2000 Professional Or Xp Professional?
<div class="IPBDescription">I cannot decide.</div> Hi all,
I'm building a dual-boot machine (Windows & Linux) and I need to pick a version of Windows to run, but I'm having a really difficult time, so I figured maybe your fine folks could assist me by providing your opinions on the matter.
The machine has the following:
- AMD Athlon 2400+
- 256 MB DDR3200 RAM
- ATI Radeon 7500 (8X AGP, 64 MB DDR)
- 40 GB Maxtor HDD, 7200 RPM, 8 MB Buffer
- 30 GB Seagate HDD, 5200 RPM, 8 MB Buffer
The RAM and graphics card will be upgraded before Half-Life 2 is released, but for now, they are sufficient.
Based on the knowledge of what hardware I have, which Windows version would you reccomend? Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional cost the same, so the basic issue is which one if the better pick performance/reliability/stability/flexibility-wise.
I have used 2000 Pro. for several years and I am familiar with the ins and outs of the system. I have also used XP Pro. for a few months and have noticed that it is not much different.
Thanks for your input, it is certainly appeaciated.
I'm building a dual-boot machine (Windows & Linux) and I need to pick a version of Windows to run, but I'm having a really difficult time, so I figured maybe your fine folks could assist me by providing your opinions on the matter.
The machine has the following:
- AMD Athlon 2400+
- 256 MB DDR3200 RAM
- ATI Radeon 7500 (8X AGP, 64 MB DDR)
- 40 GB Maxtor HDD, 7200 RPM, 8 MB Buffer
- 30 GB Seagate HDD, 5200 RPM, 8 MB Buffer
The RAM and graphics card will be upgraded before Half-Life 2 is released, but for now, they are sufficient.
Based on the knowledge of what hardware I have, which Windows version would you reccomend? Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional cost the same, so the basic issue is which one if the better pick performance/reliability/stability/flexibility-wise.
I have used 2000 Pro. for several years and I am familiar with the ins and outs of the system. I have also used XP Pro. for a few months and have noticed that it is not much different.
Thanks for your input, it is certainly appeaciated.
Comments
to past hassles (putting it lightly) with Windows XP.
I'm considering buying AMD Athlon 2400+ in the near future,
how does yours perform? Had any hassles? Whats speed it at? Tried overclocking it?
However, Win2KPro is outdated now, and will soon lose any support from Microsoft (or so I've heard).
Just some points to consider.
And as for Moultano's suggestion, i'd say avoid XP home like the plague. Get syphilis instead, it's FAR better than XP home. XP home is to win2k pro / xp pro like windows ME is to a non-laughable OS.
There's 2 pcs and a laptop in this house which are running Windows XP Home. Guess how many are completely useless on the network without a LOT of hassle (i'll give you a clue. All three of them are useless, half the time can't see each other, half don't even want to know if they're there and ALL the time my Win2k can see / communicate with all 3).
Windows XP Home is designed for people who don't know what they're doing with computers. And they love it.
Whoah man, thats a borderline flame, carefully disguised as a sociological comment <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> . I'm probably pretty naive to think that computer enthusiasts can have a civil discussion about operating system preferences, but lets give it a shot.
I haven't tried setting up a home network on it, but I've been printing remotely all year without any difficulty. It is true though that if you really want to make the most out of a network then XP pro is the better choice, though Remote desktop is the only thing I feel the absence of with XP home.
And I run XP Home, too. Go figure.
Windows XP Home is designed for people who don't know what they're doing with computers. And they love it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe it's because Windows XP doesn't like Windows 2k. Or maybe they're configured incorrectly. Who knows. My XP Home plays well with others and is generally quite stable, and my friends and I have weekly get togethers on a LAN. *shrug*
But to gently steer the topic back.. ermm... on-topic... I would recommend XP Pro, seeing as the useful lifespan is probably going to be longer.
I'd just go for XP if I were you.
All Winblows = junkware. If you want less bloat try Linux, though the major distributions have started going all bloatware on us.
Just my opinion
I haven't tried setting up a home network on it, but I've been printing remotely all year without any difficulty. It is true though that if you really want to make the most out of a network then XP pro is the better choice, though Remote desktop is the only thing I feel the absence of with XP home. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It wasn't intended as a flame. The simple fact is that XP Home is designed for people of the non-technological persuasion. Which is why so many shop bought computers (in england at least) ship with it.
But i +know+ my network is configured properly, i've been networking for years now and tbh there's no logical reason at all for XP's networking downfalls. And also it has been looked at by my brother (who works all day doing networks for a big london company) and a few friends, all of whom know their stuff about computers.
I tried win2000 twice, and I always had problems w/ hardware and I never could get Quake III to run right (had a bunch of really really nasty visual artifacts on the screen. Kinda like Vsync off, but about 10x as bad). Also had problems with stability of all things.
WinXP though runs like a dream for me. I've had no problems w/ any of my hardware, and my system hasn't been this rock solid stable since MS-DOS 5.0.
From what it sounds like, I can't go wrong with XP or 2000 Professional. Based on the opinions here, I'll probably get a copy of XP Professional. The only draw-backs I can see are the licensing agreement and the higher memory usage, but I will be upgrading my RAM within a few months, so that should not be an issue.
To DY357LX:
1. It performs well. I haven't put it through any benchmark tests or anything, but I have been satisfied.
2. No problems thus far.
3. Windows XP Professional treats it as if it were an Athlon XP 1800. I am unsure if I can fix this easily or not, or if it needs to be fixed at all. I do not know how Linux will treat it (i.e. what speed it will register at).
4. No, I haven't overclocked it. In all honesty, I don't know how to do this. Care to fill me in?
Again, thank you for your insightful comments!
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><b>KHAAAAANNN!!!</b></span>