Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 

Sign in to follow this  
Bakuchris

Installing Windows 2000 Professional Questions?

Recommended Posts

Bakuchris    10

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

Edited by Bakuchris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaclaz    927

JFYI, a correctly tweaked/optimized XP (if you can stand it's toyish looks :ph34r: ) can be almost as fast as a Win2K (and it does have among the zillion completely unneeded "enhancements" :w00t: a few :whistle: 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.archive.org/20080401072517/http://www.bold-fortune.com/forums/index.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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
submix8c    89
By using (with some common sense) the advice given on sites like blackviper's or bold-fortune:...
Noted... thx!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaclaz    927

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×