Windows2000>WindowsXP?
- Thread starter mkillio
- Start date
Johnny_Physics
Newcomer
K.I.L.E.R said:
Unless you're running it with SP2 on a crummy computer, like mine.
I pretty much surf the web in bullettime due to the extra load of SP2.
mkillio said:
XP is an improvement over 2k but not as big as Microsoft would want you to believe.
-Boot time is faster (not by much mind you, but still noticeable).
-Support for HT.
-Remote desktop, system restore, SFC (improved).
-Visual Styles (if you care about this, but you can always use Windowblinds/whatever instead)
-Some other small improvements.
But it's also loaded with bloat (like visual styles, system restore (if you know what you're doing), locked folders, etc. etc.). At the end of the day the version number difference gives away that it's a minor revision.
If you'd like to install XP without some of the bloat, try nLite (http://nuhi.msfn.org/), but test it in wmWare/virtual pc first. Also works with 2k.
While boot time is faster if you count only until the desktop appears, the actual boot time until you can start doing things is about the same as with W2000. The only really nice improvement in my opinion is ClearType when you're using an LCD screen. And a nice feature is that XP installs everything, so it won't ask you for the CD when you change things. Although that does take about 1.2 GB extra disk space, so it's less nice if you like Ghost images.
But Microsoft doesn't support anything else than XP SP 2 anymore, so you haven't got much choice if you want all the latest updates of everything. If you don't care about that and don't have an LCD screen, W2000 is fine.
But Microsoft doesn't support anything else than XP SP 2 anymore, so you haven't got much choice if you want all the latest updates of everything. If you don't care about that and don't have an LCD screen, W2000 is fine.
The only time I use Win2K is for systems with 256MB RAM. I'm not too keen on XP on them, though I'd imagine the memory requirements aren't that far apart.
I don't see the big problem with XP. Control freaks, all of ya!
XP and 2K work Sooo much better than 9x in every conceivable way. The fact that they are entirely 32-bit alone makes a huge difference in smoothness, stability, speed, security.....even on old systems (P6+), assuming they have enough RAM. DOSBOX can support all your DOS needs if you're a DOS nut.
I don't see the big problem with XP. Control freaks, all of ya!
XP and 2K work Sooo much better than 9x in every conceivable way. The fact that they are entirely 32-bit alone makes a huge difference in smoothness, stability, speed, security.....even on old systems (P6+), assuming they have enough RAM. DOSBOX can support all your DOS needs if you're a DOS nut.
gokickrocks
Regular
download a program called xpy, it gets rid of some of the bloat and annoyances, then you can do a add/remove windows components on how you see fit
XP is far better then anything else up to this point in terms of stability, speed and features. Yes all those features do add up to some bloat but it's also very customizable, to the point where you can get the installation down to a measily 300 MB. That requires a custom installation disc of course.
http://unattended.msfn.org/
http://unattended.msfn.org/
ANova said:
I nLited my system and the end result is a relatively paltry XP install at around 160 mb on a cd. After install though it blooms to around what 1.9 gb!!
I am curious though this 300 mb number, is it the size of the install cd or rather the size of the OS on the hard drive post install and all the patches. Because my install cd is including SP2 and some more hotfixes in it.The system is rather responsive without all that bloat that I would never have used I can vouch for that. I reboot once a week if that out of force of habit I guess. I always put my machine on standby or hibernate for near instantaneous boots. I think XP is the way to go over Windows 2000. At boot I have less than 20 processes running and it uses I would say about 150 mb of memory and that too with the registry option enabled of having the XP codebase loaded into memory. In terms of stability I never really had any problems or BSODs or anything like that on my machine after nLiting or before nLiting.
Similar threads
