LurkerHere Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 use 2000 with SP3 since that patch for XP systems came out, it messed up computers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMA_PN Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 XP is faster, but more ressources go to the OS. Win2k take less and give more to application that need them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureEdit Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazeguy Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 ... 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imation2458 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 What about windows xp pro vs. windows server 2003? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazeguy Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 ... yah, that would be a valid argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uniacidz Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted April 23, 2003 Veteran Share Posted April 23, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedstr37 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samoa Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LurkerHere Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoMayhem Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Eighty Eighth Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 2000 has a really clean layout in my opinion. looks much more professional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason the Eighty Eighth Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 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. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AOXOMOXOA Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 i'm all for win2k.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHiSH Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 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 ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureEdit Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak73 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 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 :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelington Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samoa Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 XP > 2000 && 2003Looks 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpanda Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 xP rOxOr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riahc3 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 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..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelington Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 XP > 2000 && 2003Looks 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radioboy Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groovedude Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts