What advantages does Win2k sp4 offer over WinXP sp2 or Sp1?
Thanks
Thanks
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Of the top of my head;
Smaller installation footprint and can run with lower spec hardware
IMO, a tendency to run a little bit faster than XP (not including booting up/shutting down)
Less baggage; ie, no themes, no dumbed down wizards etc..
And it just feels (again IMO) a little more solid than XP.
Lastly, no Bliss wallpaper
If course, I've not listed any disadvantages of Windows 2000 (not that there are many). But given the choice, I'd still choose XP over 2000 nowadays.
Smaller installation footprint and can run with lower spec hardware
IMO, a tendency to run a little bit faster than XP (not including booting up/shutting down)
Less baggage; ie, no themes, no dumbed down wizards etc..
And it just feels (again IMO) a little more solid than XP.
Lastly, no Bliss wallpaper
If course, I've not listed any disadvantages of Windows 2000 (not that there are many). But given the choice, I'd still choose XP over 2000 nowadays.
2000 has a few (well... two that I can think of) disadvantages:
Less mutimedia support
No whizzy memory process stuff thats in XP SP2
Other than that... well not much I guess.
I would suppose it all comes down to your ability to tune, configure and tweak the install for the hardware that you have.
I'm surpirsed this thread hasn't errupted into a rather large arguement!
I use both OSs (one at work, one at home) and the speed is roughly the same (apart from -as mentioned- the startup and shutdown processes). I think nowadays that if your hardware is fairly good, you can run the OS at it's theorical maximum speed. What I mean is, browse around and change some settings here and there etc.
Of course this changes when we start to launch applications. Here is where you could argue one OS is faster than the other however that would be down to hardware. Of course faster hardware, faster experience.
Now I have confused myself so I'm going away LOL
Less mutimedia support
No whizzy memory process stuff thats in XP SP2
Other than that... well not much I guess.
I would suppose it all comes down to your ability to tune, configure and tweak the install for the hardware that you have.
I'm surpirsed this thread hasn't errupted into a rather large arguement!
I use both OSs (one at work, one at home) and the speed is roughly the same (apart from -as mentioned- the startup and shutdown processes). I think nowadays that if your hardware is fairly good, you can run the OS at it's theorical maximum speed. What I mean is, browse around and change some settings here and there etc.
Of course this changes when we start to launch applications. Here is where you could argue one OS is faster than the other however that would be down to hardware. Of course faster hardware, faster experience.
Now I have confused myself so I'm going away LOL
I have the same exact rig as you for the most part. 6800 gt athlon 2600+ dual chan 1 gig ram. I tested 2000 vs xp when xp was on SP1 on quake 3 giants ut2003 on my old comp. Win2k had better fps on both of these games.. I have seen people having problems with windows xp for certain stability issues. I have not recently tesed 2000 vs xp on my new system. I would assume xp is still shit, it sorta seems like a newb os. But i would like to see benchmarks on a site or something cuz whenever i ask people what is better they say that xp is because its newer. When i tested them head to head awhile back 2000 won, so unless sp2 brought it up in the fps department than 2000 is a better os for gaming and stability.
