OS opinions

[Nija]

I'm building a system. It's going to based around a XP2100+, and a nForce2 Deluxe motherboard. I'm gonna pick up some nice DDR RAM (Not sure of brands or speed but at least pc2100)

I want stability, and compatability.

I was thinking either Win2k Pro, or Win XP Pro. I was leaning towards 2k Pro, because, well, it's not ugly like XP. I like to leave a lot of programs running for long periods of time, with minimal rebooting, and as little time as possible.

I would also like to game.

So... based on your experiences, what Operating Systems do You recommend?

Thanks :)

[i6s1]

Go with XP, you can make it so it's not ugly and looks like 2K. Its got a lot more features, and they are features that are actually useful.

[Jihforce]

I would go with Win2k Pro because its just as stable and less of a memory hog, which allows for faster, smoother gameplay.
I have 3 desktops and 1 laptop right now and 3 of them have 2k Pro, while the laptop has xp (because it came with it and its also in chinese, so I won't uninstall it since I don't have 2k in chinese).
You can make XP look like Win2k Pro but it won't perform like Win2k pro.
I leave tons of programs open and i have had no problems on my machine. I game with it, do heaving design on it, I run a file, mail and ftp server on it and I haven't had to reboot in weeks (unless I install a security patch or update from MS).

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Jihforce

You can make XP look like Win2k Pro but it won't perform like Win2k pro.

I am still waiting for this phantom benchmark all the 2k supporters seem to have read which proves 2k beats out XP hands down. :rolleyes:

I'd say go with XP, its more compatable by a lot, there is little or no preformance difference AND USB 2.0 support which you will have 6 ports of on your shiny new mobo. I assume if you spend $150 on 6 usb 2.0 ports you want to use it...

[Nija]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

I'd say go with XP, its more compatable by a lot, there is little or no preformance difference AND USB 2.0 support which you will have 6 ports of on your shiny new mobo. I assume if you spend $150 on 6 usb 2.0 ports you want to use it...

I didn't know that 2kpro didn't support USB 2.0, crap.

Yeah, since i'm spending all this cash on this motherboard, I want to take advantage of all of the niceities (minus SATA for now... get the speeds up, and I'll swap over) like USB 2.0 and FireWire.

Anymore opinions?

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


I am still waiting for this phantom benchmark all the 2k supporters seem to have read which proves 2k beats out XP hands down. :rolleyes:


The best way to find out what is best for yourself is to go and install the OS and run your favorite apps in it. If you feel that the performance is what you expected, then by all means, keep it. I installed XP on one of my desktops and it performed slower on some games I had and Photoshop and Illustrator. I don't need a benchmark to tell me whether my computer is faster on XP or 2k.
I'm still waiting for you to prove me otherwise. :rolleyes:

In any case, if you wanna use the latest features, yeah, I would go with XP. Since its newer, you'll probably have better support and drivers for it.

[OC]

In my experience, saying that XP or 2k is better in (insert task or function here) is a waste of time. We all have different computers with wildly differing configurations. I've seen both OSes perform wonderfully on some computers - never hanging or generating errors - and I've also seen both perform horribly. There is no black or white as to which is better. It comes to down how clean the entire OS and software base is, and the stability of the hardware.

So many things go into the performance and stability of a computer that even published benchmarks are only a vague guideline at best. I've done a little A/B testing of 2k and XP in identical hardware environments, and my experience leads me to believe that XP would have a slight edge in overall performance compared to 2k. Faster boot times, better memory management (less swap file use), etc. Granted, my testing was done with little else besides the OS and Office 2k installed, but even a fully configured box of mine is pretty clean, so I tend to think that XP would keep its edge over 2k. As a personal preference, I also like the GUI enhancements that XP offers over 2k. No, not the candy interface - I always switch it back to Classic.

OK, now I'm rambling. If you like 2k, go with 2k. If you like XP, go with XP. If you have good hardware and don't clutter your box up with viruses like AOL ;) either will work fine.

-OC

[sachin tendulkar]

xp = more compatibilty which means xp = :thumbup:

I dont know if they have this 2k but in xp, u plug in a usb device or install a new hard drive and most times u dont need to install a driver for it. xp automatically does it for you. I like this feature.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Jihforce
The best way to find out what is best for yourself is to go and install the OS and run your favorite apps in it. If you feel that the performance is what you expected, then by all means, keep it. I installed XP on one of my desktops and it performed slower on some games I had and Photoshop and Illustrator. I don't need a benchmark to tell me whether my computer is faster on XP or 2k.
I'm still waiting for you to prove me otherwise. :rolleyes:


Like I said, there is no proof that 2k is faster than XP. For every person who like you says 2k is faster I could find just as many that say XP is faster, so opinion is largely irrelevant. Being that I have the motherboard in question I can definitly say that it runs fine in an XP environment.

[Tommy Boomfiger]

Originally posted by overclocked
...viruses like AOL ;):stupid: aol is a virus

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Like I said, there is no proof that 2k is faster than XP. For every person who like you says 2k is faster I could find just as many that say XP is faster, so opinion is largely irrelevant. Being that I have the motherboard in question I can definitly say that it runs fine in an XP environment.

Nor there's proof that XP is faster than 2k. I don't understand you man. You talk smack about me not being able to back it up, yet you can't either. Why not just state your own preference and shut up? Wouldnt that be easier?

[Cantacuzene]

NEVER once. NOT ONCE did I say that XP was faster than 2k. I want you to find in thsi thread where I said it was faster. Please do that and show everyone how right you are. YOU were the only person in the whole thread who made any sort of statement abotu which one was faster. I never said XP was faster, nor do I claim it is, unlike you, who claims 2k is faster. I'll accept your apology whenever you get a chance to reply.

[revil]

personally, with a setup like that I would dual boot with os/2 Warp and beOS. definitly. Nothing beats that setup.

[rajatQ2]

XP is supposed to be a refined version of 2k, since it is its successor. However, in order to get XP to be a real speed demon you have to disable half of the features that XP uses to pretty itself up.

I dislike XP solely for the reason that it has so many background services running. Its always got my computer trying to do something. Its probably bill gates' distributed neural net that keeps generating ideas for how microsoft can take over the world.

Personally, i dont like either of those. I am writing my own operating system right now in pascal. It will be an open source project for those interested and will be a true SPEED DEMON

[Apex]

I've used both extensively and now use XP Pro. I've had no problems with the stability, and everything seems fast. Mine boots in under 13 seconds now, and uses 57mb of memory (minus the 4mb from task manager) on boot, with only 13 processes running.

They're both great operating systems, fast, intuitive, stable, and disgustingly easy to use.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by rajatQ2
Personally, i dont like either of those. I am writing my own operating system right now in pascal. It will be an open source project for those interested and will be a true SPEED DEMON

I'm sure it will have fantastic driver support. No offense, but good luck, hope it makes ya famous.

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
NEVER once. NOT ONCE did I say that XP was faster than 2k. I want you to find in thsi thread where I said it was faster. Please do that and show everyone how right you are. YOU were the only person in the whole thread who made any sort of statement abotu which one was faster. I never said XP was faster, nor do I claim it is, unlike you, who claims 2k is faster. I'll accept your apology whenever you get a chance to reply.

Apology? Haahaa. You think too much of yourself.
I never said you where stating that you thought XP was faster. Nor did I say you claimed it to be. All I said was that if you can't prove me otherwise, make your recommendation and SHUT UP. My head is not that far up my ass to admit things that I am wrong about. So, unless I'm proven to be wrong, there isn't going to be an apology.

[Cantacuzene]

Apology? Haahaa. You think too much of yourself.

We shall see...


I never said you where stating that you thought XP was faster. Nor did I say you claimed it to be.


Nor there's proof that XP is faster than 2k. I don't understand you man. You talk smack about me not being able to back it up, yet you can't either.

THis sentence says that you think I said XP was faster. If I never said XP was faster what would I have to "back it up" for?



Win2k Pro because its just as stable and less of a memory hog, which allows for faster, smoother gameplay.

This is a clear claim that 2k is faster and better for gameplay. I never made any comments like this about XP. Since you think 2k is faster, please show us all some benchmarks to prove it.

I never made any such comments, so I have nothing to back up, you did though, so the burden of proof is on you.

[mcs328]

Originally posted by Apex
I've used both extensively and now use XP Pro. I've had no problems with the stability, and everything seems fast. Mine boots in under 13 seconds now, and uses 57mb of memory (minus the 4mb from task manager) on boot, with only 13 processes running.

They're both great operating systems, fast, intuitive, stable, and disgustingly easy to use.

I got a Dell with XP:Home and it boots up in less than 15 seconds. Lauching a program however seems to take it like another 30. Ugh.

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Canta's BS...

Prove me wrong and you'll have your apology, otherwise, shup up.

[Cantacuzene]

I did. You're just tryign to play it off. I think its pretty clear for everyone to see that you were wrong and now you cant admit being wrong because it woudl make you look worse.

[Mpowered]

What’s clear to me is that both of you need to chill. This is pointless.

[Joshua]

Go with XP, if you don't like the Fisher-Price OS look, you can turn it off. Just right click on My Computer, choose properties and go to the performance tab or something.

There are 3 choices. Choose for fastest response and it will strip off all of the fluff.

[smurphy]

Simply setting it to top performance does improve performance but not all the way, XP simply skins the interface to "look" like 2K. So to remove the skins/themes you have to turn them off so go to the control panel, Administration, Services and stop Themes and disable them.

Cheers,
Scott Murphy