athlon x2 win2k or xp?

[xomp]

I've always been a win2k guy myself, but does XP (SP1a, I'm NOT going SP2) offer any "enhancements" for a X2 3800+? Hyperthreading was supposed to be better on XP, but since now it's like 2 real CPU's would there be a performance difference in XP vs 2k?
The only advantage I can think of is XP boots faster, but my computer never turns off.
Disadvantages are it has retarded icons, bothers you about everything, just more "bloated" overall.
I always felt Windows 2000 was supposed to be faster, since XP is supposed to be the bloated, more "user-friendly" version Windows 2000.
Of course, if I'm wrong and the performance is actually better in XP than 2k, then I'll go with XP.

Open to any suggestions! Was initially going to go x64, but seems like its too much trouble to get nothing

 

[OdiN]

I'm not sure Windows 2000 will properly recognize and utilize a dual core processor. Haven't researched it. It may not.

I used to be a die hard Win2k user...but I moved to WinXP after the first service pack was released. XP works great.

 

[BlueWeasel]

If you feel XP is bloated, just turn off all the eye candy and switch to the classic W2K theme. Even on low end hardware (ie, P3 500Mhz), I really couldn't tell much difference between W2K and XP with all the eye candy turned off.

 

[xomp]

yea, on computers that i install xp onto, i usually disable every service i dont use (same with win2k).
winxp seems a little more finnicky with disabling stuff, but i just gotta be more careful.
hm.. i dunno, i'm just thinking more "why change if its basically the same"... hmmm

 

[Canterwood]

When I first got my X2 chip, I tried out XP on it, as it has the AMD driver specifically written for it and there's a kernel patch for XP.
These seem to be regarding issues with CnQ (which I don't use anyway) and FYI, the driver and patch are specific to SP2 ONLY.
However, I still found that certain games would lock up randomly and would require the -set affinty trick to work properly.

I put Win2K on, which doesn't have any specific X2 drivers written for it or any kernel patches, and everything works flawlesly!
No more lock ups in games, or certain applications.
Its strange, but it just works.

Now, I'm not telling you what OS to use on your new rig, but if you favour 2K over XP, then you should give it a try first.
For me, 2K worked better than XP on my X2, and in the testing there was no performance difference between them.

 

[Nothinman]

but does XP (SP1a, I'm NOT going SP2)

Do you actually have any valid reasons for not wanting to run SP2 or are you just falling for all of the FUD out there?

 

[networkman]

I also used to hate XP for all the bloat and confusing new desktop/layout, but after dumping all the eye-candy and resetting things back to a more classic appearance, I don't mind using XP as much anymore. As for SP2, I've not encountered any problems(once I turned off the bundled firewall).

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

but does XP (SP1a, I'm NOT going SP2)

Do you actually have any valid reasons for not wanting to run SP2 or are you just falling for all of the FUD out there?

Yeah, i'm interested too - what's the reason for not going SP2?

 

[KoolDrew]

Of course, if I'm wrong and the performance is actually better in XP than 2k, then I'll go with XP.

Performance is better in XP.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Performance is better in XP.

Not true.

 

[n0cmonkey]

The answer is always XP Pro. sp2. Nothing else makes sense. Yet.

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Performance is better in XP.

Not true.

It is very true.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Performance is better in XP.

Not true.

It is very true.

Can you please show me something that backs that up? Every direct comparison benchmark I've seen had them virtually identical, with 2K and XP both beating eachother by neglible amounts in different applications.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
Performance is better in XP.

Not true.

It is very true.

Can you please show me something that backs that up? Every direct comparison benchmark I've seen had them virtually identical, with 2K and XP both beating eachother by neglible amounts in different applications.

Indeed.
Testing on my X2 showed no difference in performance between XP or 2K.
This included running various apps, games and video encoding.

In fact the ONLY time I can think of where XP could edge out 2K in certain situations was with its implementation of Hyper Threading.
That only being because 2K wasn't correctly HT aware and thought it was dealing with two physical cpu's which could cause some games/apps to slow down.

In dual core and single core performance, there is NO major difference.

 

[Tarrant64]

I tend to like Win2K for other reasons not related to this, BUT, XP IMHO will probably be your best bet. Any future revisions to X2 drivers or anything will probably have better support on XP than in Win2k. In the end it is best to use newer software with newer hardware. Less problems that way. As far as what performs better, again I think in the long run XP will be a better choice. So many people out there for support and asking questions about XP, not Win2k. However, your choice.

If it works for you, more power to you. If not, you know what to do.


EDIT: In regards to your comment about xp64, YEP. good choice NOT going with that. For it being officially released and still having some issues with drivers, etc., there is definetely no advantage going from 32-bit to 64-bit. I believe that YES, there are some applications that may benefit from it, but for the average application/gaming user, 32-bit will prove to be better.

Sometimes I wonder if 64-bit windows was a little bit ahead of it's time? Due to the lack of 64-bit apps for it that would actually take advantage of it.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

but does XP (SP1a, I'm NOT going SP2)

Do you actually have any valid reasons for not wanting to run SP2 or are you just falling for all of the FUD out there?

I agree. Why not use SP2. SP2 is great once you disable that annoying security center. If you aren't going to use XP SP2, miswell use Windows 2K SP4 instead of XP SP1.

 

[ForumMaster]

While i use xp cause i am a gamer, i do like 2k better. although to many peope windows xp and windows 2k look similar, they are based on different kernels. windows xp was the continuation of the windows 98 line, while windows 2k was based on the NT kernel. so in the background, it is different. again, like OdiN said, i am not sure if 2k will properally recognize a dual core proccesor, but i can think of no reason why it shouldn't. In fact, i think it will. anyway, best of luck. and if 2k can use a dual core, uuse it. it is better then windows xp.

 

[Nothinman]

although to many peope windows xp and windows 2k look similar, they are based on different kernels. windows xp was the continuation of the windows 98 line, while windows 2k was based on the NT kernel.

That's not true at all, XP was based on the NT kernel just as Win2K was. Win2K was originally NT 5.0 and XP would have been NT 5.1.

 

[RadioHead84]

Is the Athalon X2 like crazy better then my Athalon 64bit. I have a 3500+ I got last year thats not X2. I havnt really heard anything about it before, anyone have any info..I feel jipped lol

 

[ValuedCustomer]

I use both and am happy w/ both. The only speed difference I've been able to notice is the boot times. XP boots much faster than 2000 but I don't shut down very often so it's not a real big issue w/ me. That said, given the choice, I'd go w/ XP sp2. Keep in mind, 2k is no longer supported by MS unless you have a separate corporate arrangement and I'm not sure how that'll last.

 

[talyn00]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

although to many peope windows xp and windows 2k look similar, they are based on different kernels. windows xp was the continuation of the windows 98 line, while windows 2k was based on the NT kernel.

That's not true at all, XP was based on the NT kernel just as Win2K was. Win2K was originally NT 5.0 and XP would have been NT 5.1.

Windows ME was the end of the whole Windows 9x line, good riddance.

 

[RadioHead84]

Originally posted by: talyn00

Originally posted by: Nothinman

although to many peope windows xp and windows 2k look similar, they are based on different kernels. windows xp was the continuation of the windows 98 line, while windows 2k was based on the NT kernel.

That's not true at all, XP was based on the NT kernel just as Win2K was. Win2K was originally NT 5.0 and XP would have been NT 5.1.

Windows ME was the end of the whole Windows 9x line, good riddance.

In this case..the end of the line sucked hard...oh so hard.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: RadioHead84

Originally posted by: talyn00

Originally posted by: Nothinman

although to many peope windows xp and windows 2k look similar, they are based on different kernels. windows xp was the continuation of the windows 98 line, while windows 2k was based on the NT kernel.

That's not true at all, XP was based on the NT kernel just as Win2K was. Win2K was originally NT 5.0 and XP would have been NT 5.1.

Windows ME was the end of the whole Windows 9x line, good riddance.

In this case..the end of the line sucked hard...oh so hard.

Windows 9X sucked perioid. Windows 98/ME should have died as soon as Windows XP was released.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: RadioHead84

Originally posted by: talyn00

Originally posted by: Nothinman

although to many peope windows xp and windows 2k look similar, they are based on different kernels. windows xp was the continuation of the windows 98 line, while windows 2k was based on the NT kernel.

That's not true at all, XP was based on the NT kernel just as Win2K was. Win2K was originally NT 5.0 and XP would have been NT 5.1.

Windows ME was the end of the whole Windows 9x line, good riddance.

In this case..the end of the line sucked hard...oh so hard.

Windows 9X sucked perioid. Windows 98/ME should have died as soon as Windows XP was released.

Hear hear! :thumbsup:

As for the whole 2k vs XP thing, theyre practiaclly the same, XP has some features 2k dosent but they can be disabled if you dont like them. Theres no reason not get XP and SP2.