Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

[vandorssen]

I was originally going to post this as a reply for a different thread, but it seemed a bit off topic for that particular thread.

 

In that thread, a sort of debate began about the virtues of Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP. There certainly are pros and cons to both systems, although in terms of the underlying code, they are virtually identical (in theory, anyways).

 

I personally use my system for more than gaming. It entirely “rocks” for games, but not even the most polygon-filled iteration of Quake comes close to taxing it. Compiling source code, manipulating video, compressing audio, etc. are what really take processing power.

 

I decided to give XP an honest try some time back. For 6 months I would live with it, and not allow myself to reload with 2000, unless it proved dangerously unstable. This basically took me through WXP SP1. I was first put off by the seemingly random and vague “Your system has just recovered from a critical error…” type errors that appeared at startup for no apparent reason. WXP SP1 fixed that, but it slowed my very powerful computer (dual 3.06GHz Intel Xeon) to a crawl. Something in SP1 was constantly taking up 30% of the processing time. 3Dmark 2001 scores (albeit, it is not the most reliable indicator of performance, but it is close enough) went from ~14,000 in W2k and WXP (no sp) down to a meager 5,000. So I had some choices:

1) Avoid the random acts of senseless errors created with Windows XP by using XP SP1 and live with poor performance

2) Live with the senseless act of random errors but good performance with WXP (no service pack)

3) Have my cake and eat it too with Windows 2000.

 

Although I did go through with my 6 month trial, in the end guess what I choose?

 

I do realize, however, that Windows XP, even the castrated “Home” edition, does work well for some. But to someone who requires a true professional grade OS that is stable, and to the point (and is not familiar with the intricacies of Linux, or who is biased against Mac OS), Windows 2000 just wins, hands down. Perhaps Windows 2003 Server, which I am expecting any day now, will change my mind, and suddenly that will become my new “fave”, but it does have to clear a high hurdle before that happens. This is not meant to disparage those who use, or even like Windows XP. It is just to state my informed, well reasoned opinion that Windows 2000 is a superior OS, and why that is so.

 

Incidentally, for some reason (I do not know why), Windows 2000 Pro SP4 (1-2 CPU edition) recognizes and enables the 2 extra “virtual” processors created by Hyperthreading, effectively seeing it as a “quad” processor system. Windows XP Pro (1-2 CPU edition) does not.

[Shakkara]

I cannot stand the bloatware that is XP. Maybe I'll take a stripped version one day...

 

I've tried win2k for a week, but most games give problems. Ultima Online for instance refuses to run properly in 3D mode, graphics will just go crazy and all kind of wierd stuff will flow over your screen, only way to do it is to disable hardware acceleration entirely, but that will make the game so slow that it's unplayable.

 

I still stick with win98SE... All my PCs use it, 486 to AMD3200... Even my 2 servers... With the exception of my AMD1800, which runs on DOS most of the time... :huh:

[vandorssen]

I cannot stand the bloatware that is XP. Maybe I'll take a stripped version one day...

 

I've tried win2k for a week, but most games give problems. Ultima Online for instance refuses to run properly in 3D mode, graphics will just go crazy and all kind of wierd stuff will flow over your screen, only way to do it is to disable hardware acceleration entirely, but that will make the game so slow that it's unplayable.

 

I still stick with win98SE... All my PCs use it, 486 to AMD3200... Even my 2 servers... With the exception of my AMD1800, which runs on DOS most of the time...  :huh:

Before I switched to W2k, I was very much a fan of 98SE. On certain systems that I have that do not run W2k well, Win 98 SE is always my second choice. In fact, I would probably use it as my main OS if it included support for multiple CPUs and created a more secure multi-user environment. I routinely use RealVNC to remote control computers on my personal network and when running under 98 it is just too insecure. With W2k, the built-in security takes priority over the RealVNC security. I also use Windows 2000 server to run my personal webpage and FTP site; Windows 98 could do that (using Apache and some FTP server software), but I also like to use Windows Terminal Server and having a single console for adjusting all the properties is also a bonus.

[Shakkara]

Heh, sounds exactly what I'm doing, but I don't have FTP (no need for it either, upstream is just 40kbyte/sec)

 

I use VNC too since the server has no keyboard/monitor, and use Minixampp Apache as server software and MySQL database (for my forums). Of course it's not 100% secure, but right now it probably won't get abused anyway. It's running on a Cyrix 266 (low power usage). I set my router to forward only the port the server uses to this PC, so that's an extra barrier.

[vandorssen]

Before this weekend, I was using Windows 2000 Pro, Apache, and CuteFTP on my “server” (consists of a 500MHz AMD K6-2, 384MB RAM, and 30GB hard drive). And before that I was just using the built-in software on my PMac G5. However, CuteFTP allowed several (hundreds, actually) viruses to get through, and even though Norton AV managed to quarantine them, it was still a pain. Last Friday, I bought Windows 2000 Advanced Server with 5CALs (for term server, etc.) and unlimited FTP/HTTP clients. I have remarkable up and downstream bandwidth, and that, combined with my need to collaborate with friends on a book and dice RPG we have been creating for 4 years, is what lead me to make use of FTP. I am hoping now, with W2k Advanced Server, to eliminate the need for FTP by implementing Windows Terminal Server (which is a million times more secure than standard FTP, and they can use the software I have loaded on the server).

[saldrex]

I would say that both of the systems are not that good since they are both products of microsoft (they do horrible programming). I would choose XP since it is more stable and has been for me

[Marxist ßastard]

Saldrex:

 

...XP... is more stable...

 

In the museum ther is also a [complete -- more assumed than implied, I admit] list of artifacts.

 

THe print screen key when pressed will normally make a copy of the current screen which can be pasted in a pain file. You could try that if the game [Morrowind] does not want to make the screen shots by itself.

 

ALL OF THE MORROWIND GAMES HAVE NAMES BASED ON WHERE THEY TAKE PLACE AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE THE SAME [Try Arena...  ES Travels...  And, to a lesser extent, even Redguard, which was mentioned in the post itself -- to my knowledge, Redguard takes place on Stros M'Kai, not a Yokudan's esophagus].

 

It is not too hard to put the game [Morrowind] on line.

 

All normal ordinator armor is scripted to have the ordinators attack when you talk to them, i know.

 

You're just on a roll, aren't you? And a slacker, to boot.

[Zmid]

Myself, I have found XP runs quite smoothly and quickly, even compared to 98 (my previous OS), once you turn off all the cack you don't want or need (ie Messenger, Hibernation, System Restore, Indexing of your hard drives, etc, etc, etc). I've never used 2000 myself, so I don't know how XP compares to that first-hand, but from what other people have said, it's quite good for business uses, but has a lot of problems with games.

[vandorssen]

Early iterations of Windows 2000 were plagued by ghosts of the previous industrial grade Windows, Windows NT. Windows NT was a poor workstation OS, let alone a gaming platform. It was programmed for maximum stability and consistent use. Windows 2000 from the get go was meant to be a more user friendly OS than NT was. One of the things this meant was that it played games much better. The myth that Windows 2000 is a poor performer when it comes to games stems mostly from the above mentioned ghosts: Windows NT sucked with games, ergo its wunderkind Windows 2000 would have to suck too. When it comes to games, all games and drivers have (thus far) seen Windows XP and Windows 2000 as the same OS. It even goes so far as many older games reporting Windows XP as Windows 2000, or even Windows NT.

 

Another part of the myth of why Windows 2000 is poor with games (although this point has become moot over time) is that at the time Windows 2000 was introduced, there were still many games that required significant legacy code that, remaining in Windows 98, harkened back to the days of DOS (and no, not Denial Of Service). Games that required this legacy code (Heretic, Doom, Golgotha, etc.) either had a really hard time running under Windows 2000 (with software emulated graphics, as Windows 2000 prevents software from directly accessing hardware, as it could with WinME and older), or they would not run at all. This was also when your choice of a graphics card made more of a difference in graphics than a few FPS (remember 3Dfx vs. the World?).

 

But this explanation seems to hardly address the issue of whether Windows XP is superior for games. The only thing that would assist to answer that question is empirical data. As I stated in an above post, I did give Windows XP what I consider an honest try for all of 6 months. During that time, Windows 2000 was at Service Pack 3, and about a week or two in to that trial Windows XP SP 1 was released. In 6 months I did get to perform a lot of benchmarking, both theoretical (3DMark 2001) and practical (Soldier of Fortune playoffs, and Final Fantasy VIII for PC). Before Windows XP SP1, I would have considered it more or less a draw; one or two FPS at anything above 60 is just not noticeable to me (although going from 60, to say, 100, is). After the release of XP SP1, there was more than a noticeable drop in performance. After using XP SP1, I reloaded my system (had to call Microsoft before I could use my system again; another point for W2K), and this time decided to forgo SP1. I do not know (but would assume) that Microsoft ever released a patch for the poor performance XP SP1 suffered from. And it was not just me… Everyone I personally knew who was using Windows XP and installed SP1 suffered from the same or similar drop in performance, save those who were using a motherboard with integrated Intel graphics chipset (810, 845G, etc.).

 

This post in particular is not meant to give Windows XP or those who use it a good dressing down, but is more to dispel the rumor and myth that Windows 2000 is in any real or significant way inferior to Windows XP, while in theory it should be actually superior (as it uses less system resources to do the same thing).