Dazzler

Hi,

Bit of a dumb question, what are the differences between the two ?

Is it possible to have a machine dual bootable with both ? Is it worth it ?

Thanks

bioforger

iTrader: (1)

Eye candy basically. XP has some more networking features, but is basically based on the same kernal as win2k. Although the kernal was re-written for XP alledgely XP starts up n shutsdown a bit quicker, but this is a false performance increase, as once the desktop has appeared it continues to load system files. Whereas win2k does it all together, therefore seems to take longer to load.

Yup dual boot is possible. Just install each OS on a seperate partition, or even on an extended partition. Worth it? nah, have either or. I dual boot for testing purposes.

Personally I will stay with win2kpro.

adamm

xp has better driver support for older machines, but if you are happy running win2k and don't need any of the extra apps like moviemaker then stick with it..

Dazzler

Cheers chaps.

Comedy_Gaz

Regarding the duel boot it depends what you want to do. 2000 is 'generally' more stable as its been out longer, more SP's etc...but XP is more user friendly. You could just get Win 2K and skin it...