WinXP Pro vs. Win2K Pro

I usually use XP but with my main machine disassembled I am using this old K6-2 233 with a 2GB HD and 64MB of ram.. and I put Win 2000 Pro on it just for gags..and you know..it dont work half bad! Win2k pro feels XP, looks like Win ME but with the features of XP.. I guess XP coppied Win2k eh? But Windows2K feels a LOT lighter than XP even on this dog!!

I cant seem to find/run msconfig.exe on this OS though! I really LIKE/NEED my msconfig.. I suppose I could download 3rd party software but WHY isnt it here? I mean Win98 has that.

Also.. is Win2K as fast/faster than XP in games? I dont mind this OS at all. After using XP and all the previous MS OS' I feel right at home with it.

Its just as good as XP with eveything else aside from the driver data base and recognizing PNP hardware (really numb here) BUT Is it just as FAST IN GAMES? or better yet..is it FASTER?

Thanks!

 

As far as I know w2k does not include msconfig. It wasn't a part of the nt line until xp. I may be wrong here but i'm about 90% sure i'm not.

As for if win 2k is just as good for games the answer is it's not. If you want to game you really should go to win XP. Win2k is built for work not for gaming. If you want gaming you should be running XP. If you want real compatibilty for gaming you should really be using win98se but xp/2k is just so much better then it that I don't really suggest that anymore. Anyways 98se is mostly for older games, new games run just as well if not better on XP.

In short win xp is the built off of win 2k. Many of the changes from 2k to xp was to make it more usable for gaming. XP is actually built with gaming in mind and 2k is not.

 

Coco is correct. MSCONFIG is not included in Win2k. You need the 'Start Up Control Panel' for configuring your start up options.

 

... or run regedit and services.msc

 

OK! Thanks people. WinXP Pro it is when I get my PC parts in and rebuild the beast.

 

Win2K games just fine; I saw a comparision recently of 98SE, ME, 2K, and XP. They all had almost exactly the same gaming performance.
Also, reviewers use Win2K for benchmarks; because win2K will allow the game to use the computers full potential. XP has 'smart' (sic) logic, that will allocate computer resources to other tasks, which can affect benchmarking.

 

XP and 2K are built on the same kernel.

Windows 2000=NT 5
Windows XP= NT 5.1
It's a minor update, they use the same drivers, the same directx, s it's a matter of personal opinion. I've used both extensively, as for ease of use and features XP wins. The built in cd burning is probably the best feature ever, it allows such easy backup and transfer of files. just drag and drop like a floppy.

 

One can use the MSCONFIG from WinXP on the Win2k:
http://geocities.com/sweaty2/tweak/winnt/files/
Though for controlling program start then Startup.cpl is better.

Also Win2k lacks the Driver Roll Back of WinXP and Win2k also lack the System Restore Points of WinXP.

 

actually Win2k does have something known as 'Last Known Good Configuration', and it works pretty good too.

as far as gaming is concerned, Win2k became alot more 'game-friendly' with the release of Service Pack 3.
It runs all my games without problems, WinXP does not...

 

i agree SP3 of win2k has some enhancements for gaming and 3d stuff (my dad uses it on his office network). I do know that many people still dual boot win2k and win98 and use win98 for gaming. Im not sure if there is any real difference. I have been trying to set up win2k on my computer to dual boot with XP. reason is because any of my server applications run on a win2k machine rather than XP, so if i writing it in 2k then its nearer to the end system. win2k is nearer to the server line of products (that is win2003 is more like win2k than XP) which is why i want it. Ive got a feeling someone has said that win2k is more secure than XP, or has better security features, or somthing. and win2k is better for networking, has more configurable options. I have also (personally) found it easier to bridge connections etc. on win2k than XP (XP likes to do it itself and you end up with 3 bridges for no reason).

Anyway thats enough of me going on about it

 

Last night I was at a friend's house working on his XP Home system. It's an HP computer, with a 1.4Ghz Athlon, a 60GB hard-drive, and 512MB of RAM. It's also running a Radeon 8500LE with 128MB of memory. Yet it was dog slow in just normal operations such as clicking "Start" or opening Windows Explorer. Finally I found a good XP Services guide and turned off most of the JUNK that runs in the default setting of XP. His system now behaves almost as fast as my 733 P3 with 256MB of RAM running Win2k. Why is that???

I still do not understand why people keep saying that Win2k is "not as compatible" or not as fast as WinXP. I've been using 2k since it came out, and while it was very incompatible at the beginning, that's simply not true any more. In my limited experience with XP I'm still not too happy with it, and haven't seen it run anything that a 2k machine can't run at least as well.

If I want to use my CD-RW drive, then I'll install InCD or Nero or something similar. If I want a firewall on my computer then I'll install one. If I want help with a normal user operation then I'll look for it. I don't need some lame puppy dog icon to walk me through finding a file! I certainly don't need my OS bloated and weighed down with every application ever written just in case I might want to use it some day.

Just had to speak up on this. BTW, I'll stick to 2k till I'm fully convinced that XP is a better OS and worth the "upgrade".

 

coco win2000 is great for games
many of us have been using it for, years
and this quote i heard many times" As for if win 2k is just as good for games the answer is it's not. If you want to game you really should go to win XP. Win2k is built for work not for gaming. If you want gaming you should be running XP. If you want real compatibilty for gaming you should really be using win98se but xp/2k is just so much better then it that I don't really suggest that anymore. Anyways 98se is mostly for older games, new games run just as well if not better on XP."
so win2000 Is really windowsxp with a new look yet win2000 is not really for games?
i just can't get over the uninfortmed people making these statements over and over through out the years.
win2000 is just as good as winxp for gaming
norm.