W2k SP4 Vs. XP SP2, On an old system for gameing

The_Neon_Cowboy · Jan 10, 2005, 09:22 AM

System is a AMD k6/2 550mhz, 384mb ram, 20 gb hdd ,9200se pci, 10mb nic, (soon to have a ATA133 contoler card)

For reference W2k requires:
Computer/Processor133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU.MemoryAt least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM; more memory generally improves responsiveness.Hard Disk2 GB with 650 MB free space.CPU SupportWindows 2000 Professional supports single and dual CPU systems.DriveCD-ROM or DVD drive.DisplayVGA or higher resolution monitor.KeyboardRequired.

For reference xp requires:
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

•128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
•1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
•Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
•CD-ROM or DVD drive
•Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

Cast your vote!
tell me why you say?

I think w2k mostly the games thier playing are like "the sims" or "warcraft" all 3rd person stuff....

the system has some magor performance issues
and is currently useing XP! the onboard ATA truely sucks hice the ATA card on order...Cant help the fact it's sis530 based mobo....

NOT MY SYSTEM, it's my parents lesser one for the nephews kids etc to play games on (elementry school ages)

mkk · Jan 10, 2005, 10:32 AM

It hurts to say it but they might want to try Win98/Me.

Or if you've got time to mess around with it, using nLite to slim down a Win2000 or WinXP installation CD could be nice. One can both get the installation size a little lower and remove some needless things right on install rather than afterwards. http://nuhi.msfn.org/

CDsDontBurn · Jan 10, 2005, 10:50 AM

i agree w/mkk....win98se/ME would be a much better OS than xp or 2000. I would take win98se over ME though..... winME = Mistaken Edition

pr0digal jenius · Jan 10, 2005, 05:03 PM

i'm gunna go with 2000.

It can be shrunken down a LOT via nLite or XPLite and has an almost unnoticeable footprint.

...plus there's no excuse to use FAT32 anymore

The_Neon_Cowboy · Jan 11, 2005, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDsDontBurn

i agree w/mkk....win98se/ME would be a much better OS than xp or 2000. I would take win98se over ME though..... winME = Mistaken Edition

I got to w2k when it was released and then later XP I don't wanna go back!
98/ME sucks ARSE!! So does it's driver and support....

98 is the first real version of windows that wasn't "dos based" ME is the bastard mateing of NT4 and 98SE.... a gamers nightmare .. terrable os

Guys it's XP or W2K!!!

CDsDontBurn · Jan 11, 2005, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0digal jenius

...plus there's no excuse to use FAT32 anymore

yes there is.....you know those tiny little things known as USB flash drives? Those only work in FAT32

.

pr0digal jenius · Jan 11, 2005, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDsDontBurn

yes there is.....you know those tiny little things known as USB flash drives? Those only work in FAT32

.

I meant for an OS

mainman · Jan 11, 2005, 08:26 AM

Yep...option #4 for sure!!

The_Neon_Cowboy · Jan 12, 2005, 02:18 AM

Well I'll probubly just go w2k for now and see how things work out

CDsDontBurn · Jan 12, 2005, 11:27 AM

well, good luck w/win2k there neon.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Jan 12, 2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDsDontBurn

well, good luck w/win2k there neon.

Thanks I need it this POS is so friggin slow.... a few IE windows couses 100% cpu useage becouse the banner adds and animated smiles

coldfrontt · Jan 12, 2005, 01:40 PM

With that system, Win98Se is likely the best way to go. Properly patched it's very stable, and while there aren't many beta or "tweaked" drivers for it, I find most drivers to be very solid. Plus older games will run on it, where they can be problematic on 2K or XP.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Jan 12, 2005, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coldfrontt

With that system, Win98Se is likely the best way to go. Properly patched it's very stable, and while there aren't many beta or "tweaked" drivers for it, I find most drivers to be very solid. Plus older games will run on it, where they can be problematic on 2K or XP.

driver and alot of new stuff / games won't work on an OLD os like that.....
Software and securtiy are way out of date etc.....
Not to mention confgering and upkeep of old OSes are a pain is the arse....

true about the older games but.... it goes both ways
new games won't play on old OSes

UberLord · Jan 12, 2005, 04:48 PM

Replace with xbox

I would recommend win98 purely because the games that box can play are from that era anyway so OS wouldn't / shouldn't be a problem.

Now where's my punch & pie ???

md5 · Jan 12, 2005, 09:00 PM

Quote:

98 is the first real version of windows that wasn't "dos based"

that's not true, 95, 98 and ME are all based on DOS... it's just not easy to get to it

I'd go for 98 for speed and 2000 for a not-so-fast albeit less likely to break PC

If you want to go for 2000, you can use the installed XP OS and just strip out all the fancy stuff (themes and effects)... this will effectively make the installation faster, with a speed comparable to 2000

PangingJr · Jan 12, 2005, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by md5

that's not true, 95, 98 and ME are all based on DOS... it's just not easy to get to it

just make two changes under the "[Options]" of the MSDOS.SYS file, change the line "BootGUI=1" to "BootGUI=0" and then add a new line "Logo=0",
on your next boot DOS should come up first, and type "WIN" to go into win98.

i'd use win98 on that system, btw.
nah i'd add more RAM as much as the system and i can and use XP. no need to compare 2k with XP for me.

Judas · Jan 12, 2005, 10:27 PM

on any system ive tested... windows XP pro plays games better then any other version of windows... and i've serveral benchmark results to prove it. these results are from machines with sub 100mhz cpu's... 64mb of ram, 1.038gb hard drives and the most achient of video cards or ONBOARD for that matter being 256kb and S3 (whynot

)

windows xp pro just handles it perfectly and windows XP pro supports all the no longer in excistance chipsets and controllers right out of the box.

coldfrontt · Jan 12, 2005, 10:31 PM

true about the older games but.... it goes both ways
new games won't play on old OSes

[/QUOTE]

With that rig, you won't be playing a lot of new games anyhow.

and what new game won't run on 98?

Judas · Jan 12, 2005, 10:46 PM

i've installed many old games on my XP machine, runs fine enless they are EA or Ubisoft games that auto detect and state that you cannot install on a windows 2000 machine as they are for bisness only (idiots)

No_Style · Jan 12, 2005, 11:15 PM

For the sake of what MS wants to support, I'd pick WinXP. A K6 550 MHz with 384 MB is just enough for XP to run well with default settings. I used to have a P3 950 MHz with that same amount of RAM.

Plus, there are subtle differences with that make XP better than 2K. Here's a common one that you may be using:

There is no "User Name" column option for Win2K which is a big help on getting a quick glimpse of which processes are actually spyware (Usually when a process like "svhost.exe" is started by the "User" then it's actually spyware).

CrapolaJola · Jan 12, 2005, 11:29 PM

Def go with win2k. Put the iso on your hd, use nlite to make it smaller and reduce footprint even more, apply tweaks n u got yourself a great os for an old comp

The_Neon_Cowboy · Jan 13, 2005, 01:56 AM

More people are reccomending XP

ATM...

windows 2000 = windows NT5
windows XP= windows NT5.1

XP has twice the system requirements....

Quote:

Originally Posted by md5

that's not true, 95, 98 and ME are all based on DOS... it's just not easy to get to it

Windows 3.1 all the way out threw WIN95/2 was nothing more then a grahical interface to dos. Windows 98 was diffrent is considerd the first real "windows" OS

HsuGotaQ · Jan 13, 2005, 02:16 AM

With the amount of ram and hdd space you've got coupled with the sorta functional CPU and videocard. I'd highly suggest Windows XP for the system. I've got 3 terminal PC's (Winbits Terminals with AMD K6-2 300 mobile cpu's, 256 megs of ram and an added small form CD-ROM drives) with XP running on it without a problem. The only thing you must not do with such low specs machines is install something like an Antivirus software or any other real time application that might eat the crap outta the CPU or slow down even more your HDD r/w access time. All 3 small, old and ugly buggers that i've got can run old games fine (one of them has a ATI 7000 PCI video card). If you can fix the ATA issue your talking about, things should run smoothly. Use XP SP2 and disable all the CPU using crap.

Note: I'm running BartPE on all my systems and sometimes (more recently) Slax. Both bootable OS straight from a CDROM. BartPE is an XP Pre-installation CD (320 megs with about every driver imaginable and all the applications one could need to live, event Ghost32!!) and Slax is a Linux Slackware version (the 180 meg footprint is absolutely amazing).

HsuGotaQ · Jan 13, 2005, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No_Style

Plus, there are subtle differences with that make XP better than 2K. Here's a common one that you may be using:

There is no "User Name" column option for Win2K which is a big help on getting a quick glimpse of which processes are actually spyware (Usually when a process like "svhost.exe" is started by the "User" then it's actually spyware).

I think you can still view which application is running and by who in Windows 2000, but you need to go into the command prompt to view all the active process. Also, i think i remember reading that there is a way to "spoof" the system to display the wrong user for a process, but I don't remember where I read that and it probably has been patched since.

PangingJr · Jan 13, 2005, 05:29 AM

i don't know how much you have to spend for getting that speed of an old RAMs, nor how easy of your return policy at where you live, whether or not you want to make any more additional investment on that system. etc..

but for me i can do them all easily, including testing it for a good period of time, and won't waste anything for nothing..
i know that the RAM installed on the system now is more than enough?, but for a few monies i can bring the RAM up to 768MB or even up to the max allowed on the system, this'll make a tremendous difference in the XP performance for the low speed CPU systems, and this because i want to use XP on the system and it's for a game system, also, i'd apply a few XP general tweaks that helps speeding most of my computing activities likes the XP's visual effects setting, just use the option 'Adjust for best performance', and then disabling the Indexing service to have the CPU cycles available at all times. these will help.

Jan 10, 2005, 09:22 AM	#1
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	W2k SP4 Vs. XP SP2, On an old system for gameing System is a AMD k6/2 550mhz, 384mb ram, 20 gb hdd ,9200se pci, 10mb nic, (soon to have a ATA133 contoler card) For reference W2k requires: Computer/Processor133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU.MemoryAt least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM; more memory generally improves responsiveness.Hard Disk2 GB with 650 MB free space.CPU SupportWindows 2000 Professional supports single and dual CPU systems.DriveCD-ROM or DVD drive.DisplayVGA or higher resolution monitor.KeyboardRequired. For reference xp requires: PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended •128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features) •1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space* •Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor •CD-ROM or DVD drive •Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device Cast your vote! tell me why you say? I think w2k mostly the games thier playing are like "the sims" or "warcraft" all 3rd person stuff.... the system has some magor performance issues and is currently useing XP! the onboard ATA truely sucks hice the ATA card on order...Cant help the fact it's sis530 based mobo.... NOT MY SYSTEM, it's my parents lesser one for the nephews kids etc to play games on (elementry school ages) __________________ Last edited by The_Neon_Cowboy; Jan 10, 2005 at 09:30 AM.

Jan 10, 2005, 10:50 AM	#3
CDsDontBurn Lurking DriverHeaven Join Date: May 2003 Location: Southern California Posts: 22,806 Rep Power: 235 System Specs	i agree w/mkk....win98se/ME would be a much better OS than xp or 2000. I would take win98se over ME though..... winME = Mistaken Edition __________________ Her First Day \| A year later

Jan 11, 2005, 08:26 AM	#8
mainman Mr. Nobody Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: OmniPresent Nightwatcher Posts: 5,961 Rep Power: 71	Yep...option #4 for sure!! __________________

Jan 12, 2005, 02:18 AM	Thread Starter #9
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	Well I'll probubly just go w2k for now and see how things work out __________________

Jan 12, 2005, 11:27 AM	#10
CDsDontBurn Lurking DriverHeaven Join Date: May 2003 Location: Southern California Posts: 22,806 Rep Power: 235 System Specs	well, good luck w/win2k there neon. __________________ Her First Day \| A year later

Jan 10, 2005, 10:32 AM	#2
mkk Cthulhu/Dagon 2012 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Gefle, Sweden Posts: 4,495 Rep Power: 132 System Specs	It hurts to say it but they might want to try Win98/Me. Or if you've got time to mess around with it, using nLite to slim down a Win2000 or WinXP installation CD could be nice. One can both get the installation size a little lower and remove some needless things right on install rather than afterwards. http://nuhi.msfn.org/

Jan 10, 2005, 05:03 PM	#4
pr0digal jenius Delete Me Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 14,648 Rep Power: 0	i'm gunna go with 2000. It can be shrunken down a LOT via nLite or XPLite and has an almost unnoticeable footprint. ...plus there's no excuse to use FAT32 anymore

Jan 12, 2005, 01:40 PM	#12
coldfrontt DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: canada Posts: 248 Rep Power: 0	With that system, Win98Se is likely the best way to go. Properly patched it's very stable, and while there aren't many beta or "tweaked" drivers for it, I find most drivers to be very solid. Plus older games will run on it, where they can be problematic on 2K or XP.

Jan 12, 2005, 04:48 PM	#14
UberLord A Legend in Underwear Join Date: May 2002 Location: Unknown Posts: 5,255 Rep Power: 0	Replace with xbox I would recommend win98 purely because the games that box can play are from that era anyway so OS wouldn't / shouldn't be a problem. Now where's my punch & pie ??? __________________ Gentoo Linux - Developer (baselayout) Read my blog "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts

Jan 12, 2005, 10:31 PM	#18
coldfrontt DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: canada Posts: 248 Rep Power: 0	true about the older games but.... it goes both ways new games won't play on old OSes [/QUOTE] With that rig, you won't be playing a lot of new games anyhow. and what new game won't run on 98?

Jan 12, 2005, 11:15 PM	#20
No_Style Styleless Wonder Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ottawa, Ontario Posts: 6,034 Rep Power: 0	For the sake of what MS wants to support, I'd pick WinXP. A K6 550 MHz with 384 MB is just enough for XP to run well with default settings. I used to have a P3 950 MHz with that same amount of RAM. Plus, there are subtle differences with that make XP better than 2K. Here's a common one that you may be using: There is no "User Name" column option for Win2K which is a big help on getting a quick glimpse of which processes are actually spyware (Usually when a process like "svhost.exe" is started by the "User" then it's actually spyware). __________________ "The Best Style Is No Style" Specifications Here

Jan 12, 2005, 11:29 PM	#21
CrapolaJola The Great DaK Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 317 Rep Power: 0	Def go with win2k. Put the iso on your hd, use nlite to make it smaller and reduce footprint even more, apply tweaks n u got yourself a great os for an old comp __________________ P2 X4 @ 3.6ghz, 4gb ddr3, SSD, 5870 @ 950/1250 + a 3ghz i5 lappy

Jan 13, 2005, 02:16 AM	#23
HsuGotaQ Hydrogenated Dumbass Join Date: May 2002 Location: Canuckland Posts: 755 Rep Power: 0	With the amount of ram and hdd space you've got coupled with the sorta functional CPU and videocard. I'd highly suggest Windows XP for the system. I've got 3 terminal PC's (Winbits Terminals with AMD K6-2 300 mobile cpu's, 256 megs of ram and an added small form CD-ROM drives) with XP running on it without a problem. The only thing you must not do with such low specs machines is install something like an Antivirus software or any other real time application that might eat the crap outta the CPU or slow down even more your HDD r/w access time. All 3 small, old and ugly buggers that i've got can run old games fine (one of them has a ATI 7000 PCI video card). If you can fix the ATA issue your talking about, things should run smoothly. Use XP SP2 and disable all the CPU using crap. Note: I'm running BartPE on all my systems and sometimes (more recently) Slax. Both bootable OS straight from a CDROM. BartPE is an XP Pre-installation CD (320 megs with about every driver imaginable and all the applications one could need to live, event Ghost32!!) and Slax is a Linux Slackware version (the 180 meg footprint is absolutely amazing).

Jan 13, 2005, 05:29 AM	#25
PangingJr Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,989 Rep Power: 71	i don't know how much you have to spend for getting that speed of an old RAMs, nor how easy of your return policy at where you live, whether or not you want to make any more additional investment on that system. etc.. but for me i can do them all easily, including testing it for a good period of time, and won't waste anything for nothing.. i know that the RAM installed on the system now is more than enough?, but for a few monies i can bring the RAM up to 768MB or even up to the max allowed on the system, this'll make a tremendous difference in the XP performance for the low speed CPU systems, and this because i want to use XP on the system and it's for a game system, also, i'd apply a few XP general tweaks that helps speeding most of my computing activities likes the XP's visual effects setting, just use the option 'Adjust for best performance', and then disabling the Indexing service to have the CPU cycles available at all times. these will help.