Switching to Windows 2000

Messiah89 · July 17th, 2004, 10:02 PM

Heya guys,
I'm using Windows XP Home Edition right now, and have had it installed on this computer since July 10th, 2003. I'm wanting to reformat, but I was also deciding if I want to keep Windows XP.

I like the classic features/view of 2000, I need rock-solid stability, need good stable Internet access to connect to my router, (DHCP), and will also be doing a lot of gaming. I also work on websites and do a lot of image work and use FTP quite frequently.

Do you think I should stick with Windows XP, or roll back to 2000.

Here's my full system specs:

AMD Athlon XP 2400+
ECS L7S7A2 266FSB Motheboard
512MB PC2700 DDR RAM
120GB 7200RPM 8MB Cache Hard Drive
52x/32x/52x CD-RW Drive
eVGA GeForce 4 Ti 4200 64MB w/ AGP 8x

Thanks in advance!

Also, can Windows 2000 share files with Windows XP through LAN, and are any limitations in that area?

jmichna · July 17th, 2004, 10:40 PM

I've used both W2K Pro and XP Pro. I've had no stability problems with either, and I've even come across a few instances where XP could run install and games that didn't work with W2K. Also, it seems that XP has more extensive hardware compatability (especially gaming peripherals).

Unless you've had problems with XP, why roll back? You can turn off nearly all the eye candy and even make XP have the look and feel of W2K.

You'll have no problems sharing files through LAN, since the protocol (netBUI, or TCP/IP) are independent of the OS. I've had W2K, XP, WMe and W98se all talking to each other and sharing files.

Messiah89 · July 17th, 2004, 10:46 PM

Thanks.

PresterJohn · July 17th, 2004, 10:51 PM

you're going to hear from all the XP users i'm sure, but i can tell you i run win2000 on my mission critical machines. all this even though i have access to a xp corporate license from work. i do keep a couple of xp test machines around, but my preferred choice is still win2000.

i could care less about themes and all the other eye candy that XP has. if i really wanted to change the XP interface, i'd use a replacement shell...not some lame themes.

yes, you can turn off all the eye candy but i still think win2000 runs a tad faster over a tweaked XP one - w2k still has a smaller memory footprint. one potential problem which XP faces is the upcoming SP2. early looks say it has a lot of bloated crap in it and it will make your machine slower and even though you can argue that you can skip sp2...you won't be able to long term, because subsequent service packs will only build on sp2.

the only issue for you is you said you game. generally, xp will be at least as compatible as win2000 and then some.

John Prophet · July 17th, 2004, 11:03 PM

personally Id stay with xp...unless there is something SPECIFIC that w2k has that XP doesnt..for instance win2k does have more control over the user accounts/permissions that XP home.

jmichna · July 17th, 2004, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PresterJohn

... one potential problem which XP faces is the upcoming SP2. early looks say it has a lot of bloated crap in it and it will make your machine slower and even though you can argue that you can skip sp2...you won't be able to long term, because subsequent service packs will only build on sp2....

I'm running the latest RC of SP2 on one machine (my main box at home), and have had no problems. I did turn off some of the "featrures" that SP2 enables as default (Win update, the XP firewall are examples), and the SP2 Windows Update web interface is a bit nicer than the original. I haven't seen any effect, positive or negative, regarding performance pre- and post-SP2. My benchmarks stayed the same.

SP2 was a massive download, around 100mb as I recall.

For a business machine (server or program development) I'd stay with W2K, as PresterJohn suggests, but for a home box I think you pick which one you like better... for a gamer, I think XP is the way to go.