1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Windows Windows XP Pro vs Windows 2000 Pro

Discussion in 'Software' started by Denis_iii, 20 Aug 2007.

  1. Denis_iii

    Denis_iii What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    14
    Why would you choose winXP over win2000 in a office enviroment?
     
  2. Amon

    Amon inch-perfect

    Joined:
    1 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    2,467
    Likes Received:
    2
    2000
     
  3. DarkInferno

    DarkInferno Minimodder

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    464
    Likes Received:
    6
    you wouldn't.
     
  4. Krikkit

    Krikkit All glory to the hypnotoad! Super Moderator

    Joined:
    21 Jan 2003
    Posts:
    23,576
    Likes Received:
    410
    Pretty much as above really, but only if you're using it offline - Windows 2k isn't supported anymore, so XP's the better choice, even though 2k's my fave... :(
     
  5. Bbq.of.DooM

    Bbq.of.DooM Custom User Title

    Joined:
    12 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    1,477
    Likes Received:
    1
  6. Denis_iii

    Denis_iii What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    14
    but xp sucks, great as a multimedia platform lol cause theres no other choice .... but i'm using xp at work now and sucks ass. much prefer 2000. faster n more stable n no bull "stuff that comes out its exterior"
     
  7. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    I have XP, I hate it.
    Win2000 was WAAAYYY better.
    I think that Win2k is the best Windows ever made.
     
  8. E.E.L. Ambiense

    E.E.L. Ambiense Acrylic Heretic

    Joined:
    26 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    68
    It's basically the same to me. Although XP would be better if you have an older single-core processor as it supports hyper-threading versus 2K, which does not. I used 2K for like 5 years straight, till the HDD it was on bit the dust. I just went with XP Pro the 2nd time around.
     
  9. malfunction

    malfunction What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    5 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    307
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hyper-threading is a CPU thing not an OS thing... Also P4s? Who still has them? XP isn't too bad - I just tend to turn off all the bells and whistles and make it look and act like 2K. I'm still using 2K at home as there's *nothing* in XP that I need (same goes for Vista) unless / until I move to 64-bit or need DX10 (which IMO has no reason outside of profits to be a Vista only thing).
     
  10. E.E.L. Ambiense

    E.E.L. Ambiense Acrylic Heretic

    Joined:
    26 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    68
    Right. It's an OS thing, but MS have recommended repeatedly to disable HT in 2K, even though it sees both "processors". It just can't handle it like XP is capable of doing. Here's a little read on it.

    I still run an ole' 478 Pressie OC'ed on water that runs @ 22 degrees under load...and on Win98SE :worried:. Audio recording, nothing else. lol. Good ole stuff! It may be old, but that's no reason to get rid of it!
     
  11. malfunction

    malfunction What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    5 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    307
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah my bad - I read your original post as 2K not recognising the extra virtual processor (which as you say it does). As far as I'm aware:

    What you'll see on 2K with HT:

    1) A possible performance increase
    2) No difference (most likely)
    3) A performance penalty

    What you'll see on XP with HT:

    1) A possible performance increase
    2) No difference (most likely)
    3) A performance penalty

    But the big difference is that #3 happens less in XP (presumably because of the way in which it chooses to distribute load between the '2' CPUs)

    EDIT: a quick google found this:

    http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...http://www.computerbase.de/article.php?id=229

    Note that this is 2K SP3 vs XP SP1 so real world (2K SP4 vs XP SP2) may differ
     
  12. E.E.L. Ambiense

    E.E.L. Ambiense Acrylic Heretic

    Joined:
    26 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    68
    Wow, that was an interesting read (grammatically also :thumb:). All I know is that in my experience, XP seemed to be 'quicker' to me with HT enabled on the older processors versus 2K. Although, I'd prefer 2K for office work, to keep in the OP's query, lol.

    Thank you for the link, though. Very interesting results. But like you said, that stuff's old! :hehe:
     
  13. Denis_iii

    Denis_iii What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    1,224
    Likes Received:
    14
    but why go with XPpro when u can run 2000pro on a much lower end spec machine and have a more stable enviroment? is there anythin in XP that makes it better for the office enviroment? ie asked the IT guy and he said XP is better for networking and easier to browse etc......if thats the case 2000pro must be god damn awful for that cause XP network browsing sucks ass!!!
     
  14. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    No, networking with Win 2000 is fine. Just with WinXP they improved the interface. Moreover, under XP you have a wireless connection manager.
    Oh, and it loads faster. Other then that, Win2000 is the pretty much the same. System requirement for XP is the same for Win2k, if you disable some services like "Theme", and have the classic skin.
     
  15. D3s3rt_F0x

    D3s3rt_F0x What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    28 Oct 2004
    Posts:
    719
    Likes Received:
    6
    As the first post said for an office enviroment and P4's are fine for running office and Windows etc and well tbh its still ok for home if you aint a big game player there fine. My dad has a p4 1 gig ram and a 9700 pro which runs football manager more than well enough. Not gonna pick any bones here I hate posts which include bits like the quote I have just shows a snobbish attitude.

    As for 2k vs XP I loved 2k but XP is the evolution of it more secure and well its still supported fair enough if you run 2k offline where nasty viruses cant get to it but anything with a network cable in the back which is connected to the net its gotta be XP.
     
  16. Glider

    Glider /dev/null

    Joined:
    2 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    21
    If you have anything wireless, you absolutely need XP (or 3rd party apps)...

    Fucntionality is also better in XP ( My girlfriend has XP on her 'work' pc, and 2000 (SP4?) at home, and she can't stand the home PC ). Also, looks, XP is much nicer... Those who are using the classic skin could as well use Windows 95/98... I like the added functionality of the XP(&Vista) Start menu.

    Security wise XP seems less insecure the 2000... But they both contain huge holes...

    Requirements wise they are the same... So why not go with something newer, better supported?
     
  17. Mother-Goose

    Mother-Goose 5 o'clock somewhere

    Joined:
    22 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    3,890
    Likes Received:
    6
    As glider has mentioned, xp looks nice, and vista looks better still. I don't know why you wouldn't want the smooth looks of XP, get the royale MCE skin and it looks the business.

    Oh, and it is what the majority of the western world uses, how's that for an answer?! You are supposed to move on in terms of OS's not backwards!
     
Tags:

Share This Page