# Windows 2000 Pro VS. Windows XP Pro



## Thermopylae_480 (Mar 5, 2006)

Well these are very similiar operating systems, XP is much more flashy and pretty than 2000 and supposedly uses more resources, But 2000 is slightly older. Which has better performance?    Does XP have software improvements that allow it to more efficently manage resources and get better performance?  Or is it just a flashy version of 2000?  Etc. Etc.  What does everyone think?


----------



## trog100 (Mar 5, 2006)

i dont think any new operating system has increased performance.. they just get flashier and prettier and use more resources and decrease performance mostly..

when xp was first announced it was said it needed 30% more horse power to run things at the same speed as u did in 98.. folks hung on to 95 for ages cos 98 degraded performance..

i was still useing 98se until three months ago for this very reason.. i had xp as well just as a spare thow.. he he

it took partition magic to kill of my 98se.. i just have xp now.. he he

trog


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Mar 5, 2006)

XP Pro I value more.  Reason is because games more often are supported by XP than by 2000.  Also, USB thumb drive support in 2000 is crap.  (as is my 3DMark01 score)


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Mar 5, 2006)

Hmm.  Most system requirements say Windows XP/2000, and my jump drive, external HDD and other USB devices don't seem to mind it so far.  I guess it has some compatibility issues with older Win 9x apps though.  Did you download SP4 and other updates?  I guess I'll watch out for that though.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Mar 6, 2006)

Windows XP has support for some things that 2000 lacks. The main difference though is that Windows 2000 won't be supported for long and XP will. Personally I use Windows 2003 standard though, basically XP without flashy things if you don't isntall servers and turn on all hardware acceleration.


----------

