Windows XP Worth it? Or Windows 2000

By wI-OSMAN-
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Joswin

Posted
Posted

Id say XP too, but for stability Windows 2000 (for me) is still king. :) My XP crash's seem only connected to the Nvidia drivers which i keep upgrading and they get no better :mad:. Yeah if you have a decent amount of ram and a hlaf-decent graphics card XP looks pretty sweet too. :D

Grand Master

Chris123NT

Posted
Posted

We peeps that use XP want the luna look to change because it looks like fisher price toys and tonka trucks :p I mean face it watercolor was a much better look during the WHISTLER beta. MS made a big mistake with themes in XP but we've fixed that now haven't we :)

Mentor

Daybreak

Posted
Posted

Er... actually I find Luna pretty normal and useful...

Heck.. it's better than most themes out there...

Use Win2K at work and WinXP at home.. For some reason, after WinXP, I think 2K is a little.. drab.. and in need of spicing up...

But .. from personal experience, the rock solid-award goes to Windows 2000. For development and server apps, this is the only OS to run... :cool:

For some reason, I find that XP dies real hard.. harder than 2000. Dunnoe really how to explain this.. but XP runs stable for a long time, then when the system starts to get errors, the whole thing proprogates within no time and your system is KO'ed. :( Anybody else expereince this?

Collaborator

OnlyMe

Posted
Posted

XP must be worth it to me since I went out and bought it last night after "testing" it since its release.

-I have not had any of the problems that I had with W2K, after the bugs were worked out by Adaptec Easy CD.

-I have been able to test other software and then uninstall and do a system restore to bring it back to original.

-Compatibilty with other software is better then W2K

-It is prettier (styles)

-It is alot easier for the kids to use (the new logon screen and start menu)

Get the Home version and save money if you don't need the network features of Pro.

MS has finally gotten it right...IMO...but they should give back something to all of us that have paid for the previous versions...especially those of us that have purchase ME!!

Veteran

techquilla

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by straye

Ive been using xp for a few months now but it does crash more often then i would like it to. Also the 1.5gigs it takes up is too much for mah 8gig harddrive.

im thinking of using win2000 instead wif its stability and all. but will 2000 cut it for games. i know they say its not designed for games but ive heard ppl say it works just fine for games.

So does win2000 run games up to XPs standard at least as in like compatibility and stuff? With the sp2 that is.

thanks

i've used 2000 and found it to be great. Never had any game problems before. XP on the other hand, i encountered many games unplayeble, (maybe because of my 3dfx card) but i'm sure that there are tons of games that does not play on XP.

Community Regular

Truman

Posted
Posted

Now you mention the 3DFX cards, i have one on my win2k system. I found drivers on this web site for it...

http://www.ntcompatible.com/content.php?page_id=12

it seemed to work ok with XP but i didn't get to try many games, i don't know if anyone else has had any luck with them, does half-life work in OpenGL with them?

Grand Master

Joswin

Posted
Posted

True, true but there are a lot of things i miss when i am in Win 2000.

  1. Media Player 8 (well i personally like it much much more than winamp)
  2. Editing file info in the explorer shell (changing mp3 tags are so simple)
  3. Theme's (after a while 'luna' grows on you :D)
  4. The new start menu (get access to things much much quicker and i miss it a lot when in 9x/nt)
  5. Arranging Files (those new options make it easy to find files)
  6. About a 100 more or so i could mention..

Grand Master

Spyder Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Originally posted by zivan56

I would never use XP again, it runs 50% slower than Windows 2000, and I dont use the themes so there is no point for xp for me.

well yea...with your amount of RAM alone, what NEW OS wouldn't run slow on your system?

Grand Master

Joel

Posted
Posted

I have never, repeat NEVER had a hardware issue i.e. BSOD with any XP install, not even on hardware that Win2K didn't like (bad NIC). Every complaint seems to come from people who insist on installing beta software or beta service packs or from people who insist on OCing their system to the point of meltdown. You can't expect to not have any problems if you screw your system to that point, you're just asking for trouble.

Collaborator

Synz

Posted
Posted

i absolutely love xp.. i have 2k on my laptop but i don't really like it since i can't customize it past 3d colors, fonts, etc. when i first installed xp, i was sort of worried that my older hardware i had inside wasn't gonna be compatible, so i rushed around and tried to find updates so id be prepared, come to find out the only thing that needed a driver update was my soundcard :D

i had win98se on this pc before i installed xp, i almost forget what a blue screen looks like

Proficient

Apple-a-Day

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by zivan56

I would never use XP again, it runs 50% slower than Windows 2000, and I dont use the themes so there is no point for xp for me.

If you where not running it on the laptop id say your systems not up to speed you barley meet min requirements

Veteran

darkmark327

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Q2s

Ive been involved with Windoze before it was Windoze and XP is by far the best!!! The only time that Ive had problems it has been my fault.... garbage in garbage out!!!..

No way I'd go back to 2K 98SE or linux, unix or any other flavor...... nuff said! :old:

damn straight!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.