PDA

View Full Version : Win 2000 better than Win XP ?



Steve_L
04-05-2004, 09:24 AM
Reading another post here on F1, "Hamster" wrote:
<< I upgraded a clients computer from XP to 2000 today. A leap forward. They loved how "unconstricting" and "uncomplex" and "un IN YOUR FACE" it was...>>

Really? Well, I have heard really good things about Win2000, but wonder if there are limitations with Win2000, such as with gaming or video editing or digital photo editing???

I will be upgrading (new PC) sometime this year and was thinking of getting XP. BTW, is 2000 the same price as XP? Can I LAN - link 2000 to my wife's XP laptop?

Thanks, Steve L

godfather
04-05-2004, 09:38 AM
The core code of XP is much the same as 2000 in most cases.

You can network XP and 2000 (or any version of Windows or Linux or Mac etc)

XP has a lot more "user freindliness" in my opinion, which is probably counter to hamstar's views. It is better for some multimedia processes as well, having more internal support. 2000 will still work fine however, its a matter of choice.

However to qualify my opinion, I must state that I have only been using and working with PCs since 1981, and have used, programmed and maintained PCs with every version of DOS and Windows ever released from DOS 1.1 to Windows XP (apart from DOS 4.0), I therefore assume hamstar has considerably more experience than I do and will defer to his very scientific analysis of the issue.

But in my own personal (uninformed and uneducated) opinion, go with XP.

hamstar
04-05-2004, 10:54 AM
Whoa! Almost missed this one. Hamstar to the rescue. Time to convert another one of the innocent before bill gates take his soul. ;-)

>However to qualify my opinion, I must state that I have only been using and working with PCs since 1981
Lol... I was only born in 1986 but I wasn't born yesterday. I can tell the difference between a working operating system and a frozen one.

XP is right up there and "in yer face" with its "Look at MEEEEE, I'm BLUUUE!"

It will enhance your online and media "eXPerience" as MS marketing says. (notice the sarcasm)

And users of the O/S can rest easy as now they have an O/S that is "colourful" like "Macintosh" Woweee!

But XP has deep problems. All this crap that MS has chucked on top of a 2000 core or "kernel" has made the OS unstable at times and just plain ridiculous! Who needs Universal Plug and PLay? Oh thats right! That 13 year old haxx0r who jusst can't wait to get into your computer and run amuck!

XP is huge, Some of its core components are from Windows 3.0 and 95! Microsoft has just built and built and built on top of its same crappy code until this latest reincarnation "XP" so much so that now its about as fast as a herd of turtles stampeding through penutbutter and as stable as a house of cards!

To top it all off, Satan gets 95% of the revenue from XP! And billy's still making a whooping profit of this unfit O/S.

So before you go out and buy XP, punch yourself in the face and get Windows 2000 instead.

Top 10 Reasons Why Windows XP Sucks (http://www.geocities.com/merijn_bellekom/new/xpsucks.html)

2000 is like a breeze of fresh air compared to XP. Some may say that I'm old fashioned by liking the old GUI but... as it says in that link, I want speed! Not a green start button. Xp may have more shortcuts to "Your" (downloaded) Music, and "Your" (DivX) Movies, but it sure as hell does not run games better.

That is just bloated MS crap! Any game that runs on XP, runs on 2000.

Do you know why 2000 is so stable? Well like Server 2003, It was built for big Companies who needed stability. MS actually hired guys who wrote an old O/S back in the days of DOS that was uniquely stable, to write the win2k kernel!

So if XP has the core of Windows 2000, why isn't it stable? Well MS has chucked in all these services and **** 3rd party apps that no average user uses. They stuck cardboard to the taskbar and painted it blue. It is more complicated than any Windows O/S.

Its just bad news.

So my suggestion to you, is to buy 2000 not XP.

Ahhhhh, that felt good. HA! Someone try and play down that!

hamstar
04-05-2004, 11:01 AM
XP Pro = $380

2K Pro = $413

Including GST.

However, Steve, if you wanna buy 2000 from me, I can give it to you for just above wholesale price ($325).

Not pirated either, but OEM (only for new PC's).

metla
04-05-2004, 11:03 AM
Just above wholesale price?

lmao.

your 98 dollars above wholesale.

metla
04-05-2004, 11:12 AM
Your article you linked to is crapola, most of what is complained (bells and whistles) can be turned of in under 4 seconds, Winxp has far superior auto-detection of hardware,. Its also completely stable, and many of the features are of huge benefit to first time users.

An OS is like any other piece of software, it needs to be matched with the required hardware, if the guy wants speed then I suggest he retire his 200mhz celeron.

And if one takes a minute to look at the worms and such that have been doing the rounds, they effect w2k as well as XP,does this mean anything to you?

John Grieve
04-05-2004, 11:42 AM
Personally I think 2000 is a far better OS than XP simply because it is so simple to tweak the crap out of the system. I believe this is so because 2000 is intended for corporate environments where advanced users are in control of the whole network (administrators) and therefore everything is tweakable very simply.

I run gaming lans at home every two weeks and have found that 2000 is highly stable in this sort of environment and far less prone to problems with games (unlike my experiences with the XP machines on the network).

I also build machines for gamers and my OS of choice is 2000 for these rather than XP.

Eventually I will have to move to XP as support and drivers or 2000 will eventually disappear but I am hoping by then that all the problems in XP are solved by users and large amounts of info are available to beat XP into some sort of decent shape.

2000 is rock solid in a network with 95/98*/XP/MacOS and unlike XP will network with all the above without any hassles at all right out of the box.

I have never seen any problems with video editing or photo editing even with professional packages.

Jester
04-05-2004, 01:04 PM
If you don't like the bells and whistles in XP you can turn them off. You can even select the win2000 look if you like.

We use win2000 at work - I use XP at home. I have less hassles with the home pc network than the work network.

I too hold LANs and most machines that turn up are XP plus a few win98 units- the interoperability of the machines has been second to none. No problems networking - sometimes people look to hard for answers to their networking issues. Games run effortlessly.

Different strokes for different folks I guess :)

Lohsing
04-05-2004, 01:18 PM
> Whoa! Almost missed this one. Hamstar to the
> rescue. Time to convert another one of the innocent
> before bill gates take his soul. ;-)

What's your problem with Bill Gates? Jealousy and envy I imagine. Good on him for making all that money.

> >However to qualify my opinion, I must state that I
> have only been using and working with PCs since 1981
> Lol... I was only born in 1986 but I wasn't born
> yesterday. I can tell the difference between a
> working operating system and a frozen one.

*sigh*

Any operating system is only going to work as well as the user using it... in other words, if you load it full of junk programs, etc of course you are going to have problems with stability.

> XP is right up there and "in yer face" with its "Look
> at MEEEEE, I'm BLUUUE!"

And your point is? How does being "in yer face" affect its stability and performance?

> And users of the O/S can rest easy as now they have
> an O/S that is "colourful" like "Macintosh" Woweee!

Again - the relevance of this to your argument is what exactly?

> But XP has deep problems. All this crap that MS has
> chucked on top of a 2000 core or "kernel" has made
> the OS unstable at times and just plain ridiculous!
> Who needs Universal Plug and PLay? Oh thats right!
> That 13 year old haxx0r who jusst can't wait to get
> t into your computer and run amuck!

Wow... talk about a case of misperception! But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?

> XP is huge, Some of its core components are from
> Windows 3.0 and 95! Microsoft has just built and
> built and built on top of its same crappy code until
> this latest reincarnation "XP" so much so that now
> its about as fast as a herd of turtles stampeding
> through penutbutter and as stable as a house of
> cards!

Again... see my rant comment... You've chosen quite conveniently to ignore the fact that computers and CPU processing power is increasing exponentially to the demands of XP.

> To top it all off, Satan gets 95% of the revenue from
> XP! And billy's still making a whooping profit of
> this unfit O/S.

Who cares? Good on him for making money. Last time I checked, we still lived in a capitalist society.

> Top 10 Reasons Why Windows XP Sucks (http://www.geocities.com/merijn_bellekom/new/xpsu
> ks.html)

Lol... again with the ranting and not letting facts get in the way of it...

> 2000 is like a breeze of fresh air compared to XP.
> Some may say that I'm old fashioned by liking the
> old GUI but... as it says in that link, I want
> speed! Not a green start button. Xp may have more
> shortcuts to "Your" (downloaded) Music, and "Your"
> (DivX) Movies, but it sure as hell does not run
> games better.

ROFL... ok... again with the misperceptions... what you've pointed out so far are cosmetic features which don't actually affect the stability or overall performance of the OS... i mean seriously... a "GREEN" button?? Call the cops!!

/roll eyes...

> That is just bloated MS crap! Any game that runs on
> XP, runs on 2000.

Yes, but does it run just as quickly?

> Do you know why 2000 is so stable? Well like Server
> 2003, It was built for big Companies who needed
> stability. MS actually hired guys who wrote an old
> O/S back in the days of DOS that was uniquely stable,
> to write the win2k kernel!

Yes, it's SOOO stable it's currently up to SP4!!!

> So if XP has the core of Windows 2000, why isn't it
> stable? Well MS has chucked in all these services
> and **** 3rd party apps that no average user uses.
> They stuck cardboard to the taskbar and painted it
> blue. It is more complicated than any Windows O/S.

Misperceptions galore... the stability and performance of the OS is only as good as the user and the components...

Must we go through this ad nauseum ad infinitum??

> Its just bad news.

Yes... Hamstar said so, so it must be true...

> So my suggestion to you, is to buy 2000 not XP.

Based on WHAT?? Based on the start button being green? Based on the half dozen misperceptions you've listed??

Lo.

hamstar
04-05-2004, 01:52 PM
>Just above wholesale price?
uhh, damn... whos your wholesaler?

>Your article you linked to is crapola, most of what is complained (bells and whistles) can be turned of in under 4 seconds, Winxp has far superior auto-detection of hardware,. Its also completely stable, and many of the features are of huge benefit to first time users.
What do you work for Microsoft!? It is not stable! I have worked on plenty new install and no-junk-included XP machines and they still run crap! More **** = slower computer! Turn it off in 4 seconds? You think the average n00b or even above average n00b is going to be bothered wading through the registry and services for at least a half hour?

>An OS is like any other piece of software, it needs to be matched with the required hardware, if the guy wants speed then I suggest he retire his 200mhz celeron.
Exactly! So lets see a 5Ghz processor just for XP!

>And if one takes a minute to look at the worms and such that have been doing the rounds, they effect w2k as well as XP,does this mean anything to you?
Whats this got to do with anything. Patches are just ways for Microsoft to legally get in to your computer. If you got nortons and a firewall you're sweet. Before I got Nortons 2003 I had Nortons 2002 - never patched my 2000 system, never had a problem. Couldn't do that in XP. Too many backdoors :P

>What's your problem with Bill Gates? Jealousy and envy I imagine. Good on him for making all that money.
Yes good on him... he has the marketing strategy of the century. However he still steals souls.

>Any operating system is only going to work as well as the user using it... in other words, if you load it full of junk programs, etc of course you are going to have problems with stability.
Of course... with any normal O/S. XP comes with all that junk preloaded ;-)

>And your point is? How does being "in yer face" affect its stability and performance?
Its just plain annoying and tryhard.

>Wow... talk about a case of misperception! But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?
>You've chosen quite conveniently to ignore the fact that computers and CPU processing power is increasing exponentially to the demands of XP
We still haven't hit 5Ghz yet.

>cosmetic features which don't actually affect the stability or overall performance of the OS
Stoopid cosmetic features like XP's take memory, not to mention sanity.

>Yes, it's SOOO stable it's currently up to SP4!!!
So? In four years 2k has 4 SP's. In two XP has two sp's. Its right on par.

>the stability and performance of the OS is only as good as the user and the components
Am I supposed to wait 5 minutes for My Computer to open?

>> So my suggestion to you, is to buy 2000 not XP.

>Based on WHAT?? Based on the start button being green? Based on the half dozen misperceptions you've listed??
What misperceptions? :D

>Personally I think 2000 is a far better OS than XP simply because it is so simple to tweak the crap out of the system. I believe this is so because 2000 is intended for corporate environments where advanced users are in control of the whole network (administrators) and therefore everything is tweakable very simply.
Right on brother!

>I run gaming lans at home every two weeks and have found that 2000 is highly stable in this sort of environment and far less prone to problems with games (unlike my experiences with the XP machines on the network).
Exactly!

>I also build machines for gamers and my OS of choice is 2000 for these rather than XP.
Me too!

>Eventually I will have to move to XP as support and drivers or 2000 will eventually disappear but I am hoping by then that all the problems in XP are solved by users and large amounts of info are available to beat XP into some sort of decent shape.
If I ever have to use XP, It'll only be in some sort of decent shape.

>2000 is rock solid in a network with 95/98*/XP/MacOS and unlike XP will network with all the above without any hassles at all right out of the box.
And plus that XP Network Wizard. WTF is up with that! Let me put in the raw settings!

>I have never seen any problems with video editing or photo editing even with professional packages.
Neither. 2000 even has most of the features, like my pics, my music, thumbnail view etc... without that blue crap around it.

I think you've all been brainwashed by some hidden pattern in that blue start button.

Spose your kids names are bill and billina?

<littlevoice>Hail microsoft</lv>

hamstar
04-05-2004, 01:54 PM
Okay, thats weird? Lo's post was 3rd fromthe bottom b4? ?:|

metla
04-05-2004, 01:59 PM
the reg?

Hell bells,right click the desktop and change the scheme,that removes all the window dressing immediatly.

done.

Another right click on the tool bar and you choose classic.

BOOM.

job done,you now have a flat boring interface thats near identical to win2000.

hamstar
04-05-2004, 02:03 PM
thats just the interface. What about all the tangled wires behind it?

metla
04-05-2004, 02:07 PM
apply patches,leave the services alone.

Like i said before,use hardware thats up to the job and be happy.Turning off the services gives no increase in speed or stability.

And the same holes being explioted in xp are being explioted in w2k,so how are the services running in xp a problem when they aren't in w2k?

Lohsing
04-05-2004, 02:51 PM
> 4 seconds? You think the average n00b or even above
> average n00b is going to be bothered wading through
> the registry and services for at least a half hour?

What?? You don't need to fiddle around in the registry at all to turn off the services...

> Yes good on him... he has the marketing strategy of
> the century. However he still steals souls.

Right... so for all the people out there, this is just biased nonsense you've chosen to impart on the rest of others without a shred of proof nor a reasonable explanation of your dislike of Bill Gates.

> Of course... with any normal O/S. XP comes with all
> that junk preloaded ;-)

And what about the junk P2P apps people love to install? What do you think caused your client's PC to freeze up? No doubt with all the spyware and damage caused by installing various programs on the net?


> >And your point is? How does being "in yer face"
> affect its stability and performance?
> Its just plain annoying and tryhard.

And how does that affect its stability and performance? How about answering the question without resorting to bashing the cosmetics of the OS?

> We still haven't hit 5Ghz yet.

Do you need 5Ghz to run XP?

> Stoopid cosmetic features like XP's take memory, not
> to mention sanity.

Which we've already discussed can be turned off easily... how much memory do you really think XP would suck up? I bet you Norton Antivirus is much more resource hungry than AVG... which kind of makes me laugh when you tell us how resource hungry XP is, and yet you go install Norton on other PC's...

> So? In four years 2k has 4 SP's. In two XP has two
> sp's. Its right on par.

2nd one hasn't even been released yet.

> Am I supposed to wait 5 minutes for My Computer to
> open?

Mine boots in under 30 seconds from the time I turn it on. 5 minutes?? I doubt it.

If it **DID** take that time, go use 98SE or 95...

> What misperceptions? :D

No need to comment here...

> >I also build machines for gamers and my OS of choice
> is 2000 for these rather than XP.
> Me too!

Strange... I've benched my machine running a clean install of Win2k and also a clean install of XP Pro... XP Pro gave me higher benchmarks in 3DMark01, 3DMark03 and also SiSoft Sandra.

> If I ever have to use XP, It'll only be in some sort
> of decent shape.

XP SP4 then? To be honest, I am really surprised you are pushing Win2K SP4... have you even looked at the EULA in SP4??

> And plus that XP Network Wizard. WTF is up with
> that! Let me put in the raw settings!

Ummm... you can. You can even sidestep the whole network wizard too.

> I think you've all been brainwashed by some hidden
> pattern in that blue start button.

Again... the fascination with the colour of the start button? Oh gee - that's a really good way of deciding whether or not to use an OS... "What colour is the start button again?"

Lo.

Jester
04-05-2004, 04:13 PM
...actually, it's generally the ones that moan about all the bright colours of XP who then use a program to alter their OS shell to something probably even more garish!

The 'look at my desktop' threads show that :)

metla
04-05-2004, 04:16 PM
I must be a freak,i like the way XP looks.

Well,the silver scheme anyway.

Jester
04-05-2004, 04:18 PM
> I must be a freak,i like the way XP looks.
>
> Well,the silver scheme anyway.

yeah me too

robert6655
04-05-2004, 04:38 PM
i had to use win 2k once and please dear god let me never have to go back to that experience, crashing every 5 mins after a fresh install on a brand new system, it didnt recognise half of the hardware in the comp and on top of that it was slow as hell, we proceeded to put in win xp pro and it has never crashed since, the computer takes about 15 seconds to start up and everything opens instantly, plus i had no hardware recognition issues (oh and by the way if you hadnt figured it out by now this is my new computer i am talking about).

so i say go for xp and leave the buggy past behind us

John Grieve
04-05-2004, 05:19 PM
Lohsing. Benchmarks are fun to run but they have no relevence (IMHO) to any measurement of what makes a good gaming PC. It matters little if a machine produces a high framerate when any machine over 2ghz with a 3D card produces more frames than are required by the human brain to interpret.

A gaming machine requires grunt, great hardware and a stable OS that can handle all the requirements. In my experience thats 2000. I have spent hours and hours with some XP installs that hate modern copy protection (rare with 2000 in my experience), bluescreen when a game crashes (I personally have never blue screened from a game under 2000, the most I have to do is CTl/Alt/Del and kill the game process then carry on computing or start the game again) and crash in a fiery heap with driver installs. Another thing I have found with 2000 is its more efficient use of system memory when gaming which means you can run a game better on a 2000 machine with less memory than a XP machine. I constantly see XP machines choke with less thn half a gig of ram with graphically intensive games and advanced AIs.

There are some good ideas in XP but it strikes me that XP is in fact 2000ME with all the horror implied by labelling it ME (ME is regarded worldwide as the worst widely used consumer OS, in fact I ban ME from my gaming lans completely).

Lohsing
04-05-2004, 05:37 PM
> Lohsing. Benchmarks are fun to run but they have no
> relevence (IMHO) to any measurement of what makes a
> good gaming PC. It matters little if a machine
> produces a high framerate when any machine over 2ghz
> with a 3D card produces more frames than are required
> by the human brain to interpret.

Disagree completely. For one thing, you are selling yourself short by making a broad statement that I should accept lower performance and framerates just because "any machine over 2ghz... produces more frames than are required by the human brain to interpret"

FWIW, you haven't even asked what sort of benchmarks I achieved!! I put the question to you - as a gamer, if you could get an additional 1000 added to your 3DMark03 benchmark through running XP, would you do it?

Why spend so much money on your machine if you don't get every last drop of performance out of it when it comes to gaming?

> A gaming machine requires grunt, great hardware and a
> stable OS that can handle all the requirements. In my
> experience thats 2000. I have spent hours and hours
> with some XP installs that hate modern copy
> protection (rare with 2000 in my experience),

What copy protection are you talking about?? You will have to be a bit more specific. I don't know of any "modern copy protection" which causes problems in XP.

> bluescreen when a game crashes (I personally have
> never blue screened from a game under 2000, the most
> I have to do is CTl/Alt/Del and kill the game process
> then carry on computing or start the game again) and
> crash in a fiery heap with driver installs. Another

And I have never had that happen under XP either... the point being?

> thing I have found with 2000 is its more efficient
> use of system memory when gaming which means you can
> run a game better on a 2000 machine with less memory
> than a XP machine. I constantly see XP machines choke
> with less thn half a gig of ram with graphically
> intensive games and advanced AIs.

I think that's a pretty broad generalisation you're suggesting there...

> There are some good ideas in XP but it strikes me
> that XP is in fact 2000ME with all the horror implied
> by labelling it ME (ME is regarded worldwide as the
> worst widely used consumer OS, in fact I ban ME from
> my gaming lans completely).

What?? XP is in fact 2000ME?? I think a lot more blame needs to be put back onto the habits of the user, and also the hardware it is used with.

Too much blame gets put onto the OS, when other 3rd party apps have been installed which cause performance loss.

Lo.

Jester
04-05-2004, 05:38 PM
XP and 2000 are essentially the same OS anyway aren't they?

I have looked through a few gamiong forums the past 30 mins and most if not all say XP is the better gaming platform.

Here's a review
http://www.computeruser.com/articles/2105,5,17,1,0501,02.html

One of the final paragraphs sums it up nicely.

To switch or not to switch

If you've been using Windows 2000 Professional for a year or two and are happy with it (and don't need it do anything it isn't already capable of doing), then you probably don't need to upgrade to Windows XP Professional. Once you take away all the bells and whistles, there isn't much of a difference between the two operating systems. Save your money and buy some more RAM instead.

In the end - it is what you want to do with your PC.

I conclude therefore that my choice is

HOLDEN

Jester
04-05-2004, 05:39 PM
man, I wish I used 'preview'


grrrrrrrrrrrr

John Grieve
04-05-2004, 09:05 PM
For an extra 1000 3DMarks?....No.

For an extra 10,000 3DMarks?.....Yes

Copy protection problems. I am surprised you have not heard. A lot of us are aware ....even Microsoft.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;228985

Do a search in any decent search engine or any Game developer/distributors forums using "Please insert correct CD" and you will discover the extent of modern copy protection problems and the OS.

At my lans machines crash occasionally. The XP machines not only bluescreen far more than I would expect from an OS built on the 2000 kernel it also just plain crashes/locks it far more often and the XP machines need full reboots more often to recover. Your experience is obviously different from mine.

John Grieve
04-05-2004, 09:08 PM
What a mess!! :D Sorry. No idea how that abortion happened. I was using a microsoft link though111???? :D :D

Lohsing
04-05-2004, 09:46 PM
What? Do you know what I am referring to when I am talking about 1,000 3DMark03's...? That's a huge boost in anyone's language... I think you're mistaking 3DMark03 as 3DMark01...

As for copy protection problems... the Microsoft website has a fix for that already?

As I have already stated before... blaming the OS is an easy way out... Unless you are talking about identical machines running the same programs, etc... then it will be about as pointless as an AMD vs Intel discussion. There are too many variables to consider and I think you're making too broad a statement when you suggest XP machines bluescreen more, simply because of machines crashing at lans.

I've already benchmarked my machine running clean installs of both Win2K and Win XP Pro. In both instances, my XP Pro install benched much higher than the Win2K install... looking at a difference of around 1,000 mark increase in 3DMark03, that equates to approx a 15% increase in performance.

Now I don't know about you, but 15% better performance? I'm more than happy with my shift to XP.

Cheers anyway,

Lo.

hamstar
04-05-2004, 10:35 PM
OK, i give up. I've lost the plot. My blind rage @ XP has made me stuff up my sentences and logical thinking.

But John seems to be right on track. I agree with everything he has said so far.

But for what its worth, my clients PC is brand new, with a new XP install and the only other program installed apart from office was mailwasher.

Some installs are good, some are ****. I have never experienced the problems that jester had with 2k, and Lo has never experienced the problems that John has had with XP.

But someone is lying... Everyone has had problems with XP. Only some people have had problems with 2000.

It's impossible for there to be a physical gain in changing from 2000 to XP when XP is the more resource hungry OS. I think those benchmarks are rigged lo. Remember the nVidia drivers fraud incident?

Lohsing
04-05-2004, 10:51 PM
I must make it clear that I have never had a problem with Win2K... i switched only because I wanted the hyperthreading technology... In fact, I have good memories of Win2K, but let's be realistic, why would i buy a P4 machine, and not use a Hyperthreading OS...? I may as well have gone out to get an AMD in that case...

I still think it's a cop out to say the OS is crap. I think the it's how people use their PC's which determines whether or not you have problems with performance, etc.

As for a physical gain in changing from 2000 to XP... well... I'm sorry, but across the 3 benchmarks I described, I scored better. I also encoded divx movies faster in XP than in Win2K... I don't have exact times, but I do know it was slightly faster.

Look - I don't have a problem with Win2K at all... I just take exception to how people can lay the blame on the OS without considering other more reasonable explanations such as what other apps have been installed, what kind of hardware is involved, etc...

As for the benchmarks being rigged... ummm... What would SiSoft Sandra have to gain from providing false benchmarks under different OS's...??

Lo.

hamstar
04-05-2004, 11:09 PM
>As for the benchmarks being rigged... ummm... What would SiSoft Sandra have to gain from providing false benchmarks under different OS's...??
A nice big cheque from microsoft...

PoWa
04-05-2004, 11:53 PM
Apparently Server2003 used as a workstation OS, owns all previous M$ OS's to date.

See for yourself (http://forums.overclockers.co.nz/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12275).

I think you need membership to get in, so I'll post benchmark results here!

In one corner we have WinXP Pro Sp1, Clean Install + Drivers + DX9 + Cat 3.8's display drivers.

In the other corner we have Window Server 2003 Ent. Edition, No Patches, Clean Install + Drivers + DX9 + Cat 3.8's.

The only changes made to the server were those required to installed Cat's and enable 3d support. The test is 3dMark2001SE, total defaults. (since were concerned about 3d performance its 3dMark).

A Picture is worth 1000 Words right.

Xp is first up (http://sal.neoburn.net/imagef1/files/winxp.jpg)

Next up Server 2003 (http://sal.neoburn.net/imagef1/files/winxpbench.jpg)

XP Pro = 11059 3D marks
Server 2003 = 13704 3D marks

That 2645 3D marks difference = 24% increase in performance.

Things like driver issues etc, you can mostly get away with using 2000/XP drivers if there are none available for 2003. By default server2003 is set to optimise for background tasks, but you can change this and optimise for programs.

Ok I now expect you to all go off and install Server2003. You can download 180day trial from M$.

metla
05-05-2004, 12:05 AM
uh........Both links went to a picture with a score of 11509.

What video card was used ?,that score is terrible considering the rest of the hardware.I can get better wth a g4ti4200,2000+ and 256mb of ram

PoWa
05-05-2004, 12:28 AM
Whoops, sorry how did I screw that up...

WinXP (http://sal.neoburn.net/imagef1/files/winxp.jpg)
Server2003 (http://sal.neoburn.net/imagef1/files/win2k3.jpg)


Not sure on the vid card the guy used. But you are able to do some tests for yourself you know :p

Steve_L
05-05-2004, 11:51 AM
<< XP Pro = $380, 2K Pro = $413, Including GST. >>

I will not purchase an OS separately, but at the time of getting the new PC. Therefore my guess is that 2K will be more expensive than XP. At the prices above, even near 'wholesale', and viewing the conflictiing comments above, it looks like I will settle for XP (not Pro version - cannot see any advantage for my use).

THANKS heaps for all of the comments on my Question. You are an entertaining lot :) !!

Steve L (waiting for Intel 3 GHz hyperthreading to come down in price).

Pete O\'Neil
05-05-2004, 03:12 PM
When i say this topic i thought to myself "here we go another Hamstar spamfest" and i was correct. So i was already to write a 500 word speil addressing the uneducated poop that Hamstar feeds the world, but it looks like Melta and Loshing have beaten me to it.

I was once like Hamstar a por uneducated fanboy, but one day i sat down installed Windows XP and gave it a real try, after that month i found that i could no longer use Windows 2000, XP was just too easy. I agree something about Windows XP are bloated, such as the insistance by windows to use windows messenger(which can be removed with Sp1) or the annoying shared folders in my computer(that can also be removed with a simple registry mod).

hamstar
05-05-2004, 03:46 PM
Well, you guys have stamped out my flame and I have lost another innocent soul to the cold grip of XP.

Alas, I have failed.

I have had too many bad experiences with XP, and thousands of annoyances, to be able to switch to it. To me, its a ***** of an operating system with all the old code finally cringing and coming back to bite its user in the bum.

But hey. Microsoft don't care. Its not whats good for the customer, it's whats good for the company. Screw the customer.

I can only plead god that I will know too much about Linux too be able to even think about switching to XP, when 2000's days are over.

But you guys can laugh at me. Me and my Win2k. But I'm laughing at you. Everytime your XP crashes, everytime a game bluescreens, everytime Microsoft sneak into your computer at night and find out more info about what sites you've been visiting. Everytime you open a zip file with the shell, everytime "My Computer" takes a minute and a half to load.

I will even be laughing when Microsoft makes your online experience, "Better and More Secure" with a Mandatory TCPA & DRM service pack.

I'm sure there will be a lot more people than just me.

So go on, use WMP 9, and Moviemaker, and all those pretty little "My" shortcuts on your pretty little resource hungy start menu.

I will be laughing. Muahahahahahaha, MUAHAHAHAHAHA.....

Hey, where those white suited guys come from... why have they got a straightjacket? Who are those guys in the black suits in that car thats been sitting outside my house for days.

/me gets assasinated by Microsoft Agents.

hamstar
05-05-2004, 03:48 PM
No, seriously... I hate XP with the fire of a thousand hells, and will try to save as many as I can from its deathgrip and Microsoft propaganda.

Pete O\'Neil
05-05-2004, 04:35 PM
> But you guys can laugh at me. Me and my Win2k. But
> I'm laughing at you. Everytime your XP crashes,
> everytime a game bluescreens, everytime Microsoft
> sneak into your computer at night and find out more
> info about what sites you've been visiting.
> Everytime you open a zip file with the shell,
> everytime "My Computer" takes a minute and a half to
> load.

I honestly say that i have never ever experienced any of those problems, whats so wrong with opening a zip file with the shell? (i use winzip but that cause ive always used winzip) If XP crashes it shuts down the program that is as fault and reloads explorer unlike 2k that will just blue screen and become unresponsive.

Hamstar have you ever used Windows XP for more than a few minutes? Ever installed it on a second partition and used it for a month? Because something is differnet doesnt make it bad, if you used it with a open mind u might be pleasently surprised

Jester
05-05-2004, 04:45 PM
Hamstar - as you age you find that "hating" something such as an operating system is really a waste of time and energy that could be directed elsewhere. Nothing that you feel so incensed over but you can avoid is ever worth the effort you are putting into it.

As time goes by you will find so many other things that need your attention. Work, love, money, kids, death, taxes and so on. Is hating something such as an operating system with such fervour going to be more important?

I see many options, two of them are:

1.
Breathe deeply, leave your computer and go for a walk outside. Smile at people you don't know.

2.
Seek councelling for your rage.

J
:D

TonyF
05-05-2004, 05:22 PM
> Well, you guys have stamped out my flame and I have
> lost another innocent soul to the cold grip of XP.

Not me, anyway. Now, lets hear it for 98SE..

(Duck, everyone ...)

hamstar
06-05-2004, 01:44 PM
Hamstar - as you age you find that "hating" something such as an operating system is really a waste of time and energy that could be directed elsewhere. Nothing that you feel so incensed over but you can avoid is ever worth the effort you are putting into it.

Sure, sure... something else. Umm, I could redirect all that energy into making a new O/S that kicks MS's arse!

Pete: The only time I've had Win2k bsod was when I tried installing it from a corrupt CD, and it would just stop halfway through booting saying ntdlr.dll was missing. Technically that does not account for a BSOD.

Just out of interest, how many people would help with the above proposition? Paid or voluntary...

I have currently got a little red book that I'm throwing ideas into for a new O/S. The hardest thing is deciding which language to use... linux (open source) or a new one. Probably won't go near an MS one as that could bring lawsuits.

Murray P
06-05-2004, 02:22 PM
> I have currently got a little red book that I'm
> throwing ideas into for a new O/S. The hardest thing
> is deciding which language to use...

Ahh, that must be the Little Red School Book. I had no idea they were still around. Read up and learn Hamstar, it will open your eyes to possiblities you obviously haven't imagined previously ;)

If you have any questions come back here and we'll do our best to answer them.

Cheers Murray ;P

willie_M
06-05-2004, 04:22 PM
hamstar, you got flamed.

give it up dude.....if people want to be stupid and install a **** o/s then let them.

People as a whole are morons and there is nothing that you can do to change that.

In the words of Serji (system of a down)....."stupid people do stupid things".

hamstar
06-05-2004, 04:28 PM
Ha....

Thats a good way to put it...

Just needed a n00b to calm me down.

Hey, you live in helensville? I live like 10 minutes towards dairy flat...

willie_M
06-05-2004, 04:34 PM
Just needed a n00b to calm me down.
-----
I'm not that much of a n00b... I been reading PF1 for ages and finally wanted to join in :-D

Hey, you live in helensville? I live like 10 minutes towards dairy flat...
------
Yeah I live in kaukapakapa

Megaman
06-05-2004, 08:57 PM
oooh I just love this topic of discussion

/me rolls eyes

if you really despise windows xp, ranting and raving on a public forum won't help. Bill Gates isn't soon going to visit this site, and if he does, he isn't going to listen to one or two little people going on about nothing at all. If you want to install 2000 because you over-react about one or two little things (oh-dear, the start button is green!), fine. That's your choice, and as long as you don't go on with mis-guided flames, it dosen't worry me. If you want to install xp, great. Again that's your choice, and you have my support.

Personally, as the above post says, I choose XP over 2000. Because if I really want the 2000 look, I can get it within 30 seconds. Plus, xp with 128mb of ram is as fast as the machine I use at school (yes, it has 128mb of ram) that runs 2000

MM

hamstar
06-05-2004, 10:16 PM
:O Megaman, I thought your favourite colour was Linux?

Anyway, I figure that now I've pissed some people off so I'll be less likely to get posts helping me, so I'm gonna leave. I might come back someday but for now I'm just gonna go outside, get some fresh air, and find me some terrorists that can bomb redmond....

Peace out,

Hamstar

Murray P
06-05-2004, 10:22 PM
> Plus, xp with 128mb of ram
> is as fast as the machine I use at school (yes, it
> has 128mb of ram) that runs 2000
>
> MM

Which goes to prove that the hardware your using at school is not as good as that with the XP on it.

Cheers Murray ;P

hamstar
07-05-2004, 12:35 PM
justfor the record.... I have used xp for more than 5 mins. I have installed it on a sep hdd on my computer more than once, andd the only thing i thought was good, was the alpha channel for the icons. But that wasn't enough to offset all the bad things bout it.
Also my father and brothers computers have it and so do many of my clients (whic h is prob why they're my clients)

Susan B
07-05-2004, 01:05 PM
Geez hamster, you didn't stay away for very long. :p :D

LMAO

kiwibeat
07-05-2004, 03:30 PM
XP is faster but more bloated I like it when its going well but its open to attck and still too buggy I still use 98SSE on a old 1.3 PC and it flies without having to do updates etc but all i do is surf play a few older games and play mp3s dvds etc thru it

Chilling_Silence
07-05-2004, 04:35 PM
I agree with TonyF and Kiwibeat.

All NT-Based OS's have their place, but personally I'd rather use Win98SE!

They're all too insecure though.. Heck, even Linux as a Kernel itself has had a few insecurities....

Hamstar>
You want to write an OS? Start with a kernel... And write it in.... Assembly!!!
It'll be the best OS around!

...Then, build on it from there with a GUI etc, and write that in C++ if you please :-)


Chill.

metla
07-05-2004, 04:53 PM
If I was king of the world there would be none of these "preferences" or free thinking.

Of course, if I was king of the world everyone would be too busy in the salt mines to know any better.....

mark.p
07-05-2004, 05:47 PM
> > Plus, xp with 128mb of ram
> > is as fast as the machine I use at school (yes, it
> > has 128mb of ram) that runs 2000
> >
> > MM
>
> Which goes to prove that the hardware your using at
> school is not as good as that with the XP on it.
>
> Cheers Murray ;P

Now that is funny. Assumptions glalore yaaa................

TonyF
07-05-2004, 06:18 PM
> I agree with TonyF and Kiwibeat.
>
> All NT-Based OS's have their place, but personally
> I'd rather use Win98SE!

Now there's a wise chap.
Hi Chill !
Tony

willie_M
08-05-2004, 12:12 AM
>You want to write an OS? Start with a kernel... And write it in.... Assembly!!!
It'll be the best OS around!

>...Then, build on it from there with a GUI etc, and write that in C++ if you please

I've done a little bit of programming but whats assembly and why would you use it for a kernel?

KingWave
08-05-2004, 12:26 AM
Assmembly code is the next best thing after machine code. You work with 3 character codes like ADD and it sends instructions directly to the cpu and memory registers.

Very fast and it doesn't rely on other higher level languages which have their flaws themselves.

willie_M
08-05-2004, 01:14 AM
whoa! could you do that with a kernel? Wouldn't it be like... extremely limited? Wouldn't assembly then be low-level language?

Chilling_Silence
08-05-2004, 01:18 AM
No, it wouldnt be limited, all apps basically become Assembly when compiled.

Do this:
Open up a command prompt (Start -->> Run -->> "cmd" or "command")
type in:
debug c:\windows\system32\notepad.exe
Or in Win9x:
debug c:\windows\notepad.exe

When you're in debug, hit "u" and you'll see the first part of the app:
PUSH CS
POP DS
etc. etc......

All apps become Assembly (in a nutshell). Its the smallest, fastest, most efficient way to write an app, but it can be time consuming, and looks incredibly daunting at first. The language isnt english such as if error_code_1 then run_appname. Its all written as you see in the debug window.

Basically it'd be a bloody stable, fast, small, efficient kernel, though it'd take one hell of a lot of work!

Make sense?


Chill.