Who says it's better? IIRC, there was a comparison on Tom's Hardware a while back that said they're virtually the same for gaming performance.

is it that winxp has better gaming support then?

Windows XP has better compatiblity out of the box than 2000. For legacy games, anyway.

well with my system which would u use?
 
I like xp pro I just feel it bogges down way to easily after you start installing things

I would recommend 2000, but I'm biased.
 

Quote:
(I guess the REAL issue for me @ least, was ability & compatibility... it's just better/stronger outta-the-box in XP vs. 2k WITHOUT fiddling around to make stuff work!)

APK

That's exactly how I feel about 2k. better/stronger outta-the-box WITHOUT fiddling around to make the OS work!

In response to the Topic question. The ONLY difference between 2k vs XP is if gaming is done with JUST the drivers that come with 2K and just the drivers that come with XP. Then you may see XP come ahead. Simply because XP has updated drivers that MS chooses not to update for 2K. But really what gamer uses default Windows drivers?

IIRC, web site benchmarks have shown XP marginally slower than 2K due to the extra junk but there's really nothing to get in a hissy fit about.

Geez people. DUAL-BOOT! It's the best of both worlds. When XP craps out on me (which it does) then I boot into 2K. When 2k craps out (which it does) then I boot into NT4. When NT4 craps out.....uhhh....yeah right. Then I boot into whatever beta OS I currently have loaded. If your a REAL PC gamer then you've gotta dual-boot between 9x and NT anyways so you may as well dual-boot 2K and XP as well.

well if MS does not plan to keep up[censored] win2k, why would I as a home user/gamer want to run win2k pro?

Quote:well if MS does not plan to keep up[censored] win2k, why would I as a home user/gamer want to run win2k pro?

Uhh... Don't plan on up[censored]? According to the product lifecycles, the 2000 family has support from MSFT until 2007, which could be extended as NT was earlier this year.

Personally, I did notice a difference with a system that ran XP and 2k, and XP was noticable faster. Not that much faster, but it was a little smoother. That's just me, it may differ from one person to the next. This was mostly noticeable in UT with an ol Voodoo 3 3000 AGP on a P3 800 box (in some cases there were 2 CPU's---which I couldn't tell a diff with gaming). I'd run the XP beta's, XP final and Win2k SP1 and SP2. UT was noticable probably because I was addicted to that (okay, I still am) and played it the most. I'd almost try it on my file server since it used to be my main box, but it's been so long ago that I used it regularly with Win2k that I don't think I'd be able to tell a difference anymore. Also, I had the CPU overclocked at the time, and it's not now---and it won't be so long as it's any type of server status.