Tweet
Actually i did run the rc2 for a few months,but i really didn't see ther point,at least for me,to upgrade from win2k.
Stability wise they're both identical since they use the same underlying code,which was the main reason i upgraded from win 98 and gladly paid the 300$ fee.
In gaming performance they're both pretty much the same as well since every single game i own runs very nicely on win 2k as it is and in any case video card drivers play a huge role in that for both o/s's.
Then there's the advantage that i can change hardware as often as i want without going through the activation routine and in some cases going as far as prove to microsoft that i am the legal user of that particular copy of xp,which will happen if you change more than 4 components at the same time.
The built in firewall is nice and all,but i already have a hardware based one so having one in the o/s itself eating extra system resources doesn't really have an advantage for me and the same thing goes for the CD-R burning software built in,you have more complete packages available and again the ones i'm using(easy cd creator,nero,clone cd)work flawlessly.
In terms of multitasking performance win2k might very well be better than xp since it uses less recources to begin with,i'm running a dual ghz p3 with 512 mb ram and i do notice a difference between both when you have 5~6 cpu intensive apps running at the same time,win2k just seems smoother to me,at least when compared to the rc2 version of xp pro.
I admit that xp has a few advantages when it comes to it's ease of use and the fast user switching feature is nice as well as the nicer looking icons and it boots faster,although i'm running 2 x-15 seagate's in raid 0 which makes anything boot fast so speed is a relative thing,but that's not enough to make me part with another 300$ to upgrade to it.
Stability wise they're both identical since they use the same underlying code,which was the main reason i upgraded from win 98 and gladly paid the 300$ fee.
In gaming performance they're both pretty much the same as well since every single game i own runs very nicely on win 2k as it is and in any case video card drivers play a huge role in that for both o/s's.
Then there's the advantage that i can change hardware as often as i want without going through the activation routine and in some cases going as far as prove to microsoft that i am the legal user of that particular copy of xp,which will happen if you change more than 4 components at the same time.
The built in firewall is nice and all,but i already have a hardware based one so having one in the o/s itself eating extra system resources doesn't really have an advantage for me and the same thing goes for the CD-R burning software built in,you have more complete packages available and again the ones i'm using(easy cd creator,nero,clone cd)work flawlessly.
In terms of multitasking performance win2k might very well be better than xp since it uses less recources to begin with,i'm running a dual ghz p3 with 512 mb ram and i do notice a difference between both when you have 5~6 cpu intensive apps running at the same time,win2k just seems smoother to me,at least when compared to the rc2 version of xp pro.
I admit that xp has a few advantages when it comes to it's ease of use and the fast user switching feature is nice as well as the nicer looking icons and it boots faster,although i'm running 2 x-15 seagate's in raid 0 which makes anything boot fast so speed is a relative thing,but that's not enough to make me part with another 300$ to upgrade to it.
.
Comment