quote:Original post by Sickilla
Win 2k has had a service pack #3 which pretty much makes it aobut as good as xp, and also, at least you can make a backup cd of 2k.

Why can't you back-up the XP CD?

You might want to check for drivers for both 2k & XP for all your hardware prior to installing either - it'd be a real good idea to download them and put them on a CD first.

Whichever you decide (XP!) definetly format the drive - don't do an upgrade.

XP has a backward compatibility mode that is very useful for playing older games (like RollerCoaster Tycoon) that don't run under 2k.



[edited by - Magmai Kai Holmlor on August 14, 2002 9:18:48 PM]

If XP gadgets doesn't impress you, go for 2K. I could run 2K on my classic 486DX2 with 32MB RAM without a hitch! And even smoother than Win98SE.... and comparing my another classic P2-350 with 320MB RAM even choke on XP.

[edited by - DerekSaw on August 14, 2002 11:04:45 PM]

I sometimes XP hangs when burning CDR (with Nero on Lite-On 1201 drive) while my dual-boot Win98SE don't even crashed on writing tens of CDR in one shot. I believe XP hate old mobos.

[edited by - DerekSaw on August 14, 2002 11:08:55 PM]

XP

I''ll give a definitive answer of "It depends." I personally run both. I run 2K on my laptop and XP on my desktop. Please, please don''t buy XP simply because it is the latest version of Windows. That is never a good reason. I think they each have their uses, but it depends on the use. If this computer will be used by multiple people for a home pc, then use XP. If it is a development machine primarily used by you, then I would recommend 2K. The reason is this, I find that XP slows the computer down a little. For a development computer this is not acceptable. Also, in general it is more stable but I have had "quirks" with VS6 general development on XP. Where as on 2K I found it to be a very stable development OS. The multiple user quick switch on XP is very nice, but again not a primary reason to purchase XP over 2K. Unless of course you have multiple people using it, then it is extremely handy to log on without logging someone else out.

One thing to note as far as the differences between the two is a simple version check. Windows 2000 is version 5.0. Windows XP is version 5.1. Kind of interesting isn''t it

Always remember, you''''re unique. Just like everyone else.

if you have an option, run dual boot with linux or use linux and OpenGL with ANSI C, that will make your code very portable (between Windows and Linux)

as to the 30 new command line programs, maybe mate, but linux had them first, and FAR ealier than any windows disto.

XP has alot of backward support, and windows was messy to start with, so you ended up with 7mil lines in XP, i believe that is what is taking up all the ram ..

i got my red hat 6.0 disto to boot on a P66 with 32MB of SD33, it took like 20 mins, but i havnt turn the computer off or restarted is for like 4 months now ...

i dunno if you can do that with windows ?
if you dont have the option, use 2k, its whey less bloated
as some1 said earlier:
W2k + Bloat = WinXP;

thats my opinion, peace out !

[edited by - silvermace on August 14, 2002 11:41:38 PM]