Windows XP versus Windows 2000

I'm getting a new system and need to make a choice regarding the OS. I can
get the new system without an OS and then just transfer my current OS
(Windows 2000) from my temporary computer to the new one. Or for $89, I can
get Windows XP Home Edition already installed to my new PC.

While obviously it will be nice to have the new computer come all set and
ready without me having to install the OS, are there any other advantages of
why I should get Windows XP instead of just contining to use Windows 2000?
What will Windows XP give me that I already don't have with Windows 2000?

On a strongly related point, how do the hardware requirements (RAM, CPU,
etc) differ between the two. Not Microsoft's "minimum" requirements but
real world optimal configuration? I've seen some games surprisingly (to me)
list their recommended requirements as 256MB RAM for Windows 2000 and 512MB
RAM for Windows XP. Is XP a memory hog compared to Windows 2000? Do I need
to get a gig of RAM with XP to be equivalent to 512MB of RAM with Windows
2000? Any other hardware requirements I should know about?

Basically, I'm looking for all the pro's and con's between saving myself $89
and using Windows 2000 versus just finally getting Windows XP. All the
hardware on the system is the latest if that makes a difference for driver
support. Thanks.

Joe

XP has wireless support and built in "firewall." Win2K does not have those.
Two differences that affect me....
J
--
www.pccitizen.com Safe Computing, Home wired and wireless networking tips.

"Joe" <> wrote in message
news:zlDEb.591695$HS4.4349519@attbi_s01...
> I'm getting a new system and need to make a choice regarding the OS. I
can
> get the new system without an OS and then just transfer my current OS
> (Windows 2000) from my temporary computer to the new one. Or for $89, I
can
> get Windows XP Home Edition already installed to my new PC.
>
> While obviously it will be nice to have the new computer come all set and
> ready without me having to install the OS, are there any other advantages
of
> why I should get Windows XP instead of just contining to use Windows 2000?
> What will Windows XP give me that I already don't have with Windows 2000?
>
> On a strongly related point, how do the hardware requirements (RAM, CPU,
> etc) differ between the two. Not Microsoft's "minimum" requirements but
> real world optimal configuration? I've seen some games surprisingly (to
me)
> list their recommended requirements as 256MB RAM for Windows 2000 and
512MB
> RAM for Windows XP. Is XP a memory hog compared to Windows 2000? Do I
need
> to get a gig of RAM with XP to be equivalent to 512MB of RAM with Windows
> 2000? Any other hardware requirements I should know about?
>
> Basically, I'm looking for all the pro's and con's between saving myself
$89
> and using Windows 2000 versus just finally getting Windows XP. All the
> hardware on the system is the latest if that makes a difference for driver
> support. Thanks.
>
>

John Loop

Joe wrote:

> I'm getting a new system and need to make a choice regarding the OS. I can
> get the new system without an OS and then just transfer my current OS
> (Windows 2000) from my temporary computer to the new one. Or for $89, I can
> get Windows XP Home Edition already installed to my new PC.
>
> While obviously it will be nice to have the new computer come all set and
> ready without me having to install the OS, are there any other advantages of
> why I should get Windows XP instead of just contining to use Windows 2000?
> What will Windows XP give me that I already don't have with Windows 2000?

I use both O/S's and personally have yet to find a *compelling* reason
to switch completely away from Windows 2000. It does everything I need
and doesn't have that infuriating Product Activation.

I suppose at some time there will eventually *be* a reason to switch, I
just haven't crossed that line yet.

> On a strongly related point, how do the hardware requirements (RAM, CPU,
> etc) differ between the two. Not Microsoft's "minimum" requirements but
> real world optimal configuration? I've seen some games surprisingly (to me)
> list their recommended requirements as 256MB RAM for Windows 2000 and 512MB
> RAM for Windows XP. Is XP a memory hog compared to Windows 2000? Do I need
> to get a gig of RAM with XP to be equivalent to 512MB of RAM with Windows
> 2000? Any other hardware requirements I should know about?

I have XP Pro running on two machines at home. The family machine
(Celeron 1.1Ghz with 384Meg RAM and 20 Gig HD) runs XP Pro just fine. My
personal machine (Athlon 1.4Ghz, 512Meg RAM, 120Gig HD) is set up to
multiboot between Win ME, Win2K, XP Pro and Linux and runs all of these
O/S's just great.

I would recommend 256MB RAM for any modern O/S. Given the low cost of
RAM, spring for 512MB and be done with it.

> Basically, I'm looking for all the pro's and con's between saving myself $89
> and using Windows 2000 versus just finally getting Windows XP. All the
> hardware on the system is the latest if that makes a difference for driver
> support. Thanks.

Modern hardware should also have drivers for Win2000 as well. You might
have problems getting driver support for Win95/98 though.

Cheers!!

John
--
John Dearing
A+, Network+

John Dearing

Barry Watzman wrote:
> XP is a 3 years later OS than 2K, but the core is much the same. In
> my
> view, XP is much better than 2K, it's got far more hardware and
> software compatability.

this is true, the downside is you get all the newbie stuff they put in
i would be very happy with the shell styles from win2k on xp core
but noooooo
they had to make it all coloured and annoying as hell

Geoff

You dont even need TweakUI. Just right click the desktop, click Properties, Themes and choose
Windows Classic. Looks like 2000 to me.


Tony


On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 03:59:49 GMT, Barry Watzman <> wrote:

>If you get and install tweakui for XP (free from Microsoft), you can
>make XP look EXACTLY like either 98 or 2K. The options are there, there
>are quite a few of them (about a dozen) and it takes a while to get them
>all setup, but the user interface is NEVER a reason not to use XP, you
>can make it whatever you want.
>
>
>Geoff wrote:
>> Barry Watzman wrote:
>>
>>>XP is a 3 years later OS than 2K, but the core is much the same. In
>>>my
>>>view, XP is much better than 2K, it's got far more hardware and
>>>software compatability.
>>
>>
>> this is true, the downside is you get all the newbie stuff they put in
>> i would be very happy with the shell styles from win2k on xp core
>> but noooooo
>> they had to make it all coloured and annoying as hell
>>
>>

Tony

Barry Watzman wrote:
> If you get and install tweakui for XP (free from Microsoft), you can
> make XP look EXACTLY like either 98 or 2K. The options are there,
> there are quite a few of them (about a dozen) and it takes a while to
> get them all setup, but the user interface is NEVER a reason not to
> use XP, you can make it whatever you want.
>

thats why i'm using it now
it's very annoying by default though, and i work on it every day like that
:/

Geoff

I'm sure you read all the responses, up to mine, as I did, just adding some
more...

I like XP for my home use. I'm married and have kids, so the feature of
multiple accounts is very nice. I use home, on a network, sharing
broadband, and it works pretty well. The machine sitting right next to it
has 2k/linux on it. My only regret is the fact that I didn't get the pro
version, would like to setup the XP machine with some server capabilities,
just to play. The lack of RAS on home is a bit of a bother to me, but that
can be worked around...

XP is a resource hog. I have seen it run very well with 256 megs of ram,
but I prefer 512. I multitask like a demon, so it helps quite a bit. I get
bored with a game, minimize, take a break, catch up on emails, newsgroups,
forums, view a few web pages, finish that document for work, and then back
to my game. Never misses a bit. With the kids fighting dad for the
machines, it's nice to have one that does it all. I shudder, thinking of
doing that on 98... I'm sure I'd lose something, probably my paused game.

Joe, I'm getting a trend here. Lemme know if I'm off base... see you have a
video card post further along. You are building a new machine. You are
like most of us, work for a living, not a ton of extra moolah. You have at
least one decent system setup, just want something newer. All that shiny
electronics has you seeing a machine that eats old pc's and poops Macs,
etc... Start slow. Get a good case, with lots of room and upgradability.
Concentrate on your motherboard and cpu. You can add the extra RAM later.
Get a good hard drive, etc.. but the gist is, a lot of this stuff can be
upgraded later. A good rule of thumb, find the latest hardware, and buy one
to two revisions previous. Best bang for the buck.

Taking that advice, I'd build, right now, an Enermax case with 430 watt psu.
I like AMD, so I'd probably get an nforce 3 board (Asus, another
preference), xp 3200 processor, sata hard drive, audigy 1 sound and an ATI
9600 vid. Probably add a nice burner, probably Lite-On. With monitor,
would probably be right around $1000 us dollars, probably just a bit more.
Would be a good system. Again, hardware is personal preference.

Hoot


For any major work, I still use the 2k machine. I find it a bit stabler
(albeit very slightly, but less clutter)
"Joe" <> wrote in message
news:zlDEb.591695$HS4.4349519@attbi_s01...
> I'm getting a new system and need to make a choice regarding the OS. I
can
> get the new system without an OS and then just transfer my current OS
> (Windows 2000) from my temporary computer to the new one. Or for $89, I
can
> get Windows XP Home Edition already installed to my new PC.
>
> While obviously it will be nice to have the new computer come all set and
> ready without me having to install the OS, are there any other advantages
of
> why I should get Windows XP instead of just contining to use Windows 2000?
> What will Windows XP give me that I already don't have with Windows 2000?
>
> On a strongly related point, how do the hardware requirements (RAM, CPU,
> etc) differ between the two. Not Microsoft's "minimum" requirements but
> real world optimal configuration? I've seen some games surprisingly (to
me)
> list their recommended requirements as 256MB RAM for Windows 2000 and
512MB
> RAM for Windows XP. Is XP a memory hog compared to Windows 2000? Do I
need
> to get a gig of RAM with XP to be equivalent to 512MB of RAM with Windows
> 2000? Any other hardware requirements I should know about?
>
> Basically, I'm looking for all the pro's and con's between saving myself
$89
> and using Windows 2000 versus just finally getting Windows XP. All the
> hardware on the system is the latest if that makes a difference for driver
> support. Thanks.
>
>

hootnholler