Idontwantspam Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 What I think some people tend to forget is the Windows XP is essentially Windows 2000 with a pretty shell and --SOME-- updated stuff. They're not really all that different. Win2K = Windows NT 5.0, WinXP = Windows NT 5.1. yes, windows 2000 would run a little bit faster, but not much. Stick with XP is my recommendation as well.
scott14 Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 Erik,Why spend all that money on Vista when your XP rig is running well?I'm sticking with XP for awhile. Someday instead of Vista I may try Suse Linux instead.
_Erik Posted April 2, 2007 Author Posted April 2, 2007 Erik,Why spend all that money on Vista when your XP rig is running well?I'm sticking with XP for awhile. Someday instead of Vista I may try Suse Linux instead.Well I'm actually pretty curious about Vista because the opinions on it are so mixed. But I guess it would be wiser to wait until I decide to buy a new computer. From what I have heard about it so far the "Vista Experience" is the best with atleast a dual core processor and an expensive GPU.
mike_morley Posted April 2, 2007 Posted April 2, 2007 What I think some people tend to forget is the Windows XP is essentially Windows 2000 with a pretty shell and --SOME-- updated stuff. They're not really all that different. Win2K = Windows NT 5.0, WinXP = Windows NT 5.1. yes, windows 2000 would run a little bit faster, but not much. Stick with XP is my recommendation as well.dual boot.I hate to admit it but Windows has its place. There are some things it is not necesseraly better at but easier to do in Windows. Linux is more..... robust. It will allow you to do the things that Windows won't because Bill doesn't like us playing with all the toys in the play pen
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now