Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
2 Intern
•
2.1K Posts
•
3 Points
0
8198
December 11th, 2003 12:00
windows 2000 prof sp4
bought wind 2000 prof sp4 on ebay for $139, oem version.
got it installed , finally got nework connection working.
pro- no windows activation
question-how does this vesion of windows 2000 compare to windows xp prof?
i have windows xp home on another rig, and the wind 2000 prof seems a bit faster?
got it installed , finally got nework connection working.
pro- no windows activation
question-how does this vesion of windows 2000 compare to windows xp prof?
i have windows xp home on another rig, and the wind 2000 prof seems a bit faster?
Message Edited by ronss on 12-11-2003 08:04 AM
No Events found!
Hydralisk00222
2 Intern
•
2.4K Posts
0
December 13th, 2003 18:00
ronss
2 Intern
•
2.1K Posts
•
3 Points
0
December 13th, 2003 19:00
i agree, and its also based on the nt5 core.
Message Edited by ronss on 12-16-2003 09:56 PM
Hydralisk00222
2 Intern
•
2.4K Posts
0
December 16th, 2003 23:00
Did you mean NT5 or NF5? What's NF5
Well, if you mean NT5, XP is based off NT5 core too
... it also contains bits and pieces of the Win9x kernel
ronss
2 Intern
•
2.1K Posts
•
3 Points
0
December 17th, 2003 02:00
sorry, corrected spelling. nt5 core
i knew that windows xp was based on the same core as wind 2000 pro, not real sure what the differences are. i know that wind xp has clear type fonts, a big plus. also that windows 2000 was more stable , and less bloated. both operating systems have there plus,s and minus,s, i like wind 2000 pro because its fast, fun surfing with it. later
gothummingbird
260 Posts
0
December 17th, 2003 12:00
I have both WinXp Pro and W2k Sp4 NTFS set up as a dual boot.
To name a few, W2k lacks System Restore, lacks separate desktops fast user switch. Lacks Windows Media Player 9 or did I forgot. Lacks my printers driver and modem, must install myself. Has Personal Webserver XP home does not. Regedit is slightly different. Start menu cannot hide icons. And that is all I can think of.
They both are easily bloatable by other programs installed especially attacking vulnerable IE.
I like both but still crave the virusless opensource software freedom of a Linux setup.
The only thing I dislike about WinXP is how it signs me off, and I lose sight of my desktop when not using my computer and the annoying activation button.
Why I continue to like W2k as much as I do is beyond me but I do. I think it requires less memory then XP. 512 is perfect for W2k but 512 in XP in my personal experience is not enough. Seems to be more stable with my programs in the long run.
Message Edited by gothummingbird on 12-17-2003 10:16 AM
Hydralisk00222
2 Intern
•
2.4K Posts
0
December 22nd, 2003 19:00
Win2k comes with WMP6.4 as default but you can upgrade to WMP9.0 if you wanted to.
XP needs 512 to be smooth while 256 for Win2k is fine enuff
Overall, the point is that Win2k lacks features that XP has, making it less bloated and takes up less space. After all, it was aimed more for a business usage...
ronss
2 Intern
•
2.1K Posts
•
3 Points
0
December 22nd, 2003 23:00
great responses.
well, i agree about linux, i have suse 8.2 on one rig, cannot use it on my top 2 rigs, amd computers, due to the fact i am using serial drives, raid, and will not be supported until 2.6 kernal comes out.
just installed 2 wd raptor 10,000 rpm drives on my rig, running raid 0 with wind 2000. it,s fast. the only problem is now i cannot install my cannon i950 printer for some reason. i could using my 2 maxtor idie drives with the serial adapters running raid 0. figure that out.
suring the net, wind 2000 is very quick and stable, and like some of the features in the start menu.. realize that wind 2000 is geared for the busniness sector, but there are some things i like about it.
later