|
| Notices |
DriverHeaven is currently recruiting for the AWOMO Beta Test / Elite Op Team. AWOMO is a digital download service for games, and we're looking to expand the beta team. If you're interested. Sign up as a member here at DriverHeaven and then head HERE to submit your details. Thanks
For more info on AWOMO visit their site HERE
Welcome to the DriverHeaven.net forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. |
 |
Feb 5, 2005, 05:11 PM
|
#1
|
|
Pax Modder, Pax Expert
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: S.S. Marie, Mi
Posts: 4,675
|
I have windows 2000 Professional now
|
|
|
Feb 5, 2005, 08:24 PM
|
#2
|
|
DriverHeaven Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Inside DriverHeaven
Posts: 856
Rep Power: 0
|
Well, there's no reason to use 2000 over XP... unless you hate the extra features of XP that much (e.g. the themes). 2000 is supposed to be faster than XP and it has no activation scheme like XP does
|
|
|
Feb 5, 2005, 09:14 PM
|
#3
|
|
Pax Modder, Pax Expert
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: S.S. Marie, Mi
Posts: 4,675
|
ya I just benchmark in win2000pro I hit 11,662 in 3dmark01se overclock at 553/503 which not bad for it 
|
|
|
Feb 5, 2005, 09:33 PM
|
#4
|
|
Styleless Wonder
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 6,049
Rep Power: 0
|
WinXP is more feature rich than 2K PRO. A lot of subtle changes make it more superior than 2K. I see no reason to go back to it either.
|
|
|
Feb 5, 2005, 10:25 PM
|
#5
|
|
Pax Modder, Pax Expert
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: S.S. Marie, Mi
Posts: 4,675
|
What does windows 2000pro do anyway? I mean I just have only plain xp home editon hehe I think sound is much louder in win2000pro then xp for some reason.
Last edited by Robert McClelland; Feb 5, 2005 at 10:34 PM.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2005, 12:07 AM
|
#6
|
|
Styleless Wonder
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 6,049
Rep Power: 0
|
Win2K PRO was developed for workstation use. Sound drivers (or lack thereof) could be the reason why things are "louder".
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2005, 08:54 AM
|
#7
|
|
DriverHeaven Extreme Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 16,122
Rep Power: 0
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert McClelland
ya I just benchmark in win2000pro I hit 11,662 in 3dmark01se overclock at 553/503 which not bad for it 
|
You've got some large performance issues man! I was getting 14,000+ K in 2001se stock with a 9600xt.... you need to tweak / update drivers or something...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by md5
Well, there's no reason to use 2000 over XP... unless you hate the extra features of XP that much (e.g. the themes). 2000 is supposed to be faster than XP and it has no activation scheme like XP does
|
Luckily I bought mine before they added activation so my XP requires no activation...
Windows XP = windows NT 5.1
Windows 2000 = windows NT 5.0
Windows ME= Windows NT4 + windows 98
Windows 2000 is the fastest windows OS to date it's also the most stable.... 2000 has been magor sevice packed / updated 4 times already... Alot of the bugs are pretty well quashed by now... It's a great OS I ran it before XP . All XP did was add some better support for new things and some performance here and that but the defult eye candy they add to the OS makes XP a verry bulky wastefull OS....
Support for 2000 has pretty well died now and there are some limitations as with all oses...
If you tweak XP, like I do it take it takes about an 1/2 hour to do (and mounths to learn) and drops all the FLUFF from XP leaveing it like much more like windows 2000
in that state. Tweaked XP for me is way better.... Plus like I mention somethings, support, etc are better in XP...
But right out of the boxes though? 2000 is better then XP, and about 1/2 the memory system requirements...
Now after sp2 the added security, useing some future long horn code even! XP is now that way is should have been released in the 1st place...
One could really argue wich endlesly OS is truely the better one
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2005, 10:01 AM
|
#8
|
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,989
|
Based on my experiences on both win XP and win 2000, XP is more stable than win 2000. as for system performance, i can't say or feel any diferrent.
on any P4 and 512+MB of RAM system, they are the same. even so, for using an XP on a low-end processor and ram modules system may require a custom installation or some more tweaks than usual after the installed.
Last edited by Ctrl-Alt-Del; Feb 6, 2005 at 10:07 AM.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2005, 10:56 AM
|
#9
|
|
Styleless Wonder
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posts: 6,049
Rep Power: 0
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ctrl-Alt-Del
Based on my experiences on both win XP and win 2000, XP is more stable than win 2000. as for system performance, i can't say or feel any diferrent.
on any P4 and 512+MB of RAM system, they are the same. even so, for using an XP on a low-end processor and ram modules system may require a custom installation or some more tweaks than usual after the installed.
|
Indeed. I do see XP having better memory management as well. If you really want to be "efficient", then use Win2K3.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2005, 11:10 AM
|
#10
|
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,989
|
hmm. why wasn't the XP SP2 already happening at the time when it first came out? simply because MS did not have it at that time. i think.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2005, 11:37 AM
|
#11
|
|
Most of the 7 dwarfs in 1
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Rochdale, Lancashire
Posts: 946
Rep Power: 0
|
Windows Dual boot setups make it a c*** to get back to just one OS BTW (My experience anyway) usually easier to reformat/reinstall. Nowadays I usually break a drive out of retirement to install any other OS on.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2005, 02:24 PM
|
#12
|
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,989
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by No_Style
Indeed. I do see XP having better memory management as well. If you really want to be "efficient", then use Win2K3.
|
me too. and i don't do anything 'server' that much really, so never really want to buy/use win 2k3. but friends use it and they told me the win 2k3 is better than win 2000 server. never go into details with them for why they said that. but i'm sure they knows. for me just the XP. for now.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2005, 02:45 PM
|
#13
|
|
Nature's Wrath
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 275
Rep Power: 0
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ctrl-Alt-Del
me too. and i don't do anything 'server' that much really, so never really want to buy/use win 2k3. but friends use it and they told me the win 2k3 is better than win 2000 server. never go into details with them for why they said that. but i'm sure they knows. for me just the XP. for now.
|
Win2k3 rocks, definetly, I've used it for 6 months. It's even more stabile than win2k, it has better memory management(as it seems) than winxp, it runs games with higher performance.. but there are major flaws:
Flaw 1#
Some games won't work with it, for example many installers(manhunt for example). Logitech drivers must be ran in compatibility mode, and some other drivers with installer.
Flaw 2#
FPS and overall performance is better with games than with win2k/winxp but games have some strange clitches, strange mouse control or other flopping effects. Strange, must admit.
Because of flaw 1#, I stopped using it 5 months ago.
This is definetly needed after installing win2k3, http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2005, 03:20 PM
|
#14
|
|
Pax Modder, Pax Expert
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: S.S. Marie, Mi
Posts: 4,675
|
[color=gold][/color]The Neon Cowboy whats your stock speed on your 9600xt? mine 500/300 on my abit.
I might try win2000 for while see if I like if not I reformat put xp on one hard drive hehe
|
|
|
|
|
|