Windows 2000 or XP?

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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