[Global_Inferno]

Ok, so the reason why I have started this topic is because I am wondering to myself what Windows 2000 is like now as a gaming rig?

I currently use my PC for a variety of things including, 3D Modelling (3DS Max, Lightwave), Game playing (GTA:VC, UT2003, etc..), Browsing (Mozilla!! lol) and using programs such as office ( ).

Now I know that when XP was released it was supposed to be "better" than everything else around.. However, I remember Windows 2000 being very fast and reliable.. so whats the story?

CAN Windows 2000 be a good gaming rig? How does it compare (Game performance wise) against a Win XP based machine of the same spec? Is it stable? Has it got the same level of compatibility as Windows XP??

Ok thanks a LOT to everyone/anyone that answers!

[Mertsch]

I can only recommend WinXP
rock solid - And I really mean that ... windows is 99.99% stable if you guys have crashes all time it your or ur hardwares fault
it runs everything also DOS apps ...
is supported by all new stuff ...
and performance .... LOL any OS perform just the same way only thing ou need is a bit more RAM .... 256 min ... 512 for enjoying thats all

[Global_Inferno]

Uhh I know about XP... all to well... Slows down to snails pace about 30 mins after installation! (Unless you optimize it.. which I HAVE..) I just want to know if Windows 2000 is any better??

[UZ7]

ive been using win2k for a long time now (2-3 yrs) and ive used winxp before and didnt see much of any difference, if you want to stay with the latest os then going xp is good, but ive used win2k for a long time and i liked it and havent given me much of any problems

OS: Windows 2000 SP4
Games i play on this rig: Splinter Cell, CS 1.6, WarCraft 3: Frozen Throne, GTA: Vice City, Unreal 2k3, Midnight Club II, Ghost Recon, Morrowind, Diablo 2: LOD
Browsers: IE 6.0 SP1, Opera 7.20
Misc: Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Problems: none that i can recall

2000 is still a good OS, many people still use them, but the majority moved to XP because it is newer, but overall performance by the two is most likely the same

if you want a little project to do, get Windows 2003 Server and convert it to a workstation (Windows 2003 Professional) you'll get a kick out of that considering it is faster than XP/2000

[Global_Inferno]

Convert it!? How would you go about doing somthing like that?? Is it just a simple install option?? Also all the drivers at the moment are either XP/2k or 98/ME... so where does Win02 server come in?

[UZ7]

yeah you use the current XP/2000 drivers to use the video card and such, and its not that hard to convert it to a workstation just a few tweaks here and there, but when i said its a project to do as in i wouldnt rely on using something like this as your desktop OS, considering its just like windows 2000 back then when it didnt have that much support for games/hardware

[pland53]

I used W2K for about 3 years & I was always able to use it for gaming. I have since moved to XP Pro, but my son uses W2K. He plays Sim City 4, Diablo II and MOHAA all of the time. He has not had any problems; except for the fact that he's using a 3 year old Dell Dimension 4100 w/ a 1 gig cpu, 512 meg dram and a GeForce2 400MX card (hoping to upgrade this year). Anyway, since MS$ has said it would support W2K 'til about 2004, you can stick with it for a while longer. You should be able to play most recent games with it (depending on your setup).

[janus]

XP = 2000 but faster

[El_Coyote]

on optimal installations XP and 2000 are pretty equal. XP just has better memory management and error handling, plus some other things.

i go with XP without the plastic look.

[XIII]

I would say that the most obvious is that windows Xp start up faster compare with windows 2000. Windows 2000 is as stable as windows Xp. If you are talking about gaming performance i would say win 98 is the fastest but it is not stable besides you can't use more than 512MB of RAM. In windows 2000 and Xp you can have more than 512MB of RAM. Windows 2000 can handle resources very well too. If you thinking of urgrading you windows 2000 to xp i would say don't do it, cause you can spend the money on upgrading hardware which for sure will give you extra performance. Save your money and wait for longhorn which will release in 2005.

[janus]

I am referring to booting and application launch as well.

[Raistlin]

Ok, so the reason why I have started this topic is because I am wondering to myself what Windows 2000 is like now as a gaming rig?

I currently use my PC for a variety of things including, 3D Modelling (3DS Max, Lightwave), Game playing (GTA:VC, UT2003, etc..), Browsing (Mozilla!! lol) and using programs such as office ( ).

Now I know that when XP was released it was supposed to be "better" than everything else around.. However, I remember Windows 2000 being very fast and reliable.. so whats the story?

CAN Windows 2000 be a good gaming rig? How does it compare (Game performance wise) against a Win XP based machine of the same spec? Is it stable? Has it got the same level of compatibility as Windows XP??

Ok thanks a LOT to everyone/anyone that answers!

I've used 2k in my main Gaming rig for over 3 years now, its jus as compatible as XP with the one exception XP will run Xwing Vs Tiefighter, but other then that no diffrences that i can tell, and Even if you do wanna run XP, you still need a 9x/NT dual boot to run the real old games, most games that don't function in 2k also don't function in XP, with the exception of XvT. I do have a collection of over 400 games easy, ranging back into the dos era and if 2k din't offer enough compatiblity i'd not be using it. but like i said if your a gamer your prob gonna have 9x/NT on your system anyway...

[dpw2atox]

fast? XP is slow as hell compared to 2k espcially on older pcs. XP uses more ram and just isn't as good. At work we have an old p3 550 with 256MB ram which ran 2k really well but XP runs slow as hell on. Now Win2k3 Server is stable, fast and works great. Course you could also just switch to linux but its your choice.

[El_Coyote]

fast? XP is slow as hell compared to 2k espcially on older pcs. XP uses more ram and just isn't as good. At work we have an old p3 550 with 256MB ram which ran 2k really well but XP runs slow as hell on. Now Win2k3 Server is stable, fast and works great. Course you could also just switch to linux but its your choice.

yea well you wouldnt run new games on age old pc's either wouldnt you?

system requirements are on the box, so there you have it...


and booting time doesnt consern me really.. i boot my computer a maximum of 1 time per day.

[janus]

In any case, XP is better unless you have a slow PC.

[ThudZ3ro]

XP Pro looks prettier with the ClearType, Server 2003 may be a bit faster but 2K is my o/s of choice on my gaming box. I can't recall the last time I crashed it, you can install it on more than one box, and you don't have to turn off any visual themes for benchmarking maximums. I've got the boot time down to 17 seconds from the end of BIOS to the desktop and between Services and Mike Lin's Startup Control Panel you don't need the not-included msconfig.
I have boxes with XP Home, XP Pro, 2000, and Server 2003. The 2k one is the most bullet-proof and functional without bloat. By far the best value of all MS operating systems...

[XIII]

Oh and one thing i forgot to mention, is that the xp start menu pop-up slower than the 2000 what i meant is that it goes blank(sometime) and icons appear in a short while.

[T-Shirt]

I much prefer W@K for everything. XP wastes lots of resources looking pretty, and takes too much control of settings/hardware. when XP works well it's great, but should you have a problem, It'is difficult or impossible to work around. a W2K/win98se dual boot is the best solution

[Global_Inferno]

Thanks a lot for all you opinions guys! It's helped a lot!