Windows XP or Windows 2000

[Xenocide187]

I know this question has been asked millions of time on this forum, but I can't seem to find any. Anyway, I'm stuck in which OS to choose from. The computer will be mainly used for Gaming. I want to know which operating system can get me the best performance and stability. Here are the computer specs:

Athlon XP 1700+ (Going to be OC'ed)
MSI KT3 Ultra 2
256MB DDR333
GeForce4 Ti 4200 (Going to be OC'ed)
80GB HDD with 8MB Cache

 

[MaroX]

There really isnt that big of a difference between the two OSes. Many sites have tested performance on the OSes and show no negligible difference.
So I would suggest going with something that you're more comfortable with, prolly Win2k.

 

[spyordie007]

Even though I think this thread should be locked...

I would use Win XP because it's (generally speaking) more compatable with older games.

-Spy

 

[lowtech1]

It all depend on if you have to reinstall & backup your data or not.

I wouldn't bother to upgrade to XP if you already have a good working Win2k box that play all of your current games.

Try WinXp if for some reason you have a favorite older game that don't do Win2k, or purchasing a new box.

The performance is like having a black 2000 Porsche 911, and want to know if the red 2002 Porsche 911 is any faster when the engine, exhause, and fuel system is same.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: lowtech
It all depend on if you have to reinstall & backup your data or not.
I wouldn't bother to upgrade to XP if you already have a good working Win2k box that play all of your current games.
Try WinXp if for some reason you have a favorite older game that don't do Win2k, or purchasing a new box.
The performance is like having a black 2000 Porsche 911, and want to know if the red 2002 Porsche 911 is any faster when the engine, exhause, and fuel system is same.

Agreed, however since he said that he is "stuck in which OS to choose from" would indicate that he is not currently running either. The reason I suggested XP is because he says it will "mainly be used for Gaming".

-Spy

 

[edro]

bump..... Actually I also searched for this topic and this is the only thread I found with the words "XP" and "2000" or "sk" in the title!

Post more reasons or opinions.

 

[ProviaFan]

With that machine, I would choose Windows 2000 Pro, simply because there is only 256MB of RAM. The performance difference between the two (2k and XP) is noticeable even during light multitasking (at least to me). If you could increase the amount of RAM, I'd readily suggest Windows XP. If you have games that absolutely must be run on XP (2k won't work for them), then just run XP and tweak the snot out of it; the performance won't be quite as good as 2k's would be, but IMHO it would be acceptable.

 

[Fox2k]

My personal opinion is to go with 2000. I'm one of those who hate xp witha passion. Yes I gave it a chance, I hated it, and i'll never go back.
I don't like the childish look. yes, you can turn it off, but you still get the retarded comic-like speech bubbles, and it bothers me greatly
The XP firewall gets in the way. If i try to run an ftp server, or try to view sites with certain active-x content, or try to set up a local network, (I hosted a couple LAN parties),we always have problems with xp machines. Yes you can turn off the firewall, but it's a hassle.
Yes I realize the first few reasons I just gave are convenience, and can be tweaked. but why install an OS which needs to be tweaked to conform to my liking when a default win2k install gives me the same thing. xp is nothing more than 2k on steroids of fluff. nothing usefull, it bogs down your resources. wait, there's more.
It's not as stable as 2k. I can crash xp with casual usage, it takes an active effort for me to crash 2k. Winxp is not secure at all. with the default install, and after turning off the xp firewall, your system is totally vulnerable. the firewall blocks everything you try to do, and if its off, it leaves you totally defenseless. 2k has very good security which remains in the background, not actively asking "do you want to block xxxxx". xp passes along muchof your private information to microsoft, in the form of error reports, updates, etc. 2k does not.


http://eref.net/privacy/newsclips/newsclip.asp?ItemID=2036

http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/wmp8dvd.htm

http://netsecurity.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://grc.com/dos/xpsummary.htm

http://netsecurity.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://grc.com/dos/xpsummary.htm

http://www.masternewmedia.com/issue14/winxpsecurity.htm

http://www.cnet.com/software/0-6688749-8-7004399-1.html

that's my rant. No i'm not trying to change the world, these are my personal opinions. please feel free to voice your contradictions. It wont change my mind, but at least it will give the thread started some good information on both operating systems and alow him (her?) to make a more educated choice as to which one is right for him (her).

oh, maybe I should mention..the only two things that bother me about windows 2000 are the boot time, and the fact that the need for speed series dont work on it

all of my other games and applications do though

 

[Marine]

I've been running 2K on various machines from 400 Mhz to 3.06 on several different motherboards and NFS series runs fine on all of them. Maybe you have a different problem because I'm running NFS Porsche right now on 2K and a Logitech Formula wheel and it's awesome.

 

[mrman3k]

Go with XP unless you are hell bent on 2000, since the rest of the world is moving to XP, I feel for compatibility, it would be in your best interest. If you want to be different, go Linux.

 

[Fox2k]

it could be. which SP do you have installed?

 

[Lonyo]

I have a dual boot 2k/XP system. I don't boot into XP. I tried it out for a coupla games (which wouldn't work under 2k), and they didn't work. Now it's kinda redundant, just taking up space, doing nothing at all. 2K all the way for me, couldn't live without it.

 

[warrenpeace]

"NFS series runs fine on all of them. Maybe you have a different problem because I'm running NFS Porsche right now on 2K "

Porsche unleashed and hot persuit 2 run fine on win2k, but the original hot persuit and NFS High Stakes will NOT work on 2k though (in my experience). It immediately generates a "Windows NT/2000 are not supported at this time" or a varient of that. Same with Tiger Woods 2001, though TW 2002 works fine.

 

[Atlantean]

I have used both (well just put winxp on my comp, and I am loving it). Right now I like windows xp more, probably because it is new and I think it is pretty cool.

 

[Fox2k]

<thread hijack>
I actually found a patch last night to get nfs:hs to run on my box..but still no luck with porshe unleashed, it stalls and crashes at the loading screen after the intro plays.

http://nfs2000.4players.de:1033/nfs4spt_art.php?cat=spt&art=win2keng

</hijack>

 

[Jeff7181]

I would go with Windows XP. I used Win2k Pro for almost 2 years before I upgraded. The "childish" GUI can be easily turned off, the firewall can be easily turned off, system restore can easily be turned off, Messenger can easily be turned off, those speech bubbles can easily be turned off. No, none of them are on the desktop as an option to "turn this off"... and Windows users may be use to things being that simple, however, there are several registry tweaks which make Windows XP more "power user friendly." I have Windows XP Pro right now, a legitimate copy that I paid for, and I will never put Win2k back on this machine. Here's the instructions and registry tweaks to make XP more power user friendly...

"Childish GUI" fix... Right click desktop | select Appearance tab | in the Windows and Buttons drop down list, choose Windows Classic

Windows Firewall... Control Panel | Network Connection | Choose your connection | Click Properties | Click the Advanced tab | Uncheck the box to protect your computer with the firewall

System Restore... Control Panel | System | System Restore tab | Check the box to disable system restore on each drive

Messenger (those advertisements that pop up, not Windows Messenger)... Go to Control Panel | Administrative Tools | Component Services. Find Messenger and right click, select properties. In the startup type box on the general tab, select disabled. That will keep those messages from popping up.

Speech Bubbles... Start button | Right click your user name at the top and choose properties | Click Customize button | Click the Advanced tab | Uncheck "Highlight newly installed programs"

And here's some other tips to help speed up Windows...

The following tweaks involve modifying the Windows Registry... if you've never done this before and aren't comfortable modifying the registry, don't do it. I will not be held responsible if you screw up your computer. And as always, make a backup copy of your registry before you make any changes.

Optimize Windows Memory Management

My Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManager\MemoryManagement
DisablePagingExecutive = 1 (hex) (tells Windows not to use swap file until physical RAM is full)
LargeSystemCache = 1 (hex) (tells Windows to store the kernel in RAM to speed up Windows performance)
IOPageLockLimit = 40000 for 512mb RAM or more, 10000 for 256mb, 4000 for 128 mb or less (hex values) (sets the amount of physical ram to be used for input/output operations)


Reduce Shutdown Time

My computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control
WaitToKillServiceTimeout = 100 (time in milliseconds for Windows to wait before killing services and shutting down)


Optimize TCPIP Receive Window Size for Broadband

My Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters
TcpWindowSize = dword=00007fff (32767)


This final one does not involve the registry, but does involve tweaking system files.


Remove Reserve Bandwidth

Log in as Administrator
Run: gpedit.msc
Navigate to Local Computer Policies | Administrative Templates | Network | QOS Packet Scheduler
Locate ?Limit Reserve Bandwidth? enable it, and set the value to 0 (%)




For you people who don't have the time, or the brains to look up how to personalize Windows XP, www.tweakxp.com is where I got most of this information. Check it out.

 

[Jeff7181]

May I also suggest getting this... Linux-like multiple desktops for Windows XP - a Microsoft PowerToy... you may read about it here.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I would go with Windows XP. I used Win2k Pro for almost 2 years before I upgraded. The "childish" GUI can be easily turned off, the firewall can be easily turned off, system restore can easily be turned off, Messenger can easily be turned off, those speech bubbles can easily be turned off. No, none of them are on the desktop as an option to "turn this off"... and Windows users may be use to things being that simple, however, there are several registry tweaks which make Windows XP more "power user friendly." I have Windows XP Pro right now, a legitimate copy that I paid for, and I will never put Win2k back on this machine. Here's the instructions and registry tweaks to make XP more power user friendly...

[some great tips snipped]

For you people who don't have the time, or the brains to look up how to personalize Windows XP, www.tweakxp.com is where I got most of this information. Check it out.

I have nothing against Windows XP, and use it from time to time on my home system. But, I must ask, why install XP and go through all that trouble to turn it right back into Windows 2000 again, unless it is for an old DOS program that needs better compatibility, or oddball hardware support (my HP Scanjet 3300C works better in WinXP than it does in Win2k, though it doesn't work very well overall in either)?

 

[Fox2k]

so after doing all of those things, you're left with windows 2000.

Why not just install 2k in the first place


sorry, just noticed the dude above me said the same thing

 

[Jeff7181]

Direct X support would be one reason... security would be another reason... stability would be another... simplicity of setting up a network would be another reason. And those settings don't make WinXP just like Win2k... they're XP tweaks... to make it more efficient. Gotta tweak 2k and 9x too. If he's gonna buy a new OS... why buy an old version that doesn't support as many things as a newer version? You pay about the same price too... people get so hopped up about Windows XP being bad... god forbid they require you to register the software so you can't steal it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro MS... I'd rather be using Linux... but as many things that Linux is ahead of Windows in, it falls short in one of the most important areas... ease of use. People are saying RedHat 8.0 could be a Windows killer... not likely. Linux is already preferred over Windows in server apps... but as far as clients go, companies can't devote the time and money to teach people to use a new OS... so for Linux to displace Windows on client PC's, they've got a long way to come as far as ease of use, hardware compatability, and software support.
But back to the topic... one last thing... why buy an outdated product for the same price as a new product?

 

[Booter]

I'm with Jeff7181 on this one.

IMO, xp is arguably the best desktop OS MS has released so far.

Here is a short rundown of the improvements over 2k.

Improved Kernel, Larger Device Drivers and System Space, Registry Limits Increased, Larger Minimum Memory Size for Large Pages, More Efficient Trimming of the Working Set, Faster System and Application Startup, Faster Hibernate and Resume, Faster Logon, Prefetch, Push Locks, Reduced Lock Contention, Registry improvements, Beefed-up I/O subsystem, New memory management features.

Bottomline Xp is to 2k what win98 was compared to win95.
In other words, XP is slightly "better".

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Booter
I'm with Jeff7181 on this one.

IMO, xp is arguably the best desktop OS MS has released so far.

Here is a short rundown of the improvements over 2k.

Improved Kernel, Larger Device Drivers and System Space, Registry Limits Increased, Larger Minimum Memory Size for Large Pages, More Efficient Trimming of the Working Set, Faster System and Application Startup, Faster Hibernate and Resume, Faster Logon, Prefetch, Push Locks, Reduced Lock Contention, Registry improvements, Beefed-up I/O subsystem, New memory management features.

Bottomline Xp is to 2k what win98 was compared to win95.
In other words, XP is slightly "better".

One thing that I've never heard of being resolved was Windows XP's extremely low SCSI write performance. I thought it was supposed to be fixed in SP1, but then I've heard that SP1 does not fix the issue after all. Any verified comments on that?

 

[Fox2k]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Direct X support would be one reason... security would be another reason... stability would be another... simplicity of setting up a network would be another reason. And those settings don't make WinXP just like Win2k... they're XP tweaks... to make it more efficient. Gotta tweak 2k and 9x too. If he's gonna buy a new OS... why buy an old version that doesn't support as many things as a newer version? You pay about the same price too... people get so hopped up about Windows XP being bad... god forbid they require you to register the software so you can't steal it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro MS... I'd rather be using Linux... but as many things that Linux is ahead of Windows in, it falls short in one of the most important areas... ease of use. People are saying RedHat 8.0 could be a Windows killer... not likely. Linux is already preferred over Windows in server apps... but as far as clients go, companies can't devote the time and money to teach people to use a new OS... so for Linux to displace Windows on client PC's, they've got a long way to come as far as ease of use, hardware compatability, and software support.
But back to the topic... one last thing... why buy an outdated product for the same price as a new product?

hmm, I have to disagree with some of the points you've made
directx - I'm running directx 8.1 right now, no problems at all. Security, well..not only are all security options disabled by default, but when you do activate the nice security features it does have, these are outweighed by bugs and loopholes created by MS's rush to launch the OS. Stability, I dont know about this one..I've crashed my win2k box about 5 times in the past year. Windows XP wasnt nearly as stable when I was running it, and some close frineds of mine are going back to 2k for this very reason. networking, I think they're about equal, unless you're talking about the XP networking wizard. oh god..wizards..dont get me started on those. I tried to locate a file i misplaced once..I was greeted by the "Find a File Wizard". Find a file wizard for gods sake! A two year old's intelligence would be insulted by being offered to use a wizard to find a file on his hard drive.

:/

 

[Booter]

Originally posted by: Booter
I'm with Jeff7181 on this one.

IMO, xp is arguably the best desktop OS MS has released so far.

Here is a short rundown of the improvements over 2k.

Improved Kernel, Larger Device Drivers and System Space, Registry Limits Increased, Larger Minimum Memory Size for Large Pages, More Efficient Trimming of the Working Set, Faster System and Application Startup, Faster Hibernate and Resume, Faster Logon, Prefetch, Push Locks, Reduced Lock Contention, Registry improvements, Beefed-up I/O subsystem, New memory management features.

Bottomline Xp is to 2k what win98 was compared to win95.
In other words, XP is slightly "better".

Originally posted by: jliechty
One thing that I've never heard of being resolved was Windows XP's extremely low SCSI write performance. I thought it was supposed to be fixed in SP1, but then I've heard that SP1 does not fix the issue after all. Any verified comments on that?

Never heard of any SCSI problem with XP..any links to confirm/verify that? Perhaps some early scsi controllers needed updated drivers for xp?

One intresting thing to see would be a generall test measuring read and write performance XP vs. 2k I think that XP would be faster both with IDE and SCSI drives. Anyone knowes if there is such a test?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Booter

Originally posted by: Booter
I'm with Jeff7181 on this one.

IMO, xp is arguably the best desktop OS MS has released so far.

Here is a short rundown of the improvements over 2k.

Improved Kernel, Larger Device Drivers and System Space, Registry Limits Increased, Larger Minimum Memory Size for Large Pages, More Efficient Trimming of the Working Set, Faster System and Application Startup, Faster Hibernate and Resume, Faster Logon, Prefetch, Push Locks, Reduced Lock Contention, Registry improvements, Beefed-up I/O subsystem, New memory management features.

Bottomline Xp is to 2k what win98 was compared to win95.
In other words, XP is slightly "better".

Originally posted by: jliechty
One thing that I've never heard of being resolved was Windows XP's extremely low SCSI write performance. I thought it was supposed to be fixed in SP1, but then I've heard that SP1 does not fix the issue after all. Any verified comments on that?

Never heard of any SCSI problem with XP..any links to confirm/verify that? Perhaps some early scsi controllers needed updated drivers for xp?

One intresting thing to see would be a generall test measuring read and write performance XP vs. 2k I think that XP would be faster both with IDE and SCSI drives. Anyone knowes if there is such a test?

Crap, I guess I was wrong.

Back in the day when I read about all the XP SCSI performance "problems," no one really understood why there was a problem, and no one understood that it was a benchmarking anomality, not a real problem. But here is a thread at StorageReview that explains the supposed XP SCSI performance "problem." Use this as debate material if anyone else brings it up in the future.