WIN 2000 PRO or WIN XP PRO?

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by tommyortom, Jan 16, 2004.

  1. tommyortom

    tommyortom New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    14,185
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Real O.C.
    currently im running win 2k pro...but am considering "upgrading" to win xp pro...should i or no?.....i hear XP hogs alot of memory and ive only got like 500megs of it ....... i mainly use my comp to talk on aol, browse online, do alot of photoshop and CAD stuff, download shit of bittorrent....i dont play any pc games anymore....wat OS should i stick with
     
  2. MP

    MP New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Messages:
    34,377
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    xp pro typically uses about 90 - 115. You can easily customize it to use 85 or even less. It's really easy to do.

    It'll be no slower then win2k pro but probably no faster as well. Me personally, I think win2k constantly runs more useless processes and services then xp pro does. I'de pick xp pro.
     
  3. Aimless

    Aimless Resident drunkey

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2001
    Messages:
    2,534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    For what you do, I don't think it really matters much. XP will boot somewhat faster and features a more customizable GUI.
     
  4. I used to be a 2k pro advocate ... but after 5-6 months on XP Pro, I've switched. with patches, updates, service packs, etc. XP is now, by far, my OS of choice in the Microsoft world.
     
  5. Mugatu

    Mugatu Ask me about market research. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Messages:
    245,192
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMO and in my experience, the differences between XP and 2k are...

    1. startup and shutdown are significantly faster in XP (and I mean significantly :) )
    2. XP is prettier (but you can shut all of that off for slower PCs)
    3. XP has some :cool: features like remote desktop, etc.
    4. they seem to be about the same as far as stability
    5. XP is a gigantic PIA to set-up. Once installed, you have to download a ton of updates, turn off a bunch of services (I guess that's pretty much the same as win2K) but you also have to do extra things. For instance, it takes a lot of work for me to have the XP start menu the way I like it - it is annoyingly large out of the box.

    That's all I can think of. Basically, IMO of course, XP is a bigger hassle to set-up but once it's up and running, it is a little better (thanks mostly to the quicker startups/shutdowns).

    But I don't think anyone needs to upgrade from 2000 to XP unless they want to play older games or need some of the specific XP features :dunno:
     
  6. Mugatu

    Mugatu Ask me about market research. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2001
    Messages:
    245,192
    Likes Received:
    0
    :confused:

    2000 doesn't have msn messenger popping up all by itself, 2000 doesn't have system restore to disable (if you want), 2000 doesn't have all the visual effects to tweak/disable, 2000 doesn't default to "simple filesharing", etc.

    Why are you disputing what I said? I said IMO (in my opinion) at the beginning and at the end of my post so I think that's fairly clear. I didn't berate XP - I use it myself and like it.

    You can download and integrate updates on 2000 as well. Did you even read what I said? I was talking about setting up XP, not the setup program.
     

Share This Page