Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Should I Install Win2000? Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 7:34 am Posted by Kiwi (2228 messages posted) Yes, Win2K will be MUCH faster on that old of a PC. . Kiwi ** On Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 5:03 am, Spunker88 wrote: >I know my pc can run xp, as i have used it on it before. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Should I Install XP of 2000? (Specs in Post) Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 7:37 am Posted by C K (6910 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.. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Should I Install XP of 2000? (Specs in Post) Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 2:18 pm Posted by Spunker88 (10 messages posted) It is indeed a Penitum III. It has a sticker on the side and the bios comfirms it as a P3. Thanks for the advice, i was kind of already leaning towards 2000, but xp just feels newer and better, but maybe thats just the eye candy. I had xp and 2000 dual boot on an even older system than this one that had a celeron 330mhz, and 2000 was far better, i just didnt know if my "new" system was any better suited for xp. BTW, i got this thing free as a school throwaway. It had Win 98se on it and was bogged down with a bunch of security apps and junk. Of course a format and a bios reset took care of it all. XP does eat its way through ram. On my older celeron system i could browse firefox in win 2000 and still have about 80-100mb free out of 160. On this "new" system browsing with firefox caused the ram to go to about 50-80 free and thats out of 256! So im definitely putting 2000 on this thing... Thanks for the help. On Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 7:37 am, C K wrote: >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.. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Should I Install XP of 2000? (Specs in Post) Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 2:55 pm Posted by DEX (11847 messages posted) Dealing with Unwanted Spyware and Parasites Click Here Just my two cents It comes down to how many computers you have..XP you can only use it on one machine... win2k more than one.. :) If you don't have all the drivers for your hardware XP should have them and win2k will not .. If you have a small network XP will set it up quick win2k takes a bit of work.. win2wk is great and XP is the same but on steroids Are you a wood worker ?,if so Click Here On Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 5:03 am, Spunker88 wrote: >I know my pc can run xp, as i have used it on it before. But, i want to know which >os will run faster for me. I have used Windows 2000 before and it meets my needs >just fine. But XP is newer, and has a few more features. But are these features slowing >down my old pc. > >My Specs: >Pentium III 667mhz >256 MB RAM >80gb Harddrive >32mb integrated graphics > >What do you think will run faster on this thing? [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Should I Install XP of 2000? (Specs in Post) Saturday, December 20, 2008 at 2:55 am Posted by mike (30 messages posted) there is a growing problem with Old machines/W2k----At least it seems so? AVGfree now seems to saturate the processor, ZonaAlarm won't update on W2k anymore. I want to stay with my "neat" W2k. Has anyone devised a plan to keep it firewalled and virus/malware free? On Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 2:55 pm, DEX wrote: >Dealing with Unwanted Spyware and Parasites > >Click Here > > > > >Just my two cents > >It comes down to how many computers you have..XP you can only use it on one machine... >win2k more than one.. :) > >If you don't have all the drivers for your hardware XP should have them and win2k >will not .. > >If you have a small network XP will set it up quick win2k takes a bit of work.. > >win2wk is great and XP is the same but on steroids > > > > > > > > > > Are you a wood worker ?,if so Click Here > > [Reply or follow-up to this message] Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum