Windows XP VS 2000

Status
Not open for further replies.

pcspecialist

In Runtime
Messages
108
I heard a lot about Windows XP and 2000 being the most stable Windows Operating Systems. So, I am torn between XP and 2000. 2000 is basically XP without all the bells and wistles. XP is a resourse hog. I have a laptop that I was thinking about putting it on. It has these following specs:

AMD Athlon 2000+
256MB Ram
40GB HD
DVD/CDRW Combo Drive

So, I just wanted to know which would be a better choice for me? I have a home network here, but I don't think that has anything to do with it. Well, thanks.
 
That laptop has enough memroy to run XP. Support is over for 2000 next year. Don't waste your money on 2000 as they are similar in cost and get XP Pro Upgrade!!! You won't be disappointed!
 
I have 2000 here though so I wouldn't exactly be wasting any money... Just dunno exactly what to do. XP is a resource hog and I want my laptop to have maximum performance.
 
there are benifits to both for laptops. Xp does have some better resource management configuration for laptops, but 2000 runs with less overhead. in my opinion, i would use win2k as long as your not going to be buying anything. If you are going to go with XP, you really need to have 512 mb ram or it's just going to run slow. Then you need to turn off all the extra junk too to save memory.

I think win2k is better suited to the portable as it's less of a foot print, less overhead, and memeory required.

my 2 cents.
 
Inaris said:
there are benifits to both for laptops. Xp does have some better resource management configuration for laptops, but 2000 runs with less overhead. in my opinion, i would use win2k as long as your not going to be buying anything. If you are going to go with XP, you really need to have 512 mb ram or it's just going to run slow. Then you need to turn off all the extra junk too to save memory.

I think win2k is better suited to the portable as it's less of a foot print, less overhead, and memeory required.

my 2 cents.

^^^
Agreed
 
I'd go with XP. Even runs better on my MMX.
You will have less compatability issues with XP. Both for games and programs.
 
Hrm....Still a tough choice though. I'd get increased performance but less compatability. Which one to choose? I'm getting to think that it might just be which one you like more, or less or that matter. I just.... don't know what to chose right now. Are there any bad things about each (XP and 2000) and good things? Obviously XP is a resource hog and you need to have a *good* pc to run it smoothly. It does have great auto-detecting for hardware. The upside on 2000 is that it's better/faster to run it on lower end pc's, or in this case, laptops. Bad part about it is that it doesn't have auto-detecting. Or at least, I don't think it does. So, can someone help me decide?
 
YOu already have 2000. Use it. As I said above, support for 2000 will be ending and there will not be any more "fixes" for it, not that the little guy has any real need to worry about that. MS support sucks anyway. If you buy the retial versoin of XP you get two "free" support phone cals. If you buy th OEM version you get no phone support. However, the phone support people live in India or the phillipines and they are generally, very hard to understand when you are speaking with them. and, in spite of what is being said above about memory requirements, I have been running XP Pro on my back up machine wiht 256mb of PC2700 memory and never have had a problem urnning XP. If money is tight stick with the OS you have...if not, get XP.
 
Stay with W2k definitely. My laptop came with XP and it was running super slow, and I threw a copy of W2k server on there and its blazing fast now. It's pretty stable too, even though it doesn't look as cool as XP does...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom