Xp or 2k??

GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 LifeAkron, PA Icrontian
edited November 2005 in Science & Tech
I am trying to decided what to use Xp or 2k. My pc folds 24/7 and mostly i use it for browsing Sm and maybe an occasional game 1 or 2 times a week. What would be the best OS to use?? 2k with which servicepack? or Xp w/ sp1? I mostly do my business billing and live on SM .

specs are .

2800+ at 3200+ ( going higher when my slk900 comes in )
Abit nf7-s
1gig of geil 3200+ ultra ram
9700 pro
dvd-r burner
52x lite-on burner
80 gig WD SE HD
60 maxtor



thats the basics and shoot some ideas at me!
«1

Comments

  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    I like XP... more stable.
  • GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 Life Akron, PA Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    would folding benift from one then the other? maybe xp or 2k since one might use less cpu cycles then the other?
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    2000 is atleast 700 points faster in 3dmark than XP is.

    Stability is subjective, therefore shouldn't be a determining factor.

    I say 2000. I would use 2000 if I were not hell-bent on wireless security. XP <b>will</b> stifle and impact your performance.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    I determine it only from a ton of experience ;)

    I won't rolleyes at you today :D
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited October 2003
    XP, no question with that system spec.
  • SputnikSputnik Worcester, MA
    edited October 2003
    2000s a little less friendly, XP very friendly to the point that a dog can get a little too 'friendly'

    I used to be all for 2000, but since in went to XP, can't go back
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    I ran XP for a year after I moved away from Win98. Tried 2000 one day on DJ-Quack's suggestion, now I can't stand XP. I'm going back to 2000 this weekend. Screw TKIP.
  • pseudonympseudonym Michigan Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    I run 2000 on all my computers. I'm not too big of a fan of XP, but I haven't used it enough to really know much about it. It is nicer for wireless though.
  • croc_croc_ New
    edited October 2003
    You hate XP about as much as I hate the person who suggested you use 2k.
  • ClutchClutch North Carolina New
    edited October 2003
    I love both OS, as far as stability issue...none has come up on either my 2k systems or xp systems. I mean they are rock solid OS's none the less. I like 2k because of it's old fashion windows feel, and xp because it is very user friendly to someone who does not know a lot about computers. I would go with 2k myself, I just love the damn thing.

    The only reason Im running XP pro on my main computer is because I actually paid for it :)
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    croc_ had this to say
    You hate XP about as much as I hate the person who suggested you use 2k.

    You're suggesting you hate me, hmm?
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited October 2003
    Thrax had this to say
    I ran XP for a year after I moved away from Win98. Tried 2000 one day on DJ-Quack's suggestion, now I can't stand XP. I'm going back to 2000 this weekend. Screw TKIP.

    Well you've never really been one to go with the flow have you?

    But yea, nothing wrong with 2000, a little less fluff, a bit more gruff. I ran 2000 for a good year before XP came out, it was either that or ME! bleh. However the problem with 2000 is this:

    1) Compatability sucks in comparison to XP (i.e Games and stuff)
    2) It takes over three days to load.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    No i think he means quack.....
  • DogSoldierDogSoldier The heart of radical Amish country..
    edited October 2003
    Win95b with all the service paks
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Good point. I got my contexts mixed up. :tongue: Oops.
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Xp is in no way more stable than 2000. You cannot say which is more faster.

    I would probably go with XP though, if folding is not the only thing you'll be doing. By default it is slower than 2000, but it has the good ability to make it "seem" faster.

    IE: Bootup time for XP is not actually much faster than Windows 2000, it makes you think it is faster by allowing you to "do stuff" while it continues to load in the background. Windows ME did this same thing. Basically, it gives you the Desktop before it is actually done, which is ****ty if you ask me.

    I love my Windows 2000, it does everything I need it to do and then some. Anything you can do in XP you can do in Windows 2000. XP makes it simpler or quicker(less clicks or typing). Anyone with computer knowledge knows that this is simply adding more content, which means it is more bloated, more stuff to cache, and remember.
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited October 2003
    Gnomewizardd had this to say
    specs are .

    2800+ at 3200+ ( going higher when my slk900 comes in )
    Abit nf7-s
    1gig of geil 3200+ ultra ram
    9700 pro
    dvd-r burner
    52x lite-on burner
    80 gig WD SE HD
    60 maxtor

    Yeah, but with one GIG of RAM, the bloat factor kinda becomes moot.
  • GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 Life Akron, PA Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    i wanna know will i fold even a smidgion faster in 2k?? its all about points baby!
  • pseudonympseudonym Michigan Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Spinner had this to say
    But yea, nothing wrong with 2000, a little less fluff, a bit more gruff. I ran 2000 for a good year before XP came out, it was either that or ME! bleh. However the problem with 2000 is this:

    1) Compatability sucks in comparison to XP (i.e Games and stuff)
    2) It takes over three days to load. [/B]

    I play a ton of crap as it comes out, and I haven't had a single gaming problem on any of my computers compatibility wise (w/ 2000). I'm anal retentive about updating everything to the latest though.
  • muddocktormuddocktor
    edited October 2003
    I use both OS's and for overall friendliness, XP nudges out 2K by a hair. Both are stable and XP is based on 2K code, with a bunch of bloat thrown in, IMO. You can go through XP and turn off all the namby-pamby BS though and make it run like 2K though.:D

    BTW, right before XP was released and SP2 was the latest and greatest for 2K, M$ was enabling compatibiltiy mode operation on 2K. I still have 2 rigs that will run in Win98/Win95/WINNT 4 SP5 compatibility mode and it works. If someone can point me to the right part of the registry that enables this, I can export those settings for peeps to try on their own 2K setups.
  • madmatmadmat
    edited October 2003
    Xp is a memory hog to the extreme and oddly enough if you throw more memory at it it will configure itself to use even more.
    If you turn off all the bells and whistles it has close to the same memory footprint as 2000 and can even be made to look like it if you're into that sort of thing.
    I personally like the bells and whistles and as I run a gig of ram I'm not too worried about the ram it uses.
    I liked 2000 when I ran it but it's a good one to really confuzzle a noob with.
    Stability for both should be close to the same considering that XP is built on the same kernel as 2000 and is basically 2000 with a snazzy GUI and system restore.
  • muddocktormuddocktor
    edited October 2003
    Here is a pic of my sat gateway rig showing that it can run in compatibility mode just like XP:
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited October 2003
    Pseudonym had this to say


    I play a ton of crap as it comes out, and I haven't had a single gaming problem on any of my computers compatibility wise (w/ 2000). I'm anal retentive about updating everything to the latest though.

    Yeah, I mean, I'm sure 2000 is a lot better now for games and what not, especially because developers will now be a bit more accomodating towards the ageing business OS, but when I was using it, which I guess was around SP1 to SP2 time, compatability still sucked the big one. But I have no doubt it is a lot better now.

    However like folk have said, you can turn all the fluff off in XP, to make it run just like 2000, so I see no reason to go with 2000 over XP, not because 2000 is bad, just because XP is 2000, with the optional fluff.
  • muddocktormuddocktor
    edited October 2003
    Spinner had this to say


    Yeah, I mean, I'm sure 2000 is a lot better now for games and what not, especially because developers will now be a bit more accomodating towards the ageing business OS, but when I was using it, which I guess was around SP1 to SP2 time, compatability still sucked the big one. But I have no doubt it is a lot better now.

    However like folk have said, you can turn all the fluff off in XP, to make it run just like 2000, so I see no reason to go with 2000 over XP, not because 2000 is bad, just because XP is 2000, with the optional fluff.

    True, true, but for a dedicated folding rig I much prefer 2k as it's footprint is smaller both on the hard drive and memory requirements. But there's nothing wrong with XP besides product activation.

    :rolleyes2
  • croc_croc_ New
    edited October 2003
    no Thrax, I <3 u *wink wink*. Prime was right.

    I recently re-installed xp after a bad copy of norton 04 fuxxord my win2k installation. couldn't find the 2k cd, so I put xp back in. One thing I like about XP is the imbedded picture viewer, makes reading translated manga scans easier with the back/forward button. I'm sure u can get something similar on 2k, but I'm lazy. Other than that, I don't really notice much difference in performance of games and apps. Slightly different start menu, visuals are the same cause I turn all that flashy stuff off. Hardware compatability (for the hardware I have) is fine on both.

    I would have to go with ..... your own personal preference.
  • csimoncsimon Acadiana Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Gnomewizardd had this to say
    i wanna know will i fold even a smidgion faster in 2k?? its all about points baby!
    it is completely relative to the services running ...neither will fold faster than the either! lol

    folding is all about cpu cycles ...so just make sure that when you're ready to fold on whichever os you choose that you terminate any unecessary cycles. MHO
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited October 2003
    muddocktor had this to say
    But there's nothing wrong with XP besides product activation.
    :rolleyes2

    I was just waiting for someone to play the 'Product Activation' card, he he.;)
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    A tweaked 2K system is one hell of a lot faster than a tweaked XP system.

    However, as a MEDIA system, XP is preferred. 2K is MUCH more stable than XP though, 2K allows much more mhz to be used before crashing. I use both, but on separate harddrives.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    With my offices' 2K Pro boxes - Gateways, Dells, IBMs - I've had problems with all of them in multi-tasking. They just don't like it much. I think that problem though, is due to inadequate RAM. Yup, they are corporate mass-order wonders. (Pathetic)
  • Venz-DirgeVenz-Dirge Silicon Valley
    edited November 2005
    I preffer the feel of 2k.

    XP is ugly to me, but I have run into (recently) a couple issues with applications not likeing 2k so much.


    After a bit of playing with settings I can get XP to almost look like 2k, but any new systems I build will be running Xp..

    :rolleyes: clear enough for ya?
Sign In or Register to comment.