Advice from the More Experienced -- Win2K or XP

[Mr. Underhill]

Greetings,

After much lurking here with the SysOpt Forums, I am still undecided on which OS to migrate to (from Win 98SE). I have received opinions in both directions in other posts, but have not plainly heard any evidence upon which to make my own solid decision. So, I am asking those of you who are familiar with either (preferably both) Windows 2000 and XP (Pro versions), which one should I adopt.

To help you help me decide, here's some pertinent information about me.

1. I am a writer. All of my writing software is compatible with either OS, but I seek stability.
2. I am an avid gamer.
3. I have little time or patience for annoyances with my computer (one reason I have stuck with 98SE for so long - I know it and it works... It just doesn't make the most of my system now.) I want to turn my machine on and either write, game, or numb my mind online. I *don't* want to be hassled with OS glitches.
4. My system specs:
MSI 645 Ultra MOBO w/ 450W PS
P4 1.6 GHz (moving to 2.6 shortly)
1024MB PC2100 DDR
Audigy Gamer
Radeon 9700 PRO
40GB HD
Toshiba CDRW
Cable Internet Connection
Currently no other computers networked, but foresee need in future

Basically, given the information above, I am seeking thoughtful, well-reasoned advice on which OS to migrate to. So many of you have been helpful with other issues, for which I am thankful. I'm hoping to receive the same here.

Thanks, folks.

Sincerely,

-Mr. Underhill.

[r8500]

Ok, both OS's are stable.

Everything that Microsoft makes tends to have glitches, its a fact of life.

But, for gaming, then you would have to go with XP. Its better for games than 2000.

Hope this helps

[Bigjakkstaffa]

But, for gaming, then you would have to go with XP. Its better for games than 2000.

If anything ive found the EXACT opposite, win2k has been much friendlier to my older games than XP, having said that anything from the past 5 years should run okies on either

--Jakk

[r8500]

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa


If anything ive found the EXACT opposite, win2k has been much friendlier to my older games than XP, having said that anything from the past 5 years should run okies on either

--Jakk

How old we talking here?

[DocEvi1]

Hi.
I was running Win98Se on my machine for a long time, the only reason I changed up to windows 2k was because of my new graphics card (the 128 on board RAM was a nightmare to install with the 512 system). I liked 2k, it's simple, clean, effecient and relatively fast. I now run XP why? Well the support that 2k gives on older software is shocking, it's not designed for the home user at all.

If I were you go with XP, turn off all the fancy gubins that it installs as standard, change the style to 9x and be happy...2k and XP are essentially the same after all.

Stefan

[Bigjakkstaffa]

How old we talking here?

Most recent one is Carmageddon two which was..ooooh 1999 if memory serves

--Jakk

[buttonpusher69]

I have to agree with Jakk about running older apps in XP. They don't work, or if they do your have to do a lot of tweaking to get them to work.

I'm running XP Pro and have had problems getting games and other older Win98 type software to operate correctly on it.

Go for the Win2K.

Buttonpusher69

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Havign said this we knwo you've already got win98, you could always dual boot in the case of old and incompatible games

--Jakk

[r8500]

Originally posted by Bigjakkstaffa
Havign said this we knwo you've already got win98, you could always dual boot in the case of old and incompatible games

--Jakk

This is true, and I think the price of hard drives is pretty good right now. You could just buy another, and make it a slave, and set XP up on it.

[rraehal]

I have played many games on XP and 2000. It seems the only issues I have are with older DOS programs on XP. In 2000 I can make them all work easily. In XP it takes a little more effort per game. (Only my experience) - I have never had an issue with any Windows based games. I downloaded VDMSound (search on Google) to get sound to work in DOS games that can not use my newer cards that are not SB Compatible. (Look in the Readme to see how to use VDMsound after it is installed - not really obvious until reading the file.)

Everything else such as the I-net and Office apps perform the same.

XP just looks a lot different without changing the view, in my opinion. No problems with either.

[Sterling_Aug]

Xp seems to be more friendly on the installs but 2000 is better with the apps.

[ichorid]

i was gonna start this thread, but ill just read this one

isnt win2k just nt5?

[rraehal]

2000 is in line to be NT5 but has vast improvements over Windows NT. Windows XP takes 2000 to the next level and could be considered NT5.1 or whatever number you want to add.

NT 3 and 4 did not allow direct hardware access, had no plug and play abilities and many features lacking in the area of easy to use software. 2000 should be held in higher respect than as just NT5 in my opinion. Far superior and a good move by microsoft if that is possible.

[crossedup]

win98 would work a little better for you for now if you dumped a stick of that memory, 1024 is too much for it.

ive got that much in mine and my computer does run fine but i get more errors than i ever did with 256. win98 just cant use all that memory. M$ admitted to that.

i too am pondering same upgrade questions (partly because of memory issue) and am starting to lean W2K just because of phone home to bill issues with XP. might get XP and tweak them out though

still pondering as are you

[cdroman]

Either one would be a huge improvement over win98.