|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,196
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,196 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT: I was planning on running Windows ME, but heard it's still limited in memory recognition. (like 98SE is) Are you talking about me?? There really isn't much of a difference between XP and 2000, as long as you're talking about XP Professional and not XP Home. XP has more eye candy, but will also likely be around longer than 2000. Avoid WinME, for more reasons than just memory recognition.
Matthew 98.5 Contour SE V6 It has spent 1.5 years under the wrong identity ;-)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 621
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 621 |
XP as long as the software and hardware are compatible. Meaning you can find the right drivers and such.
I've been running XP Pro for 2 months with no issues.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 249
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 249 |
XP is a far superior OS. Stability is about the same as 2000, but XP boots faster and will support more home computer type applications like games, etc. If you looking for graphics and video editing, definately go with XP. I ran 2000 Pro before XP Pro came out, and I am much happier with XP.
Also XP Pro has a huge driver database. 99% of any hardware component I install on a computer (I do this for a living) running XP there will already be a driver for it.
Windows ME was a joke on Microsofts behalf. You know something is wrong when they discontinue the OS after only a few months.
~~~~~~Mike~~~~~~ Silver 2000 Contour SVT # 1200 of 2150
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 707
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 707 |
2000, I am a consultant..Not that that means anything....XP will be good when they fix all the bugs.
Chad Williams chad5160@excite.com '99 SVT Frost Silver #812 of 2760 Born on Jan. 12, 1999
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 869
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 869 |
soyo dragon + Mobo AMD 1700+ (1.47 ghz) 256 mb crucial ddr
XP pro and it rocks. I have a ME machine (I know), a 2000 machine, and a XP machine with the above spec and I have no problems with drivers or stability. All of the subtle differences from 2000 make it a much better total package.
And the degradation is indeed due to one choking up the system with installs and crap/not defragging hard drives etc. The OS does not degrade over time.
2000 CSVT #1172 of 2150 Toreador Red...Birthday -> 1/4/2000 *Indiglo Gauges *Drop in K&N *Sylvania SilverStar Highs in Lows *Fog light Fix *Pioneer Premier P730 *Sound by Audiobahn *White HVAC Panel *Security via Ungo MS2007 *Elky Mesh Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,559
Moderator
|
Moderator
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,559 |
SVTMike- Question, Why do you think 2000 can't handle games and other home apps? I've built tons of machine using 2000 and XP, and from what I've seen everything works the same on them.
As far as the fast boot up time it really depends on what the system has. My wifes machine boots faster then my everytime and hers is a 2000 system with a 5400RPM drive and mine is a XP system with a Raid 0 Array on 7200PRM drives.
Also the driver database your so proud of is also availible for 2000 it's just not built in. Most XP drivers are just optimized 2000 drivers built in at the time of release.
Sorry to contradict everything you said but it's just not as cut and dry as you would make it. I, even now after running XP since release, would not recommend XP for any Business application. On top of that the Aqua interface is just too comical and confusing for most people to take seriously.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,196
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,196 |
Originally posted by Lee: On top of that the Aqua interface is just too comical and confusing for most people to take seriously. You can take that theme off ... it's an option in the Control Panels (I think under Display, but not sure), and revert to normal-Windows-style if you want. It's not that hard to make the visual differences between XP and 2000 undetectable.
Matthew 98.5 Contour SE V6 It has spent 1.5 years under the wrong identity ;-)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 761
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 761 |
My slower system at home runs better on XP Pro than my faster 2000 Pro system at work ... 
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,112
Moderator
|
Moderator
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,112 |
Originally posted by Lee: SVTMike- Question, Why do you think 2000 can't handle games and other home apps? I've built tons of machine using 2000 and XP, and from what I've seen everything works the same on them. A few of my older games like NFS Porsche Unleashed do not work under 2000/XP. I'm guessing a lot of DOS games are out of the question as well, but I think I'm the only one who still plays those, heh. Originally posted by Lee: Sorry to contradict everything you said but it's just not as cut and dry as you would make it. I, even now after running XP since release, would not recommend XP for any Business application. On top of that the Aqua interface is just too comical and confusing for most people to take seriously. XP is Luna. Aqua is that silly Mac interface... :p
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,559
Moderator
|
Moderator
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,559 |
louisw- He's saying that XP runs apps better then 2000, not Dos related etc. But I've found if it doesn't use a Dos memory manager the programs will run O.K.
My bad on the naming. OS X and XP were in development at the sametime and I followed both...
98 SE- Yeah I know that's how I run mine.
|
|
|
|
|