how is it now..i have not bothered with win2k since SP2.
It depends on what you are looking for.
If you are looking for pretty good stability, then Windows 2000 with SP4 is getting pretty good.
However, I'll wager you get more games to run better under Windows XP.
Probably, if I was loading a machine for a friend now for their home, I would use XP.
I still have Windows 2000 (sp3) on my server at home. But my workstation has many operating systems.
Windows XP is newer and has many improvements over Windows 2000. If you really want something old then get a copy of Windows 3.1.
hmm.. well i hear that windows xp sucks..
Well, in some ways it does. Its true that Microsoft seems to bring out a good OS, then a bad one, then a good one again. XP probably falls into the bad category, but its certainly not as poor as Windows ME which was just pathetic and dreadful. XP will probably improve when it matures and more service packs are released for it.
can you give me some good points about the 2..like cons and pros.. thanx
Looks good (fonts especially), and has lots of new toys and several new features, increased games compatibility. But is potentially unstable and can perform moderately poorly even on powerful machines. Don't let that put you off, though, because its a delight to use if it likes your machine (which it may well) and its reached SP1 now which has helped things alot. Could be better but it will improve, and its not bad right now.
Runs well on a wide variety of PCs, even older ones to a certain point (check minimum required specs!). Has matured a great deal from its beginnings, and has all of the core technologies that one needs, in terms of workplace LAN, small office home office, etc. Becomming increasingly secure (well, as far as MS is ever going to be) and is tried and tested now for several years. Getting to a 4th service pack indicates a fairly mature Microsoft NT based OS. NT4 was pretty solid by SP4, and Windows 2000 is now too.
It all depends, really, on what you use your computer for. Both platforms have their good and bad points. And in many ways, they are also the same thing. A lot of security fixes released now apply to both operating systems and they share a lot in common.
well i game alot.. and never reboot my PC.
P3 700 @ 933
384mb PC133 sdram
GF2 MX 400 64mb sd-ram 166/185 @ 185/215
40gb ATA 66 7200 rpm
XP should be fine on that machine, however it would be nice if you could upgrade the RAM to 512MB.
I am not sure how overclocking friendly XP is as an OS, or indeed how 2000 is. I don't overclock but perhaps someone else here can comment.
I would try XP first, and if its not a nice experience try 2000.
how is complaibly?
right now i'm running windows me...
i have 2000 pro SP4
i have XP pro corp SP1
I'll answer that question gladly if I can be told what "complaibly" means... Sorry.
Ask your question again.
complaby mode.. like you can run it in 98 mode
You mean compatability?
You mean compatability mode.
Going back to WinXP vs Win2000, I'd have to say that the only reason that more users have heard bad reports about WinXP is because it was marketed as a consumer OS, whereas Win2k was strictly targeted at business users, and so was more likely to be running on modern hardware, with a far smaller user base, and running only business applications.
WinXP is based on same, but much improved, OS kernel as Win2k, and is much more robust due to better memory/process management over Win2k. Now that WinXP has been out a while you should not experience any issues with it.
The OS you choose has no effect on overclocking, which is a hardware issue, not a software issue.
If you are intent on running the multitude of consumer software that is available, such as games, then you'd be barmy to go with any other OS over Windows XP, so get a grip, and go with the industry standard.
Ah, but marketting or no, there have been identified performance problems with XP that haven't yet been solved and are supposedly making it into SP2.
For the home user, XP probably is the best, however 2000 has had more of its problems ironed out. Like it or lump it, operating systems always have problems.
Nic is probably right to suggest you go with XP.
ok.. now anothe Q.. XP home or XP pro
i have both..
Home is Professional, minus some important features, which included I think domain joining and NTFS support... could be wrong... Anyway, PROFESSIONAL!
ok...hehe.. i wonder why everyone says go get XP
blah......................WHEN WILL XP COME OUT?
going to have to be more careful about your language, that stuff isn't tolerated here
I'm confused? kinda like asking when will people make solar powered calculators, its here man.
That's not entirely true... There's been plenty of instances where I have seen XP or 2000 crash when Windows 98 or Me would not because of being overclocked. I think a good part of that has to do with the tight control 2000 and XP have over hardware. For example, I have seen overclocked machines that worked fine with FAT32 but not with NTFS.
I will argue, however, that if you are running your computer so far out spec it crashes in 2000/XP, you have probably gone too far.
I have been under the impression that XP and 2000 manage their memory quite the same. I have seen nothing that says otherwise. Hmm.
That's very true. When it comes to broad hardware and software compatability for home systems, XP is hands-downs the best choice. 2000 is a great OS, but it had a very small window to mature before XP stole developer's effort.
sorry for the blah.. When will XP come out.. my younger brother typed that in, i forgot to edit it cause i had to go somewhere.
In Windows 2000, the compatibility app, apcompat.exe, is not installed by default, but you can get it by installing Support Tools from 2k CD's \SUPPORT directory.
Cannot possibly be a software issue, but could be due to the fact that XP/2000 interacts differently with the hardware and so is less forgiving of problems with hardware stability. If it was a software issue then it would be directly related to processor speed and would not be overclocking sensitive. It just looks like a software issue, but it is not.
Not so, as Windows XP can support a much larger number of concurrent processes than can Windows 2000 ...
Windows XP Memory Management Enhancements