Win2k or Xp too save money

[Richb1492]

I have a full copy of Win2k that was given to me unopened. I am buildind a new system now Asus A8n-sli I need a few jints should i install it on my new system or go buy xp.
I see office depot has xp for 79.00 today

 

[Red Squirrel]

If it's free why not, I'd stick with it. It's more outdated and all, but it's still supported. Install SP4 and you're good to go.

 

[Richb1492]

bump

 

[mechBgon]

1) the $79 WinXP at Office Depot is probaby Home Edition, Upgrade version, is that correct? You'd need to use your Win2000 Pro as the qualifying previous version to use an Upgrade, and unfortunately you cannot upgrade from Win2000 Pro to WinXP Home: WinXP Home Edition upgrade matrix at Microsoft.com WinXP Pro Upgrade could work, however. Bottom line, using an Upgrade version ties up your Win2000 license and limits you to WinXP Professional Edition.

If they're selling retail full version WinXP, either variety, for $79, then please post a link to it!

2) if dual-core is in your future, WinXP offers proper Hyperthreading support. As I understand it, dual-core A64s mimic Hyperthreading so that WinXP Home can get at both cores (XP Home supports HT's virtual CPUs, but not dual physical processors).

3) if you have a fast connection, you could download a 180-day trial of WinXP Pro x64 Edition from Microsoft's site too. Been there, done that, decided to pick up retail full-version 32-bit instead for this go-around.


Hope that helps

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

2) if dual-core is in your future, WinXP offers proper Hyperthreading support. As I understand it, dual-core A64s mimic Hyperthreading so that WinXP Home can get at both cores (XP Home supports HT's virtual CPUs, but not dual physical processors).

I thought that the problem with Win2K and HT, was the fact that it thought the cpu actually was two physical cpu's and not one physical and one logical, which led to problems with scheduling and suchlike. (I'm a bit vague on the technical reasons, but it didn't work properly )

With the dual core's being two actual physical cores on one die, wouldn't 2K be able to utilize them correctly now?

Anyway, to the OP, I'd save your money and use Win2K.
The minimal differences between the two OS's (in everyday usage) doesn't really justify the cost of upgrading.

 

[freethrowtommy]

The way this works is XP Home is limited to the number of processors. XP Home can only have one processor but can have as many cores on the processor as it wants. XP Pro can have multiple processors with as many cores on each as it wants. This has been discussed many many times and as a matter of fact, I am using my 4400+ on XP home right now and it works just great.

XP Home - 1 processor, multiple cores
XP Pro - multiple processors, multiple cores

 

[HeliosUtH]

I would say to go for an XP version of Windows as a general ideea. If you plan to use your rig mostly for gaming, Windows 2000 + SP4 (or was it 5 ?) is the choice for you. Very stable and does not hug so much resources as the XP. Then again, if you are a novice and don't want to tamper with settings such as connectivity ones (LAN, WiFi, etc.) you could go for Windows XP Home Edition + SP2 without a problem. I have currently installed XP Home + SP2 with lots of services disabled so that it looks and feels as a Win2K so in the end, it's all about taste.

 

[Xyl3ne]

Stick with 2000.

 

[Richb1492]

I will just do some gaming, surfing the net and a few other things... I might use win 2k for a while until i get xp.

 

[fueledbymetal]

On a related note, do I need to have win98 installed to use the WinXP upgrade edition? I'm building a new computer and have a legal license for win98, but would like to just install winXP directly...

 

[Richb1492]

From what I read was that you will need the win 98 disk to do the upgrade..

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: Canterwood
I thought that the problem with Win2K and HT, was the fact that it thought the cpu actually was two physical cpu's and not one physical and one logical, which led to problems with scheduling and suchlike. (I'm a bit vague on the technical reasons, but it didn't work properly )

Yup. See: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/09/13/228780.aspx

With Athlon64 X2, you have two proper cores and the OS' scheduler can't go wrong when choosing between them. Win2k Pro allows you to use two CPUs (either dual sockets or a single socket dual core), so that shouldn't pose much of a problem either.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: BikeDude
With Athlon64 X2, you have two proper cores and the OS' scheduler can't go wrong when choosing between them. Win2k Pro allows you to use two CPUs (either dual sockets or a single socket dual core), so that shouldn't pose much of a problem either.

Thats what I thought.
I just couldn't understand why MechBgon was saying to go with XP for dual core support and that it mimiced hyperthreading.
2K should support dual core A64 just fine.

 

[BuckNaked]

A little off topic, but if I had a NFR (not For Resale) copy of XP, and wanted to trade Richb1492 for his Win2K, would I be able to do that without violating Big Brothers (MS) Terms of use? I have a couple of copies of XP but only running it on one machine, but would like to have a legitimate copy of Win2K.

 

[TGS]

Hyperthreading is it's own process. W2K will suit you perfectly for a single dual core processor. Now go spend that 70 bucks on another gig of ram.... for me.