Win2K or WinXP for gaming?

[msmith11]

I'm building a new system, and have a valid license for Windows 2000 Pro. Is this OS sufficient for running most of today's games, or are most games today being written to run on WinXP only? What would I lose should I decide to stick with Win2K?

 

[NathanBWF]

You should be fine. Win2k is a stable OS and pretty much anything that runs on XP as of today will run on Win2k. If you were still running Windows 95 then you might have a problem...

 

[Canterwood]

Save your cash and use 2K!

It will play all the latest games titles perfectly. (I should know)

Pretty much all games are written to work on 98SE, Millennium, 2000 or XP atm, but as 2K and XP are so close, then you shouldn't have any problems now or in the future either.

 

[DustBunny]

i personally prefer 2k over XP...

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Most of the games will work on 2K, but you do take a slight performance hit over XP

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: HelloDeli
Most of the games will work on 2K, but you do take a slight performance hit over XP

I haven't found this to be so. I've used both O/S's for gaming and I have found 2K to be slightly faster if anything, at least on my system.

I really don't think there is anything much between the two.

 

[EeyoreX]

For most all practical intents and purposes 2k and XP are the same OS (2k=NT 5.0 and XP=NT 5.1) so there should be very little difference if any. The new GUI of XP does probably make things a tiny bit slower (depending on your system specs) but this can be disabled. If you have 2000 there is no real compelling reason to upgrade right now. So long as you keep updated (true no matter which OS you use) you will be fine. Windows 2000 will be around for a while, and games will work on it the same as they would with XP. The only reason you may ever run into trouble is a hardware issue. If you choose to use some newer controller pads or whatever, 2000 may or may not work with them. XP does have slightly better support for newer/more peripherals.

\Dan

 

[Rottie]

Why not start a poll to determine which XP or 2k is better for gaming.

I used w2k sp2 (I can't get win2k to work with sp4 so maybe I should upgrade to XP) for gaming and other stuff.

 

[Algere]

Dunno 'bout games but I've heard 3DMark is faster on 2K than on XP but not by much.

 

[mobiusman]

Only problem I ever had gaming on 2K was with Electronic Arts games.
-Scott

 

[Gamingphreek]

Win XP has much better memory management. Also a bit more secure albeit with the 40 someodd security updates.

-Kevin

 

[EeyoreX]

Win XP has much better memory management. Also a bit more secure albeit with the 40 someodd security updates.

Windows XP and Windows 2000 (AFAIK) have the same memory management system, they are all but the same OS. And they are just as secure. Maybe you never noticed that every worm/virus/trojan that affects Windows XP also affects Windows 2000? They get patched at the same time. The only way you could define XP as "more secure" than 2000 is out of the box, Windows XP is more secure, as it incorporates many patches that you have to install when using Windows 2000.

\Dan

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: EeyoreX

Win XP has much better memory management. Also a bit more secure albeit with the 40 someodd security updates.

Windows XP and Windows 2000 (AFAIK) have the same memory management system, they are all but the same OS. And they are just as secure. Maybe you never noticed that every worm/virus/trojan that affects Windows XP also affects Windows 2000? They get patched at the same time. The only way you could define XP as "more secure" than 2000 is out of the box, Windows XP is more secure, as it incorporates many patches that you have to install when using Windows 2000.

\Dan

i dunno, win2k with sp4 slipstreamed would prolly be more secure than winxp with sp1 slipstreamed

 

[EeyoreX]

i dunno, win2k with sp4 slipstreamed would prolly be more secure than winxp with sp1 slipstreamed

The only reason I can think of why this would be the case is if Win 2K SP4 was released after XP SP1. In any event, it does not in any way invalidate my statement, that out of the box XP is more secure than 2000. Do current versions of 2000 come with SP4 slipstreamed? Nor does it change the fact that both OSes, properly updated still will suffer the same attacks at the same time. Neither OS is more secure than the other when both OS is properly updated.

\Dan

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: EeyoreX

Win XP has much better memory management. Also a bit more secure albeit with the 40 someodd security updates.

Windows XP and Windows 2000 (AFAIK) have the same memory management system, they are all but the same OS.

You've seen the source code? :Q
edit: Analysis of kernel-performance of 2k vs XP, by IBM

 

[Ryoga]

Originally posted by: EeyoreX

i dunno, win2k with sp4 slipstreamed would prolly be more secure than winxp with sp1 slipstreamed

The only reason I can think of why this would be the case is if Win 2K SP4 was released after XP SP1. In any event, it does not in any way invalidate my statement, that out of the box XP is more secure than 2000. Do current versions of 2000 come with SP4 slipstreamed?

To answer that, yes.

XP has a few advantages over 2k. Namely, it supports some utilities (bootvis off the top of my head) that 2k doesn't. XP out-of-the-box will likely perform worse than 2k simply because of the bloated UI that comes with XP. Assuming you run through Black Viper I would not expect to see a significant difference in performance levels.

For the budget-conscious power user, I'd suggest 2k Pro. Otherwise, I'd suggest XP Home to the budget standard user or XP Pro to the normal power user. XP simply has a wider support base for software and hardware. There are very few differences between XP and 2k, but it can be annoying being on a 2k machine when the answer for XP don't help.

The other primary difference is how 2k and XP handle NetBIOS. XP got rid of it as much as possible, so you can have difficulty sharing resources from an XP machine to a 2k machine.

 

[EeyoreX]

You've seen the source code?

I did say "AFAIK", meaning just that, it was as far as I knew. Alternatively that means I could be wrong.

The other primary difference is how 2k and XP handle NetBIOS. XP got rid of it as much as possible, so you can have difficulty sharing resources from an XP machine to a 2k machine.

I have no trouble sharing between my XP and 2k boxes on my home network. I don't recall at the moment, but I'd bet you can install NetBIOS on a XP box in about a minute.

\Dan

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: EeyoreX

i dunno, win2k with sp4 slipstreamed would prolly be more secure than winxp with sp1 slipstreamed

The only reason I can think of why this would be the case is if Win 2K SP4 was released after XP SP1.

Text

windows 2k sp4 was released june 26th 2003
windows xp sp1 was released september 4 2002

both come out of the box now with sp4 and sp1 likewise, so out of the box, win 2k sp4 is more secure than windows xp sp1

 

[Slink3r]

I think that 2k is better, it is a nice stable OS, and it isn't made for people that have no knowledge at all about computers. 2k is the only windows version that I use, and I don't plan on using another build until there's a big improvement.