• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Windows 2000 VS Windows XP

Recommended Posts

LurkerHere    0

use 2000 with SP3

since that patch for XP systems came out, it messed up computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JMA_PN    0

XP is faster, but more ressources go to the OS. Win2k take less and give more to application that need them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PureEdit    0

I like 2k a lot more, XP is decent, but it is bloated and just has to much crap that I dont want on my computer making it slower and sucking up ram :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
krazeguy    0

... win2k isnt better for networking imo. I think XP (Pro) is lacking in maybe one or two small features. XP seems to connect to my other win2k machine better than when I had 2 win2k machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
imation2458    0

What about windows xp pro vs. windows server 2003?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
krazeguy    0

... yah, that would be a valid argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uniacidz    8
I like 2k a lot more, XP is decent, but it is bloated and just has to much crap that I dont want on my computer making it slower and sucking up ram :p

Well why dont you disable unwanted services and tweak the system up?

Upon installatiion, XP is bloated, upon tweak, its a sleek, fast rocket.

:ninja:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John    7
since that patch for XP systems came out, it messed up computers.

so you're telling him he shouldn't use xp because of one bad patch??? :huh:

i think you need to suggest a less drastic solution, lol :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
speedstr37    0

My take: If you've been using both off and on for 6 months and you still don't know which is better for you then you should switch to a Mac. You obviously do not have the mentality to make decisions based on your own experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samoa    0
My take: If you've been using both off and on for 6 months and you still don't know which is better for you then you should switch to a Mac. You obviously do not have the mentality to make decisions based on your own experiences.

LOL:D interpreted: You are stupid, you can't handle using XP or 2K. Use a freakin Mac.... :trout:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LurkerHere    0
My take: If you've been using both off and on for 6 months and you still don't know which is better for you then you should switch to a Mac. You obviously do not have the mentality to make decisions based on your own experiences.

hahaha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NeoMayhem    0
I like 2k a lot more, XP is decent, but it is bloated and just has to much crap that I dont want on my computer making it slower and sucking up ram :p

Yep it does, and XP was a rushed project, I am suprised it came out as well as it did :wacko:

I use 2k on my laptop, and it works great :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason the Eighty Eighth    0

2000 has a really clean layout in my opinion. looks much more professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason the Eighty Eighth    0
I like 2k a lot more, XP is decent, but it is bloated and just has to much crap that I dont want on my computer making it slower and sucking up ram :p

that is so damn true. XP is much more visually pleasing, but if you're into serious work, cut the unnesscessary crap out and work with a minimalistic layout.

no wonder my company uses 2000. :crazy:

but if you're like me and only use 1/3 of his total RAM, then XP has no negative sides. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AOXOMOXOA    5

i'm all for win2k..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PHiSH    0

i've used both... was trying 2k for a month..i missed all the little things xp had to offer, driver support, just how damn easy it was to install new hardware, all those nifty little shortcuts and ofc the visual styles.. im an xp pro dude all the way... 2k i'd reccommend to anyone with less ram or slower pc... but xp = better if ur pc handle's it fine

my pc = 769mb ram (games etc run much better than with 256) 1.4 gig athlon blah blah blah ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PureEdit    0
that is so damn true. XP is much more visually pleasing, but if you're into serious work, cut the unnesscessary crap out and work with a minimalistic layout.

no wonder my company uses 2000. :crazy:

but if you're like me and only use 1/3 of his total RAM, then XP has no negative sides. :)

Yep :p

For some people XP is worth having your computer run slower, for some it isnt, but even if you have dual Athlon XP 3000+'s and 2gb of ram, 2k wouls still be faster then XP, mabey not much, but still some :p

I know all about windows XP, and used it for about 1 1/2 years befor I tried 2k again with the newest SP4, and love its speed and stabibility (it is at least as stable as xp/2003) :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ak73    0

i'd use 2000 if it had fast user switch....but since it doesn't i go with XP. i just wish they gave you an option to unistall movie maker and media player 8 :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrelington    44

XP > 2000 && 2003

Looks prettier, has all the options, and has a much wider array of support for common programs and devices. Granted i only used 2003 RC2 cause it came with my office 2003 beta 2 kit, but from what i saw in RC2, all i got was blue screens and slow downs. 2003 is xp without the luna styling. and xp is 200 with prettiness and more functionality and support added.

oh and btw, about the xp being bloated, its called add/remove componants at install(or in control panel after install). You dont have to install every little thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samoa    0
XP > 2000 && 2003

Looks prettier, has all the options, and has a much wider array of support for common programs and devices. Granted i only used 2003 RC2 cause it came with my office 2003 beta 2 kit, but from what i saw in RC2, all i got was blue screens and slow downs. 2003 is xp without the luna styling. and xp is 200 with prettiness and more functionality and support added.

oh and btw, about the xp being bloated, its called add/remove componants at install(or in control panel after install). You dont have to install every little thing.

Have you actually explored Win.net? Cause you would know that it has the luna style as well. You actually have to install the service and load it. Win.net is not a desktop OS. Like XP and 2K are.

But you are right. XP is 2K with a lot more of everything good. And you can remove the unneeded stuff for better performance. XP is the way to go. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dpanda    0

xP rOxOr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
riahc3    440

No eXPeriences with 2000 but i think it runs faster than win xp if u dont have the requirements i got a p3 800mhz wit 128mb and i think i be alot better with 2000. Im getting the CD to try it out.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrelington    44
XP > 2000 && 2003

Looks prettier, has all the options, and has a much wider array of support for common programs and devices. Granted i only used 2003 RC2 cause it came with my office 2003 beta 2 kit, but from what i saw in RC2, all i got was blue screens and slow downs. 2003 is xp without the luna styling. and xp is 200 with prettiness and more functionality and support added.

oh and btw, about the xp being bloated, its called add/remove componants at install(or in control panel after install). You dont have to install every little thing.

Have you actually explored Win.net? Cause you would know that it has the luna style as well. You actually have to install the service and load it. Win.net is not a desktop OS. Like XP and 2K are.

But you are right. XP is 2K with a lot more of everything good. And you can remove the unneeded stuff for better performance. XP is the way to go. :D

yes i have used it and in display properties there was only Classic style in teh drop down for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
radioboy    1

a few days ago i would've said 2000. but after seeing how much better it performs on my 300mhz laptop than win2k, it's XP hands down. plus the eyecandy in XP is > all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Groovedude    6

Ive seen posts like this a million and one times. hehe :laugh: maybe someone should make a guide. Go for XP if you have the choice to. Keep with the cool people lol :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.