Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / win2k vs. xp technical debate

Author
Message
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 7th Dec 2006 00:14
Link
Aside from MS purposely making all their new software run only on XP and not 2k, is there any real reason to use XP over 2k? Win2k has lower requirements and runs with less overhead in my opinion. Is XP more secure? As far as stability, I think they're both pretty even, but I haven't used XP nearly as much as I have 2k.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 7th Dec 2006 15:20
Link
Well, I tend to agree that XP isn't technically much of an improvement on 2000. I always thought Microsoft aimed 2000 more at a server/networking platform though, whereas XP was more designed for the desktop and end-users. This is probably why application software is more aimed at XP (plus 2000 is getting pretty old now). XP does boot up much quicker, but that is probably only because it is still loading large chunks of stuff in the background after your desktop appears.
I still run 2000 on my desktop at home but I have XP Pro on my notebook. I don't notice much difference with day-to-day use.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 7th Dec 2006 16:21 Edited at: 7th Dec 2006 16:21
Link
I really like 2000Pro, people often tell me that it's just XP without the bells and whistles, but for stability's sakes it's head and shoulders above XP. My 2000pro install barely crashed, in fact I only started using XP when I was forced to, by the dwindling support for 2000.

For laptops that will contain important files, I'd recommend 2000Pro, the amount of times I've had to reinstall XP on a laptop, well let's just say I'm sick of it . The other thing I like about it is how the pro version is kinda standard, Windows2000 standard is very rare, Pro is used quite a lot even these days, and that means that you have a great OS for networking - given the shameful XPHome performance when setting up a network it's a nice change.

''Stick that in your text and scroll it!.''
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Agent Dink
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 7th Dec 2006 16:39
Link
I used 2000pro up till my disc got damaged. Then I switched to XP Pro. Aside from the graphical updates, and a few more easily accessible system settings dialogs, they seem virtually the same. I never had an issue running any XP programs on 2000 either. XP home came with another computer but that was really buggy so I switched it to 2000 shortly after we bough the computer.

Sometimes the only way over a wall is to pile up enough bodies to climb over - Dave W.
Back to top
Profile PM
Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 7th Dec 2006 16:59
Link
Oh yes. I forgot to mention I use the Pro versions of everything. I just ignore the existance of XP Home as it has no support for Active Directory, so its useless to me.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 7th Dec 2006 17:00
Link
Windows XP and 2000 are essencially the same OS, the difference is more down to the technologies being employed.

2000 is far more stable, especially at the kernel level because it's got less to go wrong. Unfortunately there are some limitations with it that mean it no longer is viable for the modern technology.
(good example is lack of multi-core processor support, not to be confused with multi-processor support)

I think honestly 2000 is a better OS, particularly as it can be cut-down to the absolute bare essencials without sacificing program compatility. That said none of this matters as Microsoft are going to force Vista as the new platform regardless..

Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 512MB DDR2 667MHz, ATi Radeon X1900 XT 256MB PCI-E, Windows Vista Business / XP Professional SP2
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 8th Dec 2006 02:40
Link
Quote: " just ignore the existance of XP Home as it has no support for Active Directory"

actually, i did not know that. I thought all XP versions would it. Its good to know before hand because I'm trying to set up an active directory system at home to do a project that will require kerberos support.

So until I get a core 2 duo, stick with win2k.

thx guys.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 8th Dec 2006 14:11
Link
Ok, I'm gonna add to this. I used Windows 2000 for a long time, however, a bit less than a year ago, I found it started to get, well dated. It's not as secure as it used to be, it seems to be a lot more prone to getting spyware and adware now.
Also, XP seems to actually perform faster than Windows 2000 on faster machines. So while on slightly older machines with less RAM 2000 performs better, XP seems to be able to make more use of newer features.

Anyhoo, now waiting for people to start screaming at me that I'm an idiot

Nephin Games
Devhat Developer Network and IRC Channel
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
CattleRustler
Retired Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2003
Location: case modding at overclock.net
Posted: 8th Dec 2006 14:27
Link
Same here Kentaree, I only switched to XP Pro from 2000 Pro a little over a year ago. 2000 did become dated imho. Also it had a lot to do with the client I was working for at the time was using xppro exclusively, so I had a chance to really tinker with it and I found that I liked it.



Its 9/11 - but its FAKE 9/11 Ts=SQRT(Df/16)
Back to top
Profile PM
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 8th Dec 2006 15:03
Link
Good to see I'm not going entirely mad Personally, the first thing I do when I install XP is turn on classic mode, and turn off about 10 useless services, and it's running at good speed

Nephin Games
Devhat Developer Network and IRC Channel
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 9th Dec 2006 19:54
Link
Well I went ahead and installed XP to try something different. I'm already hating myself. I keep getting odd graphical artifacts. I have SP2 and my latest gfx drivers, but sometimes I get these red/green dots that just start building up on my screen. I have an FX5900xt. If its not related to the card, I'm not sure what else to look at.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 9th Dec 2006 22:36
Link
red/green dots? never heard of that happening on a card that isn't on it's last legs.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 512MB DDR2 667MHz, ATi Radeon X1900 XT 256MB PCI-E, Windows Vista Business / XP Professional SP2
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 9th Dec 2006 23:36
Link
I have to agree with Raven. Artefacts on screen arent down to XP I'm afraid

Nephin Games
Devhat Developer Network and IRC Channel
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Phaelax
DBPro Master
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 10th Dec 2006 01:12 Edited at: 11th Dec 2006 03:23
Link
not necessarily XP, but a possible driver problem that didn't exist in 2k?


Or my own retarded self for forgetting to plug power back into the card after removing it to give enough room for removing harddrives earlier. Power adapter for gfx cards, how absurd!

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
the_winch
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Feb 2003
Location: Oxford, UK
Posted: 20th Dec 2006 20:49 Edited at: 20th Dec 2006 20:50
Link
Quote: "So until I get a core 2 duo, stick with win2k."


Actually win2k works with dual core processors. I just upgraded to an amd 64x2 4200 and both cores work in win2k.

With windows of course you can't just swap from single to dual core you also have to do this to install a multiprocessor HAL. Otherwise windows will only use one core.
Just glad I looked on google instead of relying on the info in this thread.

By way of demonstration, he emitted a batlike squeak that was indeed bothersome.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-18 02:55:14
Your offset time is: 2024-11-18 02:55:14