[QUOTE=Saucerful;2474344]I have an old rig that I’ve set up for my parents. Just for email, light web browsing, that sort of stuff. It’s a Pentium III 933 MHz with 512 MB RAM and not a whole lot else. Currently, I’ve got XP Pro SP3 installed on it and, as you might have guessed, it runs a little slow. It’s not terrible for how they use it, but I have an old copy of Windows 2000 Pro kicking around here that’s not being used. Assuming I can get all my drivers working in Win2k, is there any performance benefit there? My experience with Win2k is limited and all I can recall about it is its boot times were way slower than with XP.
So, my question can be summed up with this: Does using Win2k over XP make any sense in 2009?[/QUOTE]
I would says as other mentioned stay away from win2k that sounds like a dead dinosaur already stay with XP pro sp3. XP is still getting updates and support by more users then win2k that I know of. Also without knowing what kinda mobo you have its hard to know what to tell you to expand or update to get more performance out if it. But 512MB is to small of memory for XP to run properly if you can at least get 1-2G of ram into your system but if that will depend on how much memory would go for that computer mobo specs. But adding more RAM will help improve our XP performance and you will see and notice it. Anything below 1G is a hamstring to XP running good. As Dartman says 512M does it a disservice for XP. My old computer that died finally was with XP XP sp3 running at 1.5G on 2.32G of Ram and lasted 8 years.