psylockf 0 Posted April 21, 2003 i'm having a hard time answering this question i've been switching xp and 2000 for about half a year and i still can't make up my mind which is best what's your opinion? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
username 0 Posted April 21, 2003 what is your setup? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
psylockf 0 Posted April 21, 2003 p4 1.3 256 Rdram 40gb anything else? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
username 0 Posted April 21, 2003 go with XP then, i don't know why you would ever go back, if you don't like the styles just disable them and switch to class start menu, looks just like 2000 with the faster boot times (Y) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John 7 Posted April 21, 2003 yes, i agree. use windows xp. you can make it look and feel just like windows 2000, except it will be faster and some of the new features (ie. system restore) are very nice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
daoutlawz 0 Posted April 21, 2003 i disagree, sure, xp has faster boot times, but for myself, 2000 runs all my programs really fast and efficient, when u close a program, it closes and unloads out of memory, whereas i have noticed with xp (and the help of samurize) that most programs, when u close them, there is only a slight increase in memory and xp after a while starts slowing down heaps, programs take longer to load, and to close, esp games, whereas 2000, i never had a problem like that, plus 2000 has none of the extra crap that xp has (that might slow it down) just my opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zip 0 Posted April 21, 2003 people can argue about this topic all day, if you ask me its just personal opinion and i prefere the eye candy of xp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jason 5 Posted April 21, 2003 XP(NT5.1) is only a moderate upgrade from 2000 (NT5) unlike Longhorn (NT6) which will be a huge upgrade akin to what NT4 to 2000 was like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kemistry 0 Posted April 21, 2003 100th Post yeee haaaa... This all goes down to personal preferance... If you like tweaking, modding your OS, use XP. However, if you want a simple, fuss free OS go with W2k.. Personally I dual boot, my W2k machines flys with my DSL connection but XP machine on DSL isnt as fast... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JnCoKiLLa 0 Posted April 21, 2003 XP is the better of the 2.....for everything across the board Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FREq 0 Posted April 21, 2003 I have same problem as you. I just can't decide, but I think I'll go back to Windows 2000. XP have faster boot times and look greater, even in classic mode. Windows 2000 has longer boot times but for me it runs faster if you have a well organized system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toxikk 0 Posted April 21, 2003 go with XP then, i don't know why you would ever go back, if you don't like the styles just disable them and switch to class start menu, looks just like 2000 with the faster boot times (Y) yeah. the only way to go :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
singwei 0 Posted April 21, 2003 I use Windows XP since it's first release....a very stable OS. i never crash in using Windows XP.... however it need more memory resources compare to previous version...256mb RAM should be no problem....My system is PIII 866 and 512 MB RAM....XP run very smooth on it.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Funaho 0 Posted April 22, 2003 I'm a long time reader, first time poster. I don't know what single thread made me want to register in paticular, but i'm glad i've finally have. I run a network of Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP Pro. I find both systems have their ups and downs. On my personal workstation, which is a Thinkpad A31, I run Windows 2000 Pro as my personal preferrence. Windows 2000 Pro is more tried and true to me than XP is. I do agree with XP having a nicer interface, and that slideshow viewer comes in real handy when editing pictures, however XP still has bugs to be worked out before I migrate my thinkpad to it. As for the long load times mentioned, there is an explanation for this. Windows 2000 loads all the VXD and Kernel devices it will ever need to run, while Windows XP just loads the minimal kernel set needed, and will launch the rest of the devices when they are needed inside windows that is why the first time you run a program it takes a while to load. If Windows XP loaded everything at the start, it would probably take as long to load as Windows 2000 does. I'm hoping to finally move to windows xp when sp2 comes out Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
username 0 Posted April 22, 2003 hey welcome to neowin new guys :D thanks for the input Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Schmoove 1 Posted April 22, 2003 XP, it's better then Windows 2000. Looks better and is faster. I have no idea why I would want to run Windows 2000. XP just does the same but with more eyecandy and better speed. Go for XP. Then again, this is just my opinion... do with it what you like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
uniacidz 8 Posted April 22, 2003 Will be personal preference. What i do want to say though is this, you can speed XP up sooooo much. You can have no delays in the start menu(fade in effect which is damn right annoying to me) If you know how to tweak XP like some do here and myself, you would never go back to 2000. XP once tweaked is the fastest OS i have come across. People say that 2003 is faster, thats because they dunno how to tweak XP. I have used 2003 and was the same as my tweaked XP system. Seriously, if you want some help tweaking XP and making it turn into a eye candy rocket, then either ask here for assistance or PM me and i steer you in the right direction. Anyway, cheers and good luck with the decsion. :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
r0c 0 Posted April 22, 2003 Im personally usin Xp due to its eye candy. i do like the boot time and other small extras..although i feels a bit more bloated then 2k in my opinion. XP is very stable...(only crashes if suffered was from pos tv card drivers). 2K to me is sleek and fast. Very minimal memory usuage and more accurate at usin memory. whats more reliable to u is the question. :ninja: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yudi_lks 0 Posted April 22, 2003 I'll go for XP... :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Huy 0 Posted April 22, 2003 i've been using xp since 2001, never crashed once, but it did have a few hiccups (slugginess) but i've never had to reinstall it or format (like i had been doing with 98, me, etc) i love it! especially the visual styles... it grew on me :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samoa 0 Posted April 22, 2003 i disagree, sure, xp has faster boot times, but for myself, 2000 runs all my programs really fast and efficient, when u close a program, it closes and unloads out of memory, whereas i have noticed with xp (and the help of samurize) that most programs, when u close them, there is only a slight increase in memoryand xp after a while starts slowing down heaps, programs take longer to load, and to close, esp games, whereas 2000, i never had a problem like that, plus 2000 has none of the extra crap that xp has (that might slow it down) just my opinion. What in the hell are you talking about? XP rules, it is faster and stays faster. This memory thing probably is BS. XP is soo much better. XP pro all the way... :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eXtermia 19 Posted April 22, 2003 I run in a mixed mode environment Nt4, 2000, and XP. If your machine will run XP I would run it at least you have the latest OS in the support chain. US to IRAQI Information Minister "ALL YOUR BAGDAD ARE BELONG TO US" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ryan Posted April 22, 2003 i'm stuck with this debate also. and i have a similiar setup like the other guy's: intel celeron 1.4 ghz 128 mb ram 60 gig hd but as you see, only half the memory. and i don't know how a celeron compares to the pentium 4. would win2kpro sp3 run better than xp home? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joel 27 Posted April 22, 2003 Yes, it will. Get some more RAM for that machine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jason the Eighty Eighth 0 Posted April 22, 2003 if you want Networking, 2000 is the BEST, BY FAR. :woot: :woot: but, if you only have one computer, go with XP. personally, Windows 2000 and a bunch of P4 computers + broadband = win. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
