Hi,Athlon XP 2000, 512mb, GF4TI4200.Which OS: Win2000, XP Home or XP Pro ?Thanks,Ulisses

Hello Ulisses,I use Windows 2000 Pro w/ SP3, and it works prettymuch like charm, but with hardware like yours, I'msure someone quickly will endorse XP.My money is on W2k though.You could check out Linux/X11 too, but that may bea tad exoteric at the moment. ;)-Niels Christiansen

I have a setup exactly as you specify. Athlon XP 2000 +, 512mb DDR RAM, GF4Ti4200. Run Windows XP Home. I find it VERY stable (my machine has been running for over a month with no reboots and no problems, last time it was powered down was to install a new video card), fast and functional. Almost all software coming out now supports XP, which can't really be said for Windows 2000. I like Win2k alot as well, but let's face it, it's not really ment to be a gaming platform...it's a business OS. Anywho, my vote is definitely for XP. Use Home if you don't care about joining a network domain or remote desktop capability, use Pro if you do.

Hello,Can you tell me the video driver you are using ? Maybe I can save some time :)Thanks,Ulisses

Nay nay, nramsey! I've got Win2k (have had for several years) and I've never but never run into any problems getting drivers or software to work. That "business OS" line is a lot of bunk. That said, I've tried XP Pro on my machine and it runs about the same. My general rule of thumb for MS operating systems is to let them age for about a year before buying into them. By then the vendors usually have pretty good all-around driver support.

Using 40.41 and haven't had any problems with them.

If you are even dreaming about networking computers you need Win2K or WinXP Pro. Don't even think about WinXP Home.That being said. WinXP Pro will be faster on any given machine that Win2K Pro. It is a much more effecient user of resources. I know because I've benchmarked Win2K Pro, Win98SE and WinXP Pro on the same machine. No hardware changes, it's multi-bootable. Running Win98SE, Win2K Pro, WinXP Pro and RedHat Linux 7.3. Don't ask!Also, WinXP is a bit more forgiving of non-conforming programs. And you can't beat compatibility mode for running old or cranky software.Jim

Sorry Jim but you are wrong on your first point here: Windows XP Home networks just like any other Windows OS. The ONLY difference between Windows XP Home and Windows XP Pro is that Pro allows you to access and be a part of domain resources while XP Home does not allow you to that. Here at home I have a 802.11b WiFi network with three WinXP Home boxes that talk to a .NET Server. The home version was made to cut out all of the things that a regular home networker / power user wouldn't need, but include a TCP/IP stack that allows regular network capabilities such as DNS, WINS, etc (i.e. access to the Internet & other TCP/IP based computers). There is no reason that most home users need to access a domain server, nor pay the extra dollars for XP PRO.The Windows XP Home and Windows XP PRO Kernel are EXACTLY the same, with the exception of domain features. If given the choice, there is no question at all that the gentleman asking the question should go with Windows XP HOME without a second thought. Windows 98 and ME are out of the question and Windows 2000 will be less supported as Windows XP becomes more prevelent. MS intends to keep putting out new features for XP that 2000 won't support and eventually, 2000 will be relegated to the dust just like Win 95. Of course, if you can get FS2002 to run nicely on Linux, go for it! :-lolBest regards,Mike T.

Bill:Actually, MS never intended 2000 to be a gaming / entertainment platform. However, since MS thought it wise to base Win XP largely on the Win 2000 kernel (with a few tweaks here and there), Windows 2000 got new life breathed into it!Now that games are being written for XP, 90% of them will run just fine on Win 2000, thank you very much! :-)MS, however, is really trying to get everyone to migrate to XP, so eventually, all the new fun stuff will move more and more away from Win 2000 compatibility. All-in-all though, you still have a few years of 2000 life left since most companies aren't looking at upgrading any time soon.Regards,Mike T.

I've had Windows XP from about 8 months. After having it on two different rigs, neither one of them have ever locked up since. Very nice improvement from Windows ME that crashed about 5-6 times a week.Ryan-Flightpro08 :-cool VATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Controller 1 (C-1)SAN TRACON Lead [link:www.taxiwaysigns.com]Taxiwaysigns.com Scenery Designerhttp://members.cox.net/santracon/images/san_logo.jpg-----------------------------My "Home Made" System Specs:Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz ProcessorTurbo Gamer ATX Mid-Tower with 420W Power SupplyEPoX 4G4A Motherboard with Intel 845G ChipsetVisiontek XTASY GeForce4 128MB Ti4600 (Det 30.30 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition SP1*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298

It is bunk. XP is built on the Windows 2000 kernel. I have yet to meet an app which runs on XP but not on 2000 or visa-versa. W2K is leaner and meaner, and certainly has more "field-testing", but XP has much more charm to the average home user. Both are incredibly stable and reliable desktop operating systems. XP does have some additional tweaks in the kernel which optimize it for multimedia (you will get slightly better performance in FS on XP than W2K). In addition, XP has some nice features such as "executable prefetching", system restore, and a streamlined boot process (my 700 Mhz laptop boots in 10 seconds under XP - took over a minute in W2K). These alone might make the XP investment worthwhile.All-in-all, these two OS share the same engine - different chassis.As for Home vs Professional. There really is no reason to pony up the extra $100 unless you anticipate having to connect to an NT/2000 domain server or you want to use security auditing features. The OS is otherwise identical. There are only a handful of files that actually differ - and in only the slightest of ways.Good luck on your purchase. Whatever you decide, 2000, XP Pro or Home...you'll likely be pleased. Personally, if it were me, I'd go XP Home unless I planned on using my computer in my place of business.J

"Win 2000 is leaner and meaner than XP?"

Perhaps not "meaner" ;-) but certainly leaner. It's fundamentally the same kernel, but the overall footprint of the OS is substantially smaller than XP. Diet-XP? ;-)

I had ME for a while. Writing on a chalkboard is a step up from that blight on digitalkind.

>I had ME for a while. Writing on a chalkboard is a step up >from that blight on digitalkind. LOL :-lol Very nice way to describe the living hell of an OS we call Windows ME. ;-)Ryan-Flightpro08 :-cool VATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Controller 1 (C-1)SAN TRACON Lead [link:www.taxiwaysigns.com]Taxiwaysigns.com Scenery Designerhttp://members.cox.net/santracon/images/san_logo.jpg-----------------------------My "Home Made" System Specs:Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz ProcessorTurbo Gamer ATX Mid-Tower with 420W Power SupplyEPoX 4G4A Motherboard with Intel 845G ChipsetVisiontek XTASY GeForce4 128MB Ti4600 (Det 30.30 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition SP1*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298