Jody Thornton

That's a good song. I am enjoying some 2009 memories from La Roux. "Bulletproof" reminds me of Depeche Mode. Great song!

I find it hard to gather from the website. Is ClearOS an xNix type system? What is it based on? When it says it's web-based, do they mean akin to ChromeOS?

Never mind. I didn't see that tomasz86 typed "last year" as the final updates for Windows 2000. I should find them now.

No that's precisely what I didn't see. That's exactly what I looking for. I extracted a few ISOs and most of them were for Server 2008, Windows 7 and a couple XP if I remember. None the matter, I just wondered how you were recognizing Win2KPro updates if they weren't labelled as such.

So I checked out the links you gave me, and I even went back through the archives (I have visited there before). How in heck do you validate that there are any Windows 2000 updates there without it being specified on the site? It only appears to be supported Windows versions listed. How do you find your Windows 2000 updates then?

I appreciate your views (however it seems you appear to think of Microsoft warnings as instilling fear, while I guess I take them more legitimately). In fairness, you actually cannot "guarantee" that everything will be fine in an unsupported environment, it's just (as you stated) your opinion. And while I don't agree that the OS is key to a security solution, I do think it plays a substantial role. I never got the impression either that I'm the only one here who has concerns or even an interest in running unsupported OSs. I have plenty that agree with me about the view of security through obscurity (as in I don't agree with that premise), so I will be very interested in this topic for some time to come. By the way, how many reponses do you see in this thread? They're not all mine, so I am certainly not alone in my concerns. Besides, I've already moved to Vista. But it doesn't mean I cannot maintain an interest from the "other side of the fence" so to speak. I do wonder how XP users will fare in a few months (despite your opinion, which I do respect by the way), and I thought Win2K users might be able to shed a light on it from their experiences. Again just interested. Cheers my firend! Jody

Bump! Can we do that? Also I wondered if anyone out there still running Windows 2000 Professional in 2014 can chime in on a related topic. You folks have been running an unsupported OS for nearly four years, and it's VERY SIMILAR to Windows XP Professional (sans Visual Styles, Firewall, WLAN Support, and Clear Type Font Smoothing). Since Windows 2000 is so similar, perhaps we can get a glimpse into the future and see how they fare running Windows 2000 unsupported. That may tell us what to expect by choosing to run XP unsupported without updates. Have the 2000 bunch ran into security issues running 2000 as a primary OS? This is important because before now, most people running an unsupported Windows OS were running some 9x flavour. Windows NT 3x and 4x never amassed mainstream use and lack too many now needed features like USB. So this will really be the first time that MOST people running unsupported Windows OS, will be running an NT based build.

Well I appreciate the help JorgeA. The ATI card has been stable in the PCI-E slot. What I did differently this time was enable the option ROM on the PCI-E slot. It wasn't before. Maybe that's stopping the crashes. But the display artifacts have disappeared. And I have all 7 gb of RAM accessible.

No no - Aero does it too. Trust me. It has NOTHING to do with Vista Basic or theme (you name it). I placed the ATI Radeon Card back in and it works just fine. So I've placed my thermal fan on high to avoid overheating. The fellow on the HP site has the same issue bang on. OK CPU usage is high (as opposed to my mentioning video), but he mentions performance being affected. It all goes away on the affected adapter when he turns off memory remapping. That's OK. I appreciate everyones help. I'll look for a replacement video adapter. Cheers Everyone!

Just one trail here while being moved:

Hmm I actually think it's that certain devices just don't like my bios' implmentation of memory remapping. The drivers all exhibit the same thing, no matter what revision. Anyway, here are some still images of the windows being dragged. When "Computer" is dragged atop of Event Viewer, it's REALLY visible, but you can see a trial on the second desktop image too.

OK, I'm not home right now, but I'll do that later if I can. But imagine dragging a window and ii stops moving for a moment; then redraws across the screen. Or else it leaves trails on the screen until the video refreshes. Also, imagine scrolling down, and it stops scrolling for a moment; then it moves halfway down the page. The movments are not fluid. The link that I posted in #7 describes the issue exactly. Look down a few posts on that page.

Were you able to find the Hotfix? Here are links to two hotfixes that may apply: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2646060 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594 I wonder if you just need to update Device Manager. Maybe check these links: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1732022 http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1770061/8350-cpu-drivers.html#.

Were you able to find the Hotfix? Here are links to two hotfixes that may apply: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2646060 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594 I wonder if you just need to update Device Manager. Maybe check these links: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1732022 http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1770061/8350-cpu-drivers.html#.

It doesn't matter what shows on the screen. The display shows stuttered movement of dragging windows and scroll bars.

Hi bphlpt: I appreciate the help you and submix8c have offered (it's very kind of both of you). It has nothing to do with browser plugins. The jerky, stuttered motion (or sometimes lack thereof), happens either when I scroll up or down in any app (word processor, Notepad, or Internet Explorer) or when I drag a window (yes I have "show all contents while dragging" enabled). When I turn off Memory Remapping in my bios, it works perfectly, but then I only have 3 gb of RAM available. Then when I renable Memory Reapping, I get my 7 gb of RAM back, but along come the video problems again. To be clear, I should say "display" instead of video. And I'm using an x64 build of Vista.

Hmmmmm....no other thoughts on this eh?

Hey MagicAndre1981: You mention that Windows 7 is worse than Vista because its SuperFetch is less aggressive? I would be cautious with that statement. Both times I have installed Vista, I have found there to be better performance using just conventional prefetch. I have seen other systems showing this as well. Perhaps, the system was slow in relinquishing memory from SuperFetch use to regular application use, thus causing a bottleneck. Who's to say? I would say that in practice, Windows 7 outperforms Windows Vista in this area.

Oh a biggie... Windows 7 now allows you to cleanup the update files stored in Windows Side-By-Side, thus saving some disk space.

To answer your original question, here's what at least I know you lose the ability to do by not going to Windows 7 (not deal breakers at all): No pinned taskbar. The tasks along the bottom operate akin to XP. No ability to upgrade beyond Internet Explorer 9 (v10 and 11 run on 7) Changes to Control Panel (no true classic mode, which is why I like Vista a little better) Faster Disk I/O (Even with Vista on SP2, I admit that Windows 7 seems faster for file copy/move operations, though my experiences are anecdotal) Wordpad with ribbon-mode interface Changes to Superfetch to make it not as aggressive on RAM usage Changes to Explorer interface and Search (any others?...)

I'm also not alone on this exact issue. http://h30499.www3.hp.com/t5/Workstations-z-series-xw-series/xw8200-running-soooo-slow-Vista-64/td-p/1080576#.Uv-qF85tZ_c

By the way submix8c, I re-read my response, and it sounded a little non-appreciative. I didn't intend it to sound that way.

With DirectX 11, that feature is disabled (unlike XP). Apparently Vista and 7 render to the screen in a new way, thereby disallowing the defeat of Hardware Acceleration). Also keep in mind, it works as intended when memory remapping is defeated, so I don't think a band-aid solution should be necessary. It should work on x64 with memory remapping enabled Not that I don't appreciate your tips submix8c. I'm justy saying I hope to find a true cause and solution, that's all.

Well I wouldn't be to install 32 bit drivers on an x64 system anyway, would I? I'd have rampant errors in Event Viewer I'd think. However, I will check to be absolutely sure.

A video issue that I've come across is causing me a bit of grief: On my Vista x64 Ultimate installation, I use a fairly capable PCI video card (an old bus I know, but it works for me no worse than any PCI-E card I've ever stuck in it.). I'm using an nVidia GeForce 6200 on an HP xw8200 Workstation. I have 512 mb of RAM on the video adapter and 7 gb of DDR2 system RAM on the board. Here's what happens (and it took me QUITE awhile to trace down this iussue). When I enable memory remapping in the Bios to above 4G, the video becomes jerky when there is motion (scrolling or dragging windows). It will stop moving momentarily and resume mvement, or else it leaves severe trails while moving. In the process of tracking this issue down, I swapped out the card with two PCI-E cards: an ATI Radeon Sapphire of sorts and an nVidia Quadro 1300. I had the same symptoms on the Quadro, but not the ATI. Both of these cards had 128 mb of onboard memory. The ATI seemed to overheat mind you, as I received the appropriate beep codes every now and then. So I didn't want to continue using it. On both nVidia cards however, I found that if I defeated the memory remapping feature, the video worked flawlessly. My system ran with aplomb (even with Aero): HOWEVER, I only have use of 3 gb of RAM. Oh sure, if I go to "Computer" properties, it says 7 gb, but if I go to Task Manager -> Performance, it shows total swap (really memory [i have my swap file disabled]) as 3003 mb. As soon as I renable memory remapping in the bios, my total commit size returns to 6597 mb (7 gb minus video which is correct). However, the jerky video resumes. Last year, I performed a test installation of Vista x64 and at the time, I was using an nVidia GeForce MX 4000 PCI card with 64 mb of RAM. Although it was a tad challeged with Aero, it worked PERFECTLY with Vista Basic, which I was happy with. That card began to fail shortly thereafter, so I replaced it with the GeForce 6200. Keep in mind that the nVidia card that I am now experiencing these issues with under Vista x64 Ultimate, worked PERFECTLY with XP Pro x64 Edition. I have tried multiple drivers (the WDDM drivers supplied with Vista, and several Forceware generations including the latest and greatest.) I have ensured 3D generation was always set to "Performance" I wonder what gives?