re: Should I Install XP of 2000? (Specs in Post)
Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 7:37 am
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by C K
(6528 messages posted)
Win 2K.. XP will be a struggle if you leave all the eye candy on, and that's assuming
you "do" have a P3 and not a Celeron. If it's a Celeron that will slow it down even
more. If you set it up for a minimum of features so that it looks like Win 2K, then
it will run a little faster, but on your machine, W2K will run faster. I have two
identical machines on hardware, and the Win 2K runs noticeable faster than the XP
Pro machine.
Specs on both machines: The old Asus P2B-DS boards with SCSI drives, Dual- 1gig
P3 processors, 1 gig of RAM, 64 meg Nvidia graphics. They are my video and audio
machines, and also I use them to test software from time to time. One loaded with
W2K and the other with XP Pro. The Win 2K machine runs faster on rendering than
the XP machine. Both run the same software.
I have an old AMD system that runs W2K OK, albeit a little slow but stable, (Asus
board, AMD K6-2, 550 meg processor, 512 meg of ram, Nvidia 32 meg graphics) But
it wouldn't run XP worth a darn, even with all the eye candy turned off..
I would stick with W2K on yours if I had a choice. When I upgraded the hardware,
I would do so, so that the machine would handle Vista class operating system as well,
that way you aren't just buying older obsolete hardware that vendors are trying to
dump on unsuspecting buyers/consumers just to run XP. Just my opinion..
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  | re: Should I Install XP of 2000? (Specs in Post) (C K: Thu, Dec 18, 2008, 7:37 am) |
|
