Windows XP versus Windows 2000

Discussion in 'A+ Certification' started by Joe, Dec 19, 2003.

  1. Joe

    Joe Guest

    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, Dec 19, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joe

    John Loop Guest

    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, Dec 19, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joe

    John Dearing Guest

    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, Dec 19, 2003
    #3
  4. Joe

    Geoff Guest

    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, Dec 19, 2003
    #4
  5. Joe

    Tony Guest

    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, Dec 20, 2003
    #5
  6. Joe

    Geoff Guest

    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, Dec 20, 2003
    #6
  7. Joe

    hootnholler Guest

    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, Dec 21, 2003
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joe

    Windows 2000 versus Windows XP

    Joe, Dec 19, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,776
    mhicaoidh
    Dec 19, 2003
  2. =?Utf-8?B?Q2FuYWRhX0d1eU0=?=

    Certification - MCP versus MCSA versus MCSE

    =?Utf-8?B?Q2FuYWRhX0d1eU0=?=, Aug 24, 2006, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    763
    =?Utf-8?B?TW9udHJlYWwgTUNTQQ==?=
    Aug 24, 2006
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    608
  4. Little Green Eyed Dragon

    TV screens big versus Small LCD versus Plasma.

    Little Green Eyed Dragon, Mar 2, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    395
    Little Green Eyed Dragon
    Mar 2, 2007
  5. Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo

    Re: Mozilla versus IE versus Opera versus Safari

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo, May 8, 2008, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    756
    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    May 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page