Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Windows 2000 or XP?

Recommended Posts

Hey fellaz,Quick question about W2K. I hear good things and bad things about ths operating system. Is it stable?.It must be better than Windows ME!.I also heard that XP is crap for MSFS2K?.How true is that? I am currently building a system but dont know if i should go with XP or W2k...This machine i am building is just for gaming btw.Thanx in advance for your great words of wisdom! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I have expirence with both of these OS's. I need to say that XP is alot better than 2000, as far as visuals, but basically XP is just a beefed up 2000, I am running XP on my system now, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use Windows XP (Pro) with FS and it works just fine - frames are pretty good - usually in the upper 30s to low 40s. I've never used Win2k before with FS....Hope that helps!Cpudan80 :) :+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just last week I changed from ME to XP Home on my FS2002 server. I did the full install not an upgrade.It took awhile loading XP, FS2002, and all the addons, but I'm very happy with the results.I also run Project Magenta over a network:C1 Sim Server: XP Home and FS2002C2: ME, PM Primary Flight Display, Nav Display, and FCU (autopilot) C3: ME, PM ECAM Display and MCDU.Mixing ME and XP over the network took a little time to work out, but overall FS2002 is rock steady with frames locked at 24fps.Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use XP (Home) on my machine. It's on 24/7 for almost a year now and has never crashed.Brad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Win2000 now, but also had WinXP. I cannot decide which is better. Regarding ease of use and makeup XP is better. For me DirectX used to be a big issue until DX9 was out, on XP. Also the SP1 for XPwas a big mistake for me, everything slowed down, and began crashing.I might have had some lame version of SP1?! So because of that I moved back to Win2000. But I guess I recommend you to get XP, it has more hardware support and more advanced. Memory consumption and speed should be quite same for both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having experience with Win2KPro, server 2KPro and XP pro I can say this. XPPro is really nothing more than 2000Pro with a pretty gui and better hardware support. Perhaps the most stable of all Windows OS's, 2000 has the added benfit of using much less memory than XP does. If your running a system that is on the low side for memory (Generally anything under 512 Megs) 2000 can be a very enjoyable choice.XP does have it's bright side. I, like some other people have had nothing but problems running SP1 for XP. Went back to a clean install and manually installing the updates as I needed them. It is nice to look at, and does a good job of memory management and disk management although if you know 2000 you can have it accomplish all that XP does. As far as visuals go I have not seen any difference between the two and you really shouldn't. They both share the same core of the OS and utilize DX the same ways.Either way you can't go wrong.Bobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey my Friend Bobby!I have not had any noticable (hehe) problems with XP Pro and SP1. I went from 2000 Pro because I like the looks of XP alot better, I saw it on a computer in the store and said "Boy I have to get that".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go with XP, if only because it is newer. 2000 is nice, but it is getting older now. XP, even with SP1, is a decent OS. SP1 does slow the puter down, but I would rather have the patches for security rather than a bit of speed.In any case, FS2K2 doesn't suffer from any slowdowns going from 2K to XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run Windows XP Pro 24/7 and have never had a crash either. It runs my FS2002 just about perfect. My choice of WinXP over Win2000 is driver support, and better GUI. MS main focus is on WinXP, from that standpoint the support seems to be much better with XP.I don't know where this rumor has come from about FS2002 not runnion well on XP, I have run XP with FS2002 from the start along with all my FS associates and they all have well behaved and running systems.My advice for a new system build, put Windows XP on your system, you won't go wrong.Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing but WIN-XP.Don't forget that both FS2002 and WIN-XP are MS products and if the company is still as good as they were, then some body there thought about Compatibility.One big advantage of WIN-XP is the "restore" option, especially after a lousy download.Seev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another advantage that I have noticed with XP is that it doesn't load up with junk like WIN95/98 did. I used to have to reinstall about every 6 months because my system would slow down. I have my original install of XP Home and I got it right after it came out about a year and a half ago. It basically has the stability of the newer versions of NT with better driver support.Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have used Win2000 with FS for about years, it works fine. I guess XP would be similar (the actual core system is the same) either is far better than 95/98/ME. You need the hardware to run these systems though, 64Megs of ram and a 266Mhz MMX won't cut it!Geoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have XP home and its pretty good. The only complaint I have is that it doesn't work to wonderfully w/ some older games (like Fleet Command, USAF).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is my personal opinion and personal experience and I do not intend to have this read as "Thats how it is for everyone" :I have XP pro on one and 2000pro on another machine.No wonder, since xp is newer, its hardware driver database is also more up-to-date, so installations are a breeze.In terms of stability or performance, I cannot see any significant differences. Memory usage on xp is a bit higher. 2000 did not crash once in more than half a year (since last clean install), xp did twice until I replaced my secondary hard disk (never since then) so I gues that was a hardware fault, not necessarily xp's.Only thing, 2000 needs double the time to load than xp. But that may also be caused by my hardware.In everyday using terms, xp excels due to numerous implemented tools and gimmicks that make life easier. On 2000, I'd have to manually install half a dozen small tools I (would) use frequently where xp already has an included similar tool.Torsten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my experince with both O/S I used win2k for about 2 1/2 yrs. It had always run fast and stable. You should have plently of ram to run it. I suggest more than 512 always but 512 should be the absolute min that you use. Win2k is very stable because it's been patched constantly since it was first released. You have better memory mangement and the NTFS file system which also are a plus when compared to 98 or ME. Gaming is not a problem with Win2k. Some games with run better than others but will almost certainly run more stable and faster than under a FAT32 file system if your system is up to date and you do routine system maintance. I tried XP pro when it first game out and I went back to 2000 only after one day with XP pro. It just ran like junk. It was expected though. It was brand new. I figured I would atleast wait until the first service pack came out and go back and give it another go. I just recently reinstall XP PRO,service pack 1a, directx9a and all other updates for XP up to this date. I must say that I think it is a better than Win2k now as far as speed goes. I would say win2k is certainly more stable but then again win2k has had more time on the market. Iam really pleased with how XP is turning out. Iam going to stick with . I just bought another 256MB DDR2100 and now XP runs even better.FS is not faster of course now but it handles AI and clouds better so my swap space is not used as much . So if I had to recommend a O/S for you I would go with XP right now because it's more widely supported on a basic install than win2k is . If you know alot of about computers and hardware then maybe you would like to try both and see which you like more. When you make the change make sure you do a FDISK and not just a upgrade. I also would not install either if you do not have atleast a 1.6ghz and 512MB . You will be disappointed in performance. Win2k and XP are much more intense on resources than ME or 98 . YOu could proboly get away with 1ghz atleast but any lower and iam not sure how it would perform . Good luck Capt.Richard Dillon (KATL)www.jetstarairlines.comhttp://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg"Lets Roll" 9/11 -----------------------Specs AMD 2400 XP MSI KTV4 768MB DDR 2100Asus GF4 ti 4200 128MBSB Audigy Gamer Ch Products Yoke and Pedals(usb)Windows 2000 Serivce Pack 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this