[Bakuchris]

Hello,

I was going to Install Windows 2000 Professional SP4 on my computer instead of Windows XP. But I'm not sure whether it's a good idea or not. Could somebody tell me the pros and cons of this?

Also I recently Installed Windows 2000 Server to an old Dell Laptop, and it seems fairly fast. Will it have the same effect on my PC?


Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
GA-MA785GMT-UD2H
AMD Athlon II X3 435
2.91 GHZ, 2.00 GB of RAM
Windows XP Home Edition SP3

This post has been edited by Bakuchris: 23 April 2011 - 04:33 AM

[tomasz86]

2000 is faster than XP but you probably won't notice any difference on such a computer

[MagicAndre1981]

stay at XP Sp3, which is a bit secure (DEP/NX Bit) compared to Win2k and gets updates till 2014

[jaclaz]

JFYI, a correctly tweaked/optimized XP (if you can stand it's toyish looks ) can be almost as fast as a Win2K (and it does have among the zillion completely unneeded "enhancements" a few ones worth it ).

By using (with some common sense) the advice given on sites like blackviper's or bold-fortune:
http://www.blackviper.com/
http://replay.web.ar...ex.php?act=home
or by using the info available here on the MSFN forum, particularly in the nlite section, you can remove/disable most of the annoying, senseless and slowing down services that normally run on a "default" XP.

jaclaz

[submix8c]

jaclaz, on 23 April 2011 - 06:39 AM, said:

By using (with some common sense) the advice given on sites like blackviper's or bold-fortune:...

Noted... thx!

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

jaclaz, on 23 April 2011 - 06:39 AM, said:

By using (with some common sense) the advice given on sites like blackviper's or bold-fortune:
http://www.blackviper.com/
jaclaz

The blackviper site is awesome. Thank you (The Finder + The Master of links)

[jaclaz]

And, just for the record , though using the "classic theme" on XP helps:
http://support.micro...kb/294309/en-us
a few more tips/tricks:
http://etutorials.or...+Retro+is+Cool/
http://wiki.nullstac...le_Login_Screen
http://www.wincustom...ch/windows+2000
and a "full" theme:
http://vertigosity.d...-0-7-2-27939557
..and you can go even a couple steps further... :
http://www.uic.unn.r...ic/lastnote.txt
http://www.uic.unn.r.../winclassic.txt
http://www.uic.unn.r...100/winclassic/

jaclaz

[pointertovoid]

XP is faster than W2k provided you have enough Ram for Win, the antivirus, the browser or the application you want.
And not by little: on my X25-E +E8600 +P45 it boots in 8s, versus 15s for W2k pro (I optimise W2k but know XP little).
Once running, XP starts applications much faster than W2k does.

This is due to its better Ntldr and Ntdetect (improvable on W2k) and to its prefetch which W2k lacks.

Now, why do I stick with W2k? Well, just because XP upsets me within 20s each and every single time.