't use anything brand new and high on sys req's. All my games are Win2K compatible.
- I have a server with Ubuntu Server 6.10, but I don't like Linux as a desktop, only a server.
- I have a D-Link hardware firewall
- What can Win2000 do that WinXP Home can't?

#7 dc3

dc3

    Bleeping Treehugger


  • Members
  • 30,714 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sierra Foothills of Northern Ca.
  • Local time:04:35 AM

Posted 12 August 2007 - 12:24 PM

Out live it. :thumbsup:

Family and loved ones will always be a priority in my daily life.  You never know when one will leave you.

 

 

 

 


#8 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow


  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:05:35 AM

Posted 12 August 2007 - 01:37 PM

Use less resources. Run reliable on older computers.
It reality there is no reason to use W2k over Xp as long as your hardware is modern enough and has the resources to handle XP's footprint. Because W2k has spent it's entire life in the business community it has had the undivided attention of Microsoft, hence has few problems. It is just a good solid OS and except for limited instances will do everything you need it to. In my opinion it is what XP should have been. Powerful and light. I have ran it on a P-I 266mhz computer with 128MB of RAM for internet and it performed adequately.
I am just in love with W2k, so take what I say with a grain of salt. :thumbsup:
"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"

#9 DaChew

DaChew

    Visiting Alien


  • Members
  • 10,317 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:millenium falcon and rockytop
  • Local time:07:35 AM

Posted 12 August 2007 - 04:46 PM

Up around 2 ghz cpu and 512 megs of ram and 128 megs of video ram, XP starts to scream if you strip it down of all the "eye and ear candy" and then run it lean and mean.

Down at a gigahertz cpu, 256 megs ram, and 32 megs video, W2k is the only choice

If I remember right msconfig, dma and png support are W2k issues?????
Chewy

No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users