With all the cosmetic stuff turned off i find my copy of xp runs better then
the two cops of win2k on identical machines. I also enjoy some of the
convience items, like browsing zip files as if they are folders, and the
send to zip option, being able to just stick something into my pc and xp
running it. While there are things i don't like, such as having to
reregister xp with ms after swapping out a motherboard, and installing extra
hardware, it's been pretty good
"Duncan Anderson" wrote
in message news:4022432d_3@newsprd01...
> On thing that's not been mentioned is the 3 Giga Byte switch (/3GB) on
boot-up.
>
> You don't have that option on Win2K. Unless you're planning to change O/S
again
> in the future, go for the youngest as it's likely to be around the longest
> giving you a chance to get used to it.
>
> And in years to come you might need 3Gb of RAM
>
> Duncan
>
>
> "Sean Dotson" wrote in message
> news:40223e91$1_1@newsprd01...
> > I beg to differ. The "cosmetic stuff" eats up a LOT of RAM. If you do
get
> > XP be sure to visit
> >
> > http://www.blackviper.com/
> >
> > to learn how to turn off all the "extras". I've freed up anywhere from
9-30
> > MB of RAM by following these directions.
> >
> > --
> > Sean Dotson, PE
> > Autodesk Inventor Certified Expert
> > http://www.sdotson.com
> > Check the Inventor FAQ for most common questions
> > www.sdotson.com/faq.html
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "Matthew Stocking" wrote in message
> > news:40222e1f_2@newsprd01...
> > > i would go with winxp on that system. win2k is only faster on slower
> > > systems. you woldnt notice a difference from the cosmetics on a system
> > that
> > > powerful.
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
