Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#336901 07/18/02 04:42 AM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,329
D
Member
OP Offline
Member
D
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,329
Just built a new system

AMD 2200+ w/HHC-001 fan
PC2700 512m ECC Crucial
KX7-333R
120G IBM HD
Radeon 8500

Which OS would be better suited performance wise.

I'm leaning towards 2000 because I've heard a lot of bad things about XP and drivers for it.

The system will mainly be used for graphic oriented programs, video & sound editing.

I was planning on running Windows ME, but heard it's still limited in memory recognition. (like 98SE is)

Any thoughts???

Oh and yes it has to be a Microcrap OS. :p


2000 SVT #674 - Check it out!

Whoever coined the phrase; "If it ain't broke; don't fix it" ~ Just doesn't get it...
#336902 07/18/02 04:43 AM
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,112
L
Moderator
Offline
Moderator
L
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,112
If you're going for all out performance, then 2000 is more frugal with resources. I've had no problems with either OS; both have been very reliable and rock solid. XP is a little more resource-intensive, but the numerous small improvements are worth it IMO. Personally, I noticed no speed difference on my P2-400 w/ 256 RAM.


-Louis
1998 Black E0 #3826, lightly modded
#336903 07/18/02 04:55 AM
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 308
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 308
I would go with XP. And i have noticed a difference between XP on both highend processors and lower end. XP respondes better to higher end
processors then the lower. But thats just my experience. IMO get XP you won't regret it!

#336904 07/18/02 06:12 AM
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,795
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,795
I'd say 2000 for now, if you are really wanting XP go with the pro edition.

I'm runing 2000 and I'm looking at 21 days and 10 hrs of uptime right now eek

-Pete


Every time I come online I wonder if the forums will be up
#336905 07/18/02 01:31 PM
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 923
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 923
I'd say XP. It's so much more stable than 2000, and I find that it uses resources much better.

Here:

#336906 07/18/02 01:37 PM
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 442
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 442
I say 2000. XP has some nice features but its performance degrades over time. I have been using 2000 for months without one single problem.


1999 Silver Frost SVT
#2412 of 2760
DOB - 7/30/99

MODS:

BAT Inlet Pipe /w Monster Flow Filter, Rear Strut Brace, H&R Sport Springs, Koni Sport Struts, Panasonic CPQ-DF800u, Baer Brake Kit, Brembo Slotted/Crossdrilled rotors for rear brakes, rear KVR Pads, ASA JS6 17" w/ S-02 Pole Position, B&M Shifter, 22mm Rear Sway bar, Bassani Exhaust. SoundStream Rubicon 604 Amp, 2 SoundStream Class A 5.2 Amps, 2 SoundStream SPL 12" Subs, SoundStream SVX2 Crossover, Rockford Fosgate Capacitor.
#336907 07/18/02 01:44 PM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,496
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,496
I've got both running in front of me right now. Windows XP Pro uses fewer resources on my system (1.2 GHz, 512MB Dell Inspiron 8100) and is a bit more stable than a similar system (IBM A21 1.2GHz, 512MB) loaded with Windows 2000.

I'm running pretty much the same workload on each and I'm seeing better performance and better resource allocation on the XP side of the house.


JaTo
Overland Park, KS
JaTo@kc.rr.com

99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
Modded to Taste

00 Corvette Coupe
Modded to Haste
#336908 07/18/02 02:14 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,585
A
APT Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,585
Quote:
Originally posted by sboardsvt:
I say 2000. XP has some nice features but its performance degrades over time.
Huh? Have proof? In general, performacne degrades over time with any OS because users keep adding crap that slows it down. But I've never seen the OS to blame for that.

#336909 07/18/02 02:26 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,559
L
Lee Offline
Moderator
Offline
Moderator
L
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,559
XP is a good choice if you turn off all the crap for visualizations and extra services that don't need to be running. But after all of that wouldn't it mostly be Win2K anyway? Your choice.


Lee Cox
In life begins responsability...
Project Car
#336910 07/18/02 02:48 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 314
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 314
I'd just go for XP, they're just about the same thing anyways. If you had 2000 already I wouldn't bother with XP, but if you are getting a new OS, just go for XP.

As far as uptime, my machines at home run 2000 24/7 and I haven't had any bsod's in months (last time one of the motherboards died).


2000 Silver ZX3
1999 SVT Contour RIP 6/9/02
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5