|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
12-24-2005, 12:00 PM
|
#1 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 617
|
WIn 2000 Pro vs XP pro.
I seeem to have lisplaced my W2K cd. I have my win XP pro CD. but am and have always been a W2k fan.
Any reason I should stick with my W2K. Or change my old fashion ways and go to Win XP? thks.
__________________
O/S Win XP Pro; Serv Pack 3; IE 7.0); M/B Gigabyte GA-K8NF-9; CPU AMD 3000+ Athlon XP; System Memory 1024 MB (2x512mb Dual Channel); BIOS Type Award Modular (04/07/05); Video Adapter NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GS (256 MB); Audio Adapter Realtek AC'97 Audio |
|
|
|
12-24-2005, 12:03 PM
|
#2 |
|
Dark
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,128
 |
Actually win2k is older than XP, so win2k should be the old fashion.
WIndows XP has more features, also win2k is like the worse OS for games. GO with WindowsXP
__________________
1. Intel Core2Duo 3Ghz|Asus P5K Deluxe Wifi|4GB DDR2 800Mhz| Seagate 500GB*2| Evga 8800GTX 768MB| Antec SonataII case w/ 550W TruePower PSU|XP Pro 2. AMD Athlon 64 3500|Asus A8N-sli deluxe|2GB DDR ram|Maxtor 250GB HDD|ASUS NVIDIA 6800 256MB|antec sonataII case w/ 450W PSU|XP home |
|
|
|
|
12-24-2005, 12:05 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member (14 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Offenbach/Main (Germany)
Posts: 8,485
 |
Win2K is not the worse OS for games. It handles games very well.
Unless a game needs XP for some reason, 2K is not worse that XP for gaming. NT was the worst because of the lack of a newer DirectX. 2K was the OS to bring gaming to the NT based OS. Anyhow, 2K and XP are very similar. If you don't need the features of XP, stick with 2K. They're based on the same core. RJ
__________________
All's right with the world when your PC is working right. 
|
|
|
|
|
12-24-2005, 12:06 PM
|
#4 | |
|
Dark
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,128
|
Quote:
Last edited by Dark Nova; 12-24-2005 at 12:12 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-24-2005, 12:10 PM
|
#5 | |
|
Member (14 bit)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Offenbach/Main (Germany)
Posts: 8,485
|
That's 2 games. They're exceptions.
I haven't had a single game that didn't work with 2K. There is no reason why. Games are written for DirectX, so they run on DirectX no matter what the OS is. Except the games that need a special OS for some reason. And as far as Worms Armageddon goes: http://wormsarmageddon.team17.com/ma...supp&area=upda Quote:
Last edited by RJ; 12-24-2005 at 12:14 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
12-24-2005, 12:13 PM
|
#6 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 617
|
thks but gaming is not an issue with me.
|
|
|
|
|
12-24-2005, 12:15 PM
|
#7 |
|
Dark
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,128
|
like Warcraft3, i bought that and when i wanted to play it, it did'nt work, but it worked barely on my OS ME system with the same version of direct X, it was definatly win2k.
either way, since you have XP already take XP |
|
|
|
|
12-24-2005, 01:15 PM
|
#8 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Mt. Hope NY
Posts: 1,180
|
I agree with airbus ,besides who needs all that bagage that comes with XP
__________________
"Be Adventurous Think For Yourself" Laptop: Hp turion2.2gig 1gig ram XP pro dv 8040us New Build /Xp-sp3/Ubuntu Gigabyte MA77OT-UD3P AMD Phenom quad 4 3gig 250 gig SATA WD 2 GIG DDR3 BFG 1000 watt power supply Pioneer DVD-CD-LABEL - Sonny DVD- Nvidia 8400GS Video card |
|
|
|
|
12-26-2005, 12:03 AM
|
#9 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 93
|
I like XP more than w2k. No other reasons but it's a little bit more customisable, and better look. That's all
|
|
|
|
|
12-26-2005, 01:40 AM
|
#10 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 617
|
well thks for your input. I ahve made my decision, to stick w/ W2K.
|
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
