View Full Version : Winxp vs win2k

05-04-2005, 07:49 AM
The sata on my DFI UT has annoyed me so much that ive bought a PCI sata raid card.

The UT repeatedly would not pick up my array or boot from it. Had this problem since I got the board but found no fix. The PCI card (£15 SI based one) detects the array and attempts a boot all the time. Im using raid0 37gb raptors.

Anyway... i digress.

As ive had to rebuild the array I need to choose an OS.

The DFI board forced me to change to winXP as the win2k drivers did not work. Previously I had only used win2k.

With the PCI card I can now choose my OS.

Which do you prefer and why?

WinXP - advantages
Faster Boot.
Video editing thingy (that i never use)

Win2k - advantages
Less M$ interfearance with updates and stuff.
Might be a tad quicker.

I cant think of anything else to be honest..
There must be more differences than these.

This is for day to day use and gaming not for benching, so 1% difference in bench results is not important.

05-04-2005, 10:55 AM
Win2k hands down!

05-12-2005, 05:53 PM
Really?? I was having all kinds of issues on my wife's pc when it was still on Win2k- they magically disappeared when I reformatted and installed XP.

I do like the fact that you're a little more "in control" of what's going on with your OS with Win2k though. But for a computer-illiterate like her, XP is the hands-down winner.

05-13-2005, 03:46 AM
I like Win 2K Pro a lot. Still have it running on one of my boxes. But XP is better period for these reasons. They are both rather similar, but XP is slightly faster,the security enhancements of XP are really decent, and XP has a little more to offer as far as multimedia is concerned.

05-13-2005, 06:20 AM
day to day use has to be XP for me, its simple(ish) and alot more secure than 2k due to numerous updates

05-13-2005, 09:35 AM
Windows XP hands down!

05-13-2005, 12:24 PM
Windows server 2003..............:D

05-16-2005, 08:39 AM
XP for daily use - no doubt about that

05-22-2005, 03:39 AM
i jus upgraded to xp, seems a lot more friendly and homely than win2k, haven't really played round with it yet.

05-22-2005, 08:19 AM
I like the win2k better for gaming. I like the winXP much better for internet, multitasking, CD/DVD burning, and File transfer. It runs much faster.

win2k is still my fav for benching and gaming. :)

06-16-2005, 04:05 AM
have you considered 2003 ?

06-17-2005, 09:28 AM
2k is faster from stock, but XP is faster if you disable practicly half of the OS, which removes most of it's functionality, such as CD burning, DHCP, sound, and even networking if you wanna go one step further. Kinda pointless if you ask me. Plus, XP's default theme has tellitubbies written all over it. Windows 2003 is nice, but there's not much compatability games wise (Doom3 needs a dirty little hack to run).

06-17-2005, 10:41 AM
IMO, Win XP is a user-friendly OS and my fav, I quite like it for the fact it plays games well and the multimedia functions are cool.

Win 2k Pro is also good.

Im currently using Server 2003 Standard edition which is a tad too advanced for me but im getting to grips with it.

06-17-2005, 12:00 PM
Which do you prefer and why?

WinXP - advantages
Faster Boot.
Video editing thingy (that i never use)

Win2k - advantages
Less M$ interfearance with updates and stuff.
Might be a tad quicker.

I cant think of anything else to be honest..
There must be more differences than these.

This is for day to day use and gaming not for benching, so 1% difference in bench results is not important.
like i've said, I like the winXP much better for large file transfer and DVD burning. To me, i noticed it "uses"/"utilizes" memory much better. It doesn't use up as much virtual memory. Win2k is slow as hell.. in these type of apps. I'm sure the memory managment can be improved by "tweakiing" the win2k system, but comparing stock to stock, winXP just smashes it so hard it makes me want to cry. :(

but in 3Dmark, no matter what, winXp couldn't beat win2k stock to stock... the scores were compared in average, number of times. It feels run slightly faster in games too. ..... and i like the "simplicity" and raw power of performance win2k generates. :D I still use it for gaming and benching... and proud of using it.

I really, really like the win server 2003. It "squashes" both win2k and winXP pretty much in any apps except for gaming/benching. Memory management system is exceptional. Not only it uses physical memory better, but it dumps the memory very well too. It takes me less than 5 minutes to burn 4.7GB data in DVD. Extremely responsive and quick in large file transfer(10+GB) with only 512mb RAM. Everything seems to run quicker and smoother. Since you did not mention the choice of server2003 so i guess no option here...


06-28-2005, 09:27 PM
winxp all the way, it seems to me that mouse feel is different on win2k and i cant aim

06-29-2005, 02:17 AM
as win2k and xp are almost the same progammes, i would say it doesn't matter.
though xp has more driver stuff built in out of the box which makes it easier for multimedia stuff (e.g. digicam, digi camcorder...)

but i prefer win2k as there is no loona stuff ( http://www.jms101.btinternet.co.uk/full_sets/gold/circular_bold_std/clown.gif windows ) and i have used it for years, so i simply safe money by not upgrading to xp. btw: i have never had any driver issues.

both are equal, so it is still your choice.

06-29-2005, 02:21 AM
:D Myself going to switch from XP to 2K. A lot faster in 3D Marks & faster than XP with the UNI MPS tweak.


06-29-2005, 03:56 AM
I have one system (this one) that dual boots XP and W2K pro.

Besides being a inet box it's a test bed of sorts to check out software upgrades to see if they're worth the trouble of getting the upgrade on a vendor cd.

Since the cpu isn't Hyperthread capable XP's support of hyperthreding doesn't matter. That makes it a good test bed for OS overhead.

For testing I render a frame that includes radiosity, volumetric lighting, volumetric atmospherics, raytraced and softedged shadows, fresnal refpections and specularity, motion blurring, and depth of field with 1.45 million polys divided between 184 objects. That has to be one of the most intense system loads around.

Tpically my cpu temp rises 20 -22 C during the first minute and hangs there until the render is finished.

Render times are:

W2K Pro = 10 mins 14 seconds

XP SP1 = 12 mins 58 secs

XP SP2 = 13 mins 42 secs

Linux = 8 mins 12 secs

So, of the M$ OS's, W2K Pro has the least OS overhead - XP SP2 has the most.

But I wouldn't even consider connecting to the inet with an OS other than XP SP2 or Linux.

BTW - I've also rendered this frame on a faster system that dual boots XP SP2 and Server 2003. While the times are much shorter because of the faster cpu speed it turns out Server 2003 in stock form renders ~ 4% faster than XP SP2 . Applying a few tweaks to Server 2003 (that are almost impossible to do in XP either version) results in render times that are 5.2 % faster than XP SP2.

So now you have some OS overhead data to balance against which bells and whistles you want.

btw - both versions of XP use classic desktop and folders along with setting the visual effects and mouse for best performance. The stock settings add another 22 seconds to the XP render times.


06-29-2005, 06:42 PM
i use win2k for everything except gaming for which i use winxp

06-30-2005, 05:15 AM
I've used:

2000 SP4
XP w/o SP
2003 Enterprise
Suse 9.2

Linux was the fastest one. Could do graphic rendering in a short time.
That time I had only a 9500.
With XP w/o SP I got 10400 3D marks.
With SP1 I got to 10500 and with SP2 to 10300, so SP1 seemed to be the fastest. With disabling services in SP2 it is equal to SP1 (SP2 got new services which aren't included in SP1)
With Server2003 I got 10700, that's really good.

So I prefer Server 2003, Superpi times were also the best. Could drop my CPU clock by 30mhz to get the same time.
But Server2003 needs a few hours to be configured and the driver support is very bad wehen you use old peripherie such as old scanners/printers etc.
Nearly all games run good with 2003, when you do a network install all games, which run on XP, will run on 2003, too.
Winamp won't run with 2003 SP1, because the MediaPlayer10 is different from XP and winamp needs to get informations from it.

All over I prefer 2003 SP1 and Linux