Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

With GF2 and 256MB ram, should I use W2K or XP

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 12, 2004 5:49:17 AM

With an old Soyo K7V 266 Dragon, Duron 750 overclocked to 850 or so, 256MB PC2100 ram, and a GF2 MX400 64 MB ram, should I use W2K or XP for an OS. I have read that XP uses a lot more ram... but is it also way more stable... I will be building this system when my used motherboard comes in and I get some ram. I expect to acquire a 1900+ within a month or two...

I cannot really put that much money into this computer, so I might end up with just 256 MB of ram for a while, the way prices are going up...

This is for an additional gaming system, and it will be my 3rd best on my LAN.

<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263

More about : gf2 256mb ram w2k

January 12, 2004 7:29:30 AM

Xp is just 2K with a fancy skin. Dont waste the resources.
January 12, 2004 8:03:23 AM

i totally agree with endyen

_____________
whompiedompie
Related resources
January 12, 2004 8:20:55 AM

XP uses basically the same core (kurnel?) as WinXP so 2000 is not less stable. Windows XP is basically 2000 with baby features that make it easier for tards to use.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6752830" target="_new">Yay, I Finally broke the 12k barrier!!</A>
a b U Graphics card
January 12, 2004 1:26:32 PM

Yes I find it much easier to use.... <b>HEY</b>! :wink:

BTW, it's Kernel. Now who's the TARD?!? :tongue: It's spelled 'Colonel' in the British Commonwealth. :eek: 

In the end it's nice to have some of the integrated features of XP, but if you're confident of your abilities and have a hampered system it is a wiser choice to use Win2K.

There are some minor compatibility issues when using 2K that XP has addressed (and at the same time they created new compatibility issues [usually with printers and other older peripherals]), but unless you specifically have a problem or application that will only run under XP, Win2k is a better choice for your system IMO.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
January 12, 2004 2:13:47 PM

You mean all that fancy eye candy!!!!!!!
January 12, 2004 4:19:06 PM

Thanks guys... W2K it is... I will try an download the service packs from work... I have W2K on one of my computers already, and it is working fine on my LAN. But if I do manage to come up with 512MB of ram before I install an OS, should I then use XP? This is primarily going to be a 3rd gaming computer, but who knows, I might end up giving it to someone down the road...

<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263
a b U Graphics card
January 12, 2004 7:42:00 PM

For gaming I would recommend XP if you have enough resources. However that DURON really does hold you back on your options. W98SE might even be a better option (much less overhead than both). But if you only have cheap access to XP/W2K, then it's really a toss-up. I couldn't tell you for sure, most of the performance charts I remember seeing way back were with 1GHZ P3s, and they seemed to benifit from XP, but only VERY slightly. I think it's whatever you feel comfortable with if you can try both before you decide. If you already have 2K and would have to buy XP, then I would say don't waste your money on XP. If you have both, load them both up, run a benchmark of your choice 3Dmark2001 likely a good choice, and then see which one does best for your system. That would be the most accurate way of deciding in my mind.


BTW, Loved Paradise Lost.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
January 12, 2004 8:52:10 PM

MS forced me to dow... uh... buy XP! I had W2k, some minor bugs were pissing me off, dled SP1(or 2) and (drumroll...) BOOM! Do you know that W2k supports a scsi floppy, but for some odd reason MS decided to get rid of support for my ide driver. I could live with it, fix it etc. but I was pissed off and feeling revengefull. I'll prolly 'buy' the next version of windows as well...

<b> A mosquito is just a small woodpecker. </b>
January 12, 2004 8:56:09 PM

I have a copy of 98SE as well, but I question how compatible games and drivers are with that OS. Seems like most bug work would be directed toward newer OSs. I do have my eye on an old P 1900+ 1.6 GHz cpu a friend has or even a Thunderbird 1.2 GHz cpu my sister has... after I talk them into upgrading and giving me their old cpu for the pleasure. So I hope the Duron will not be there for too long... It is hard not to go with XP, even though I know it will slow down the system.. but hey, I will never be playing on it :) ... it will be a friend that I will toast because of his lag... although I primarily play coop team games like NWN... Hmmm, it will not hurt me to just put on W2K and be happy with it... I downloaded SP4 today... it it stable.

John Milton has stayed with me... I know several English majors who hate him, but he spoke to me... then again, I was primarily a political science major [my BA and MA], and Milton's war in Heaven was essentially an account of the English Civil War... a war in which Milton played a role.

As above, so below...

<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263
a b U Graphics card
January 13, 2004 12:41:35 AM

98SE would be fastest. Oh, nevermind, you have a VIA chipset motherboard. In that case I guess you'd better suffer with 2k. XP sux on 256MB.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
January 13, 2004 12:43:58 PM

I am not 100% about this but I have heard from several programmers that the memory management in XP is better than in 2k out of the box. However, I would guess that the service packs update the memory management to where they are roughly equal.
My experience is that they are about the same on that system (I had the exact same setup, but with a stock duron 800). The difference in Hard Disk space is what made me decide on 2k and that is also what I prefer over XP since the networking features are much cleaner.

Dev

---
My Sig:
))
(( ___________________
|||_____________|_____|
January 13, 2004 1:49:12 PM

Who cares wat agp you have, 256mb of ram should tell you to go for win2k. Winxp will take 128mb of you ram easily.

Barton 2500+ @ 2200mhz (10x220 vcore @ 1.8)
Asus A7N8X Dlx 440 FSB
1gb Geil GD pc3500 Dual Channel (2-3-3-6)
Segata 80gb SATA 8.5ms seek
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro(420/720)
January 13, 2004 4:08:30 PM

BTW, I should point out that I will be using scrap HDDs I have around... I have 2 4GB drives and 1 6GB drive. I may take a chance and put the 2 4GB drives on a RAID just because this old board supports it... I wonder if it would help performance at all, given the other bottlenecks...

Again, thanks for keeping this thread alive... the more I know when i put this system together, the better off I will be... I am a sponge for computer knowledge... :) 

<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263
!