Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 27782	2002-12-02 21:19:00	Windows XP?	bk T (215)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
102857	2002-12-02 21:19:00	My hardware configuration: Pentium III 500 MHz, 512 MB SDRAM. How will Windows XP perform in this machine? At present, I'm running Windows 2000 Prof., it is running fine with no problems at all since I last installed it about 2 years ago. Just curious to know whether XP will work as good as W2K, if not better? I was told that XP is more hardware demanding than W2K, is it true? What are the main differences between XP and W2K other than the user interfaces? Cheers	bk T (215)
102858	2002-12-02 21:23:00	Yes, it is more hardware demanding, but your current system should do just fine running XP.	Chilling_Silence (9)
102859	2002-12-02 21:44:00	Your system should be fine with XP, u might find it a bit slower than 2K. Is your current OS not serving you well? Is there any reason you want XP? If 2K has been workiong fine for 2 years and you're happy with it, why change? :D	SKT174 (1319)
102860	2002-12-02 21:49:00	Well, Seeing as nobody else has commented on the rest of your question, I might as well give my two cents worth: XP I doubt will work as good as Win2K, as it requires more resources from your system, but in saying that, has better multi-user options and many other things that you may prefer. With specs like yours, 512MB RAM is great for XP so it should not really be noticable, and if you optimise it for your system enough, then it may actually run better. The differences in the GUI's, basically, XP looks like somebody has given doze a paint job, sanded the window corners off and added a few stling effects. Its a lot more jazzed up so it'll look more appealing. As tradition goes with each new windows release, things are in different places. Control Panel looks different (Although there is the 'Classic' style interface option. I like Win2K Pro better (What I'm currently running), because I find XP to be a whole lot more sugar'd up for new PC users. I'd rather have Win2K, as it seems more powerful to me... Just my opinion anyways, I garauntee there are a good hundred other who'd say different on this forum, but I've never actually had my hands on my own copy of XP for home use, just used it at work for about 6 months. I've used both Win2K Pro at work and home however and in my opinion is the best OS they've put out yet (Although I'm holding out for the next .NET version of windows, as the .NET server looks like a real winner!) Cheers, hope this helps ya Chilling_Silence	Chilling_Silence (9)
102861	2002-12-02 21:51:00	Soz, did see you'd posted, but I wholeheatedly agree. What would make you want to make the switch to XP, and what would deter you from it (Besides the extra price tag)?	Chilling_Silence (9)
102862	2002-12-02 23:10:00	We have XP running on a AMD K62-500 with 256mb RAM. The most useful thing about theis particular installation is the Compatability feature. All the older educational software (Reader Rabbit etc) wouldn't display correctly in anything but Win 95. But compatability mode allows us to run the progs in 640 * 480 and 256 colours. It's the _only_ reason I have for running XP on this PC.	crozier (2004)
102863	2002-12-02 23:32:00	My 2c... I'm running XP fine on my Duron 850, 320MB Ram. It actually runs quite well, except for the odd crash, but I'm sure it's not the OS causing that but rather my constant tampering with things...hehe	Synergy (2675)
102864	2002-12-03 00:40:00	> What would make you want to make the switch to XP, > and what would deter you from it (Besides the extra > price tag)? Well, Chilling Silence, Just curious to explore and compare the two OSs. If there isn't any drastic improvement in performance other than the cosmetic interfaces, then there is no reason why I should switch over. I am happy and satisfied with my W2K. It is delivering what I wanted; and I, too think that it is the best OS, so far. Thanks to all other folks' contributions in the above. Cheers	bk T (215)
1