DFW Mustang Forums banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,521 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
My home computer has ME on it. Had it when it was new. I am thinking of changing since I suspect it may be the cause of my problems. Which one is better and why. I only use the computer for general use and games. I have heard XP has some problems with some games and software. If that is true what kind of problems are they. Thanks computer nerds! :D
 

·
Boost is Good
Joined
·
2,920 Posts
WhtEdge said:
My home coputer has ME on it. Had it when it was new. I am thinking of changing since I suspect it may be the cause of my problems. Which one is better and why. I only use the computer for general use and games. I have heard XP has some problems with some games and software. If that is true what kind of problems are they. Thanks computer nerds! :D
What are the specs on your computer? If you have a really fast computer I would go with XP, but if it is semi-fast go w/ 2000 Pro. XP takes a lot of resources.
 

·
Yes I'm...
Joined
·
3,356 Posts
Running win XP on a 400 Mhz 256 meg box and it runs pretty well. Personally I would choose 2000 if stability, and not speed or ease of use are your priority. If you want something that looks better, is easier and more intuitive, and is still reasonably stable (certainly much more than ME), go with XP.

Also as far as game compatibility, I think both have potential issues. However with XP, you can force any program to run in compatibility mode for any other Windows OS, back to '95. In my experience that has worked almost every time to resolve an incompatibility. I don't think Win2K can do that but don't quote me on that.
 

·
You lookin' at mah EYE?!
Joined
·
4,809 Posts
Re: Re: Windows 2000 or XP?

281R said:
What are the specs on your computer? If you have a really fast computer I would go with XP, but if it is semi-fast go w/ 2000 Pro. XP takes a lot of resources.
In it's default state, yes. But in 30 seconds, it can be configured to take less resources than 2000. My current setup uses about 10% less resources than 2000, and it's got all the nifty XP extras (msconfig, system restore, etc)
 

·
You lookin' at mah EYE?!
Joined
·
4,809 Posts
O2BQIK said:
I don't think Win2K can do that but don't quote me on that.
It can, but it's kind of convoluted. You can't just right-click and choose the compatability, you have to run a program ... can't remember it off the top of my head, but it's on the 2k CD.

That, and it'd doesn't work as well. I've tried it on a few programs, and have had about 50% success rate, where as the XP compatability I've had about 95% success.

Also, I was running XP on a P2 350 with 256 ram and it worked peachy until my onboard SCSI controller decided to blow and take out my IDE controllers with it. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,521 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Well, I got 2000 for free so I did a complete change over. Man, it is great compared to ME. No problems now. I would have tried XP but I did not have the $$$$ and I have heard of several people ho have problems with it recognizing software and drivers.
 

·
You lookin' at mah EYE?!
Joined
·
4,809 Posts
Only thing it'd have problems recognizing is hardware that's released after XP came out, and/or hardware that never went through the HQL testing. I put it on my desktop before the MB died, and it picked up everything, even the Radeon 7500. On my laptop, the only drivers I needed to install were the chipset, and the GeForce4 440 Go, everything else was recognized.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top