Win 2k or XP for HL2?
- Thread starter _-_-SELAS-_-_
- Start date
dis
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2003
- Messages
- 551
- Reaction score
- 0
Boy am I old school. I'm still using Windows 98SE.
I really want to get Win XP Pro, but the full version is still 300$ US dollars. The upgrades are a joke, what happens if you need to format - then I have to install win98 just to get back up to XP, which would be stupid. More importantly, I don't trust those upgrade installations anyway; they got to result in a slower operating computer than if you had formatted and fully installed the OS.
I really want to get Win XP Pro, but the full version is still 300$ US dollars. The upgrades are a joke, what happens if you need to format - then I have to install win98 just to get back up to XP, which would be stupid. More importantly, I don't trust those upgrade installations anyway; they got to result in a slower operating computer than if you had formatted and fully installed the OS.
MrD
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
- Messages
- 636
- Reaction score
- 0
Personally I use Win2K pro ...
1) more stable than Win9x/XP home (slightly slower)
2) faster than WinXP pro, at least from my experience of it
ps: for those that don't know ...
WinXP Home is based on windows 98
WinXP Pro is based on windows 2k (formerly Windows NT)
NT stands for "New Technology" (which, incendently, means that Windows 2000 is "built on New Technology Technology" because that is what it says when it boots).
1) more stable than Win9x/XP home (slightly slower)
2) faster than WinXP pro, at least from my experience of it
ps: for those that don't know ...
WinXP Home is based on windows 98
WinXP Pro is based on windows 2k (formerly Windows NT)
NT stands for "New Technology" (which, incendently, means that Windows 2000 is "built on New Technology Technology" because that is what it says when it boots).
I'm getting a new pc soon. I'll probably go for 2k pro, but I'll try running it under wine and see if it's any good. Btw what's the best linux distro for someone who knows quite a bit about computers but has never used *nix and wants it to be fast and simple (most linux guis look really bloated and over complicated).
<edit> I'm certain xp home is not based on 98.
I thought they just left out a few business features that are in pro.
<edit> I'm certain xp home is not based on 98.
I thought they just left out a few business features that are in pro.
MrD
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
- Messages
- 636
- Reaction score
- 0
Originally posted by Alanity
I'm getting a new pc soon. I'll probably go for 2k pro, but I'll try running it under wine and see if it's any good. Btw what's the best linux distro for someone who knows quite a bit about computers but has never used *nix and wants it to be fast and simple (most linux guis look really bloated and over complicated).
<edit> I'm certain xp home is not based on 98.
I thought they just left out a few business features that are in pro.
sorry I got that wrong, was thinking one thing wrote another.
XP Home is NOT based on Windows 98!!!
i was thinking of Windows ME, doh!
edit: And the stupid message board won't let me edit after 15 minutes. So now I have a message injecting crap into the community and I'm gonna get flamed for it. Who comes up with these stupid restrictions anyway??? :flame:
yeah, ME is a huge pile of junk. I'm currently on 98se and it's so ****ing buggy I want to scream. It crashes loads if I try to watch a film and has some weird problems running soulseek (although I know that's a problem with slsk not win98)
Why didn't dos die in 1995? Pretty typical of ms using an ancient base that's just not meant for modern computers for so long. (I'm not one of those people who bash ms constantly, ms do a lot of things for reasons other than making a good product, as do many, many other companies.)
Why didn't dos die in 1995? Pretty typical of ms using an ancient base that's just not meant for modern computers for so long. (I'm not one of those people who bash ms constantly, ms do a lot of things for reasons other than making a good product, as do many, many other companies.)
OCybrManO
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 4,780
- Reaction score
- 0
If stable means "frequented by errors and incompatibility problems" and functional means "has big colorful buttons and rounded corners" then, yes... Windows XP is stable and functional.
This is speaking from installing Windows XP and 2K (both pro) on dozens of computers and running computers with preinstalled WinXP.
Keep in mind that I've been running 2K for several years and XP only for a few months.
The only problem I have had with the Windows 2K computers was 3Com's bad 2K driver support on one specific network card... all the rest were caused by actual problems with the hardware or the user.
I had more than ten times that many problems in the first month of using Windows XP... after the service pack, nothing changed.
My personal computers (all four of them) will run Windows 2000 until Linux gets more support.
This is speaking from installing Windows XP and 2K (both pro) on dozens of computers and running computers with preinstalled WinXP.
Keep in mind that I've been running 2K for several years and XP only for a few months.
The only problem I have had with the Windows 2K computers was 3Com's bad 2K driver support on one specific network card... all the rest were caused by actual problems with the hardware or the user.
I had more than ten times that many problems in the first month of using Windows XP... after the service pack, nothing changed.
My personal computers (all four of them) will run Windows 2000 until Linux gets more support.
Nathaniel
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2003
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 0
Win XP Pro
...the reason? well, it's already installed...
errors? like what? the only errors I get are from software that's full of bugs. I can't remember WinXP ever giving me a hard time by itself.
and that "rounded corners" talk is pure and utter crap, and you know it. Both the winXP theme and the old windows classic theme are included. I myself use neither of them, I use StyleXP and the Teknision theme.
If I had win2K running on my box, I would have used that... as far as I know, win2K and XP are practically identical when it comes to gaming, the only serious difference comes in when you use it for networks or work computers.
...the reason? well, it's already installed...
errors? like what? the only errors I get are from software that's full of bugs. I can't remember WinXP ever giving me a hard time by itself.
and that "rounded corners" talk is pure and utter crap, and you know it. Both the winXP theme and the old windows classic theme are included. I myself use neither of them, I use StyleXP and the Teknision theme.
If I had win2K running on my box, I would have used that... as far as I know, win2K and XP are practically identical when it comes to gaming, the only serious difference comes in when you use it for networks or work computers.
M
mod7t9z730
Guest
debian, slackware or even gentoo
_-_-SELAS-_-_
Tank
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 1,825
- Reaction score
- 5
Yeah I hope Linux will get DirectX as soon as possible!! But I guess its a long shot since Microsoft has so much influence on it perhaps OpenGL will be a better bet (wich I heard Doom3 will utilize)?
Maskirovka
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,628
- Reaction score
- 0
yes...win2k is superior for general use...i used XP for a while and so have most of my friends. we all had different wierd problems and decided to go back to win2k. from my experience, it's much better. I have one friend who uses XP and he's planning on switching back to win2k when he formats next.
XP has too many bells and whistles for me...i don't need all the crap it offers...especially when it's less stable (in my experience). some people run XP rock solid...some don't...whatever...it's not a bad OS.
either 2k or XP is fine...don't base what you use on which runs HL2 better...choose the OS that suits your hardware better. if you have a sound card with crappy drivers for XP, use 2k...etc.
Maskirovka
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,628
- Reaction score
- 0
microsoft owns and produces directx...so saying they "have influence on it" is correct...but doesn't quite cut it.
if someone figured out a way to integrade directx with linux, microsoft would sue the crap out of them or something...they'll never let their software be used on a free OS.
soooooo many people only use windows because it's the best OS for games. if you could play the same games on linux, i wouldn't touch windows, and microsoft knows this. directx isn't microsoft's way of helping the game industry out, it's their way of making sure everyone needs directx to play games...and therefore needs windows. more microsoft monopoly action.
OCybrManO
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 4,780
- Reaction score
- 0
That doesn't mean someone (or a team of people, more likely) couldn't make another 3D API for linux that has the same features (maybe even more) and uses the same names for the function calls so that it would be DirectX compatible but with completely rewritten code.
Microsoft could make money out of this if they wanted to... they could allow people to include a linux version of DirectX with distributions for a licensing fee and they could make it available as a paid addon if your distro doesn't include it... but they don't care about money as much as they want a huge market share for their OS's... so that won't happen.
Microsoft could make money out of this if they wanted to... they could allow people to include a linux version of DirectX with distributions for a licensing fee and they could make it available as a paid addon if your distro doesn't include it... but they don't care about money as much as they want a huge market share for their OS's... so that won't happen.
Selas,
You're really not going to go wrong with either one (2000 or XP). Both perform quite well and are quite stable. If you go with XP, make sure you hit Tweak XP and follow their advice for turning off/manualizing various services. This will make a huge difference.
I'm sure you can make similar tweaks to 2000, but I never spent much time on 2000 so I can't say for sure.
Whatever you do, stay the hell away from Windows ME. Satan ghost-wrote it for Microsoft, and you shouldn't support Satan.
There was a time when Windows 98SE would have been an excellent option, too, but as games because more demanding (memory-wise, specifically), 98SE can't manage the PC's resources nearly as well as its successors, which makes it a distant third option for a gaming rig (or any rig, for that matter).
You're really not going to go wrong with either one (2000 or XP). Both perform quite well and are quite stable. If you go with XP, make sure you hit Tweak XP and follow their advice for turning off/manualizing various services. This will make a huge difference.
I'm sure you can make similar tweaks to 2000, but I never spent much time on 2000 so I can't say for sure.
Whatever you do, stay the hell away from Windows ME. Satan ghost-wrote it for Microsoft, and you shouldn't support Satan.
There was a time when Windows 98SE would have been an excellent option, too, but as games because more demanding (memory-wise, specifically), 98SE can't manage the PC's resources nearly as well as its successors, which makes it a distant third option for a gaming rig (or any rig, for that matter).
Similar threads
