Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Kuwi, Jan 23, 2005.
why would anyone use windows xp over win 2k? win 2k runs faster than xp.
justify your statement. All tests I have run lean towards XP being faster and more stable.
They're virtually the same thing once you take the extra eye candy off of XP. I've had great stability and performance with both operating systems as long as the system had enough RAM.
start > run > services.msc you can make either run marginally faster by editing that.
Windows 2000 doesnt have Cleartype or msconfig (you can copy the file and put it to 2000 though)
How much RAM are you running? Like Jollyogre said, with the right amount of RAM (XP really needs at least 512mb) XP is faster and more stable than 2000 Pro.
i have 1024 mb.
XP is faster. You lose. 'nuff said.
You ASSume 2000 is faster than XP. But 2000 has its own issues. After working with, and using XP for quite a while now. I would never go back to 2000.
With all the crap turned off, and a few good tweaks to XP, its just as fast, as 2000. Plus, it boots faster.
u mean never go back to 2000?
Freudian slip?.. I think not
you must have a crappy computer.
i've never actually ran windows xp on my pc, but just forget that I said xp is slow, xp is actually just as good as 2k.
I prefer 2000, although I do have some systems using WinXP. I like simplicity. I know all about the classic views with WinXP. A better question in my case is, is it worth it to upgrade from 2000 to XP. I don't notice any significant differences, so I stick with 2000.
2000 is a really good and safe operating system if you're running a business. XP is really good for the time that I've used it. However, if you upgrade to XP Pro and forget about XP Home (which I think is shit) you'd be so much better off. I mean take off the eye candy and they run about the same. I'm just used to XP Pro now, so I'd go with that.
In my experience, Linux runs faster than either of them.
MSDOS 6.x > *.*
XP + tweaks + disable 50% of the "eyecandy/services" = incredibly faster and more stable than 2000. (at least for me) I've run everything from Windows 3.1 to 2003, RedHat Linux...etc. XP Professional seems to be the most ideal OS for the home user, and even for overclockers/computer enthusiasts. Every OS has t's own advantages...but XP seems to run smoother than some of the others i've used b4. Boots faster too...(of course my old computer was slower than this one...so yah)
true...but it takes a little experience to properly run Linux. Once you get settled in it's got it's advantages...but i don't think my mom or sister could run it and take advantage of it. For the advanced user it is good though.
Actually, the new distros are at least as user-friendly as Windows, and very functional even for novice users. It takes a little experience to be a power user, but that's the same with any OS.
kewl...i haven't got much experience with Linux myself even lol. Helped install RedHat on server and messed with it...but that's about it cuz' soon after switched it to 2K3. Alot of my buddies run some version of it on there gaming computers cuz' they claim it's faster as well.
whats a good place to learn what stuff to turn of to make it run faster
i do love win2k though, its running on another machine in the house..
I <3 Server 2003
But XP is good too.