Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

d000hg

Should I get XP or 2000?

Recommended Posts

I currently have WinME, but want to get VC++.NET which needs the NT core. So I have two choices. My system is 750MHz with 128Mb. The things I consider important: 1)cost - I am a student can I get cheap versions (UK)? I heard XP youhad to keep paying monthly? 2)Resource hogging. 3)Capturing errors - I want something that will catch as many errors as possible (memory leaks primarily). 4)Good DX support - does 2000 have DX 8.1 and will future DX and video drivers have a version for 2000 - does it use the 9X or XP drivers?
Read about my game, project #1 NEW (13th August): A new screenshot is up, plus diaries for week #3
John 3:16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buy another 128MB RAM & XP
No sense in buying 2000 when XP is already out - there''s no monthly fee. W2k is based on the NT core, it uses W2k drivers.

With Windows NT, you can never have too much RAM - well, no sense buying more than 3GB - but buy more if you afford it.

Some games don''t run well with less than 512 (like EverQuest), and VS.Net eats up about 80MB on a moderate sized project.

Dx8 & Dx8.1 support is good on both 2k & XP, I imagine 9 will work on 2k as well. Probably not Dx10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by d000hg
My system is 750MHz with 128Mb.


You want a least 256mb to run XP.

quote:
Original post by d000hg
1)cost - I am a student can I get cheap versions (UK)? I heard XP youhad to keep paying monthly?


No, you don''t pay for XP monthly. If you are enrolled in a college or university you may get some sort of discount /?free? on 2000, XP or both.

quote:
Original post by d000hg
2)Resource hogging.


Yes, XP uses more resources than 2000, but you can reduce the difference by turning off the Mac''esque eye candy garbage.

quote:
Original post by d000hg
3)Capturing errors - I want something that will catch as many errors as possible (memory leaks primarily).


Same kernal, they will mostly capture the same number of errors though XP might have one or two things added.

quote:
Original post by d000hg
4)Good DX support - does 2000 have DX 8.1 and will future DX and video drivers have a version for 2000 - does it use the 9X or XP drivers?


Both support 8.1. When DX9 comes out it will likely be either the same driver for 2000 and XP (with a seperate driver for 98/ME) or a 2 different service packs. Microsoft is no going to drop support for 2000 for some time (likely 5 years before they phase it out).


If you get a memory upgrade XP is likely what you want (unless you are choosing between XP Home and 2000 Pro, which is debateble). Its basically Windows 2000 with added features (there are already apps which are XP only because they need those features).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to use the PC to play games, you''ll run into more issues with 2K than XP. GTA3 BSOD''s my 750Mhz Duron computer after about 10 minutes.

I also have a P200 running 2K with 96MB of ram.

I have a Windows 98 upgrade CD so I''m able to clean install the much cheaper upgrade edition of Win2K Pro. The Windows ME upgrade CD wasn''t recogized by the Win2K installer.

I don''t have even an upgrade CD of XP to see what older upgrade edition will work to get it installed. WinME may work for it.

You''ll also have to consider cost in those terms as well.

Ben


IcarusIndie.com [ The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | DevZone | Gang Wars | The Wall | Hosting | Dot Com | GameShot ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Michalson
Its basically Windows 2000 with added features (there are already apps which are XP only because they need those features).


Win2K + bloat = WinXP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by core
[quote]Original post by Michalson
Its basically Windows 2000 with added features (there are already apps which are XP only because they need those features).


Win2K + bloat = WinXP


Actually, I think that XP is much, much more usable than Win2k. The memory hit is the only problem - 256mb runs ok, but it isn''t exactly Morris Green - but as RAM is so cheap these days I don''t suppose anyone cares anymore!

The `bloat'' I cannot see personally. Just switch off the desktop skinning and your back in Windows 2000 with some extra *very useful* features (the task windows in explorer etc. for example - which are a real innovation).

Anyway, I can honestly say that I find XP to be an excellent OS - even though many people knock M$ - XP is just about the most stable, usable OS available on any pc platform today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find win2k and xp to run about the same number of applications/games. Both can be a bear when you don''t have plenty of ram. If you want a possible performance boost in games despite the risk of your drivers being funny at times, use XP. It has been my experience that 2k has more stable drivers released for it, especially when you have older hardware that was made before xp came out.

Now though, I don''t really know if this can apply, xp has been around long enough for drivers to have been made properly.

Freeware development:
http://www.ruinedsoft.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, so I should have more RAM. The thing is I don''t want to make my system any more powerful than needed - the more powerful my PC, the more power I waste and my game should not need lots of resources. I want to ensure it''ll run on a 64/128Mb system. Though what Win9X specced pc would be equivalent to a 750MHz, 256Mb with winXP?

I''d not considered the upgrade thing, is that much cheaper bearing in mind student discounts? Also I should really clean-format my PC first as ME has screwed it-can you do that with the upgrade version? Only thing is, I tried XP once but my modem stopped working and my DVD software & XP couldn''t play DVDs (sure it''s meant to?)



Read about my game, project #1
NEW (13th August): A new screenshot is up, plus diaries for week #3


John 3:16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems like my computer is similar to yours d000hg. I had a Win98 800mhz Athlon with 128MB. I upgraded to XP yesterday and bought myself an extra stick of RAM to boost myself to 256MB. So far, out of maybe 8 hours of running it I haven''t had problems. When I checked the compatability of my computer is said that I would need new drivers for my 56k, but since I dont use it I can always get them when/if I ever need them.

I''m satisfied with it so far (plus it gives me all these extra toys )



The hackers must have gotten into the system through the hyperlink!!

Invader''s Realm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
There''s nothing that XP has which justifies going for it. Unless you''re the eye candy sucker, it doens''t have anything important over 2000 besides features which results in more bugs of course. But theses features are useless anyways

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by KalvinB
If you want to use the PC to play games, you''ll run into more issues with 2K than XP. GTA3 BSOD''s my 750Mhz Duron computer after about 10 minutes.



I''ve played GTA3 on my machine for hours at a time, and it has never crashed (Win2K Server). Also, no problems with Neverwinter Nights(it requires a service pack, though) and Warcraft III.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some thoughts about the Windows 2000 vs Windows XP issue:

XP appears to be more sensitive about what hardware you have, probably due to driver issues. Windows XP was significantly slower than Win2k for me (2xP3 450 MHz, 512 MB RAM) even though I disabled all the "eye candy", but there are people with similar specs that report no or little difference.

I tried Windows XP for a couple of weeks before going back to Windows 2000. XP was slower, and did not offer any new features that were useful to me (XP users, please tell me what new features you find useful). It did offer lots of small annoying "interface improvements" that you could disable in most cases. I''m not very fond of this whole activation deal, either.

My Windows 2000 system has been very reliable (I''ve had two or three BSOD''s since 1999), and the DirectX/game support is NOT an issue. Sure, there were problems the first couple of years after Win2k was released, but not anymore.

If you''re currently running Windows ME (!), either XP or 2000 will be a major upgrade. 128 MB is just barely enough for 2000; if you go for XP you''ll have to buy more RAM. I''d recommend at least 256 MB for either one if you can afford it, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Magmai Kai Holmlor
Dx8 & Dx8.1 support is good on both 2k & XP, I imagine 9 will work on 2k as well. Probably not Dx10.


DirectX 10 should be released next year, right? Why do you think Windows 2000 support would be dropped for that release? It seems a bit early, but you never know with Microsoft...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, but "stop selling" is quite different from "stop supporting". Microsoft have abandoned DirectX support for Windows 95, but DirectX 9 will work with Windows 98.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
use linux with VMware.
fast stable,
btw. most of the features of windaz xp were leeched from linux
win xp and 2k (which i am using aside redhat 7.2) are the best of the worst.

win2k is whey more useful for programmers than XP it is far more "advance user" oriented, and i highly recomend it over XP for development anyday. If it works on 2k, then in theroy, it will work on either XP or 98. where as XP can only really allow it to be run on 2k at the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Officially WIndows 2000 will be supporrted till 2005 - dont you guys know anything about the MS retirement schedules for operating systems?


Regards

Thomas Tomiczek
THONA Consulting Ltd.
(Microsoft MVP C#/.NET)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ve been running XP for over a month, no BSOD''s, only a couple crashes which were caused by my own stupidity.
I like my eye candy, StyleXP has a nice shiny skin on it, looks better than a Mac now

Then again, my specs are sweet, with a 2GHz P4 and 512MB RAM. Although my brief experience with it when on a 833 P3 with 256MB RAM was equally awesome.

------------
Where''d the engine go? Where''d it go? Aaaaaah!!
MSN: nmaster42@hotmail.com, AIM: LockePick42, ICQ: 74128155

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by silvermace
win2k is whey more useful for programmers than XP it is far more "advance user" oriented, and i highly recomend it over XP for development anyday.


Interestingly enough, MS added over 30 new command line tools with XP. I''d say those are targeted at "advanced users".
quote:

If it works on 2k, then in theroy, it will work on either XP or 98. where as XP can only really allow it to be run on 2k at the least.


That statement has no basis in reality whatsoever. That it works on Win2K is no more a guarantee that it will work on 98 than if it works on XP.

quote:

There''s nothing that XP has which justifies going for it. Unless you''re the eye candy sucker, it doens''t have anything important over 2000 besides features which results in more bugs of course.


For me personally, Remote Desktop alone was worth the cost of the upgrade. (And no, don''t even mention VNC. Compared to RD it is dirt slow and close to useless)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Michalson
You want a least 256mb to run XP.



My brother had tweaked his version of XP so it only needs about 60 MB of RAM to run. Right now though, currently it is using 94mb with IE running as well as Norton Internet Security and a Virus scanner. Once you remove all the extra stuff XP is only using ~75MB.

Henrym
My Site

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me, the fast user switching feature (basically Remote Desktop on the local PC) is a big advantage. It means I can let my family run with limited permissions (I don''t want them installing stuff on my baby Plus they always end up screwing with my favorites menu and stuff...) without logging myself off or disturbing me at all.

If I had my way, I''d have all of you shot!


codeka.com - Just click it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites