Jump to content

XP vs 2000 vs 2003 for lite system


ehird

  

39 members have voted

  1. 1. Which would be best? (please reply to state reason)

    • nLite + Windows 2000 Professional
      6
    • nLite + Windows XP Professional
      25
    • nLine + Other (reply)
      8


Recommended Posts

(note: I'm posting here because I cannot see a better place for it to go, plus I am intending to use nLite for the install. Please tell me if this is the wrong forum.)

So I'm going to replace this creaky XP install with something else.

Notes: I occasionally game, nothing very recent, I can get all of the games I'd want to play running on any of the systems.

Now, I'm going for the lightest system, but I'd also like it to work with all recent programs. I seem to remember some programs require XP only and lock out 2000, but I can't name any off the top of my head that do. Probably nothing important.

I am technically proficient (with both unix-alikes and Windows) so ease-of-use doesn't really come into play, I'm just looking for a really fast, secure and stable system that I have the most control over.

Now, I am leaning away from XP because 2000 and 2003 seem to give more control by default. However, I am willing to revise that opinion as I have not used nLite-based installs before.

Any suggestions would be really helpful. I can supply more information if needed.

Thanks in advance.

Edited by ehird
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2003 and xp are VERY similar under the hood, with 2003 having a newer 'backbone' if you like

2000 still has too many explorer problems for me, it'd have to be 2003 or xp, i'd probably go with xp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi ,

frankly I find XP much better supported by nlite than any other 0S.

If you wish to tweak a lot your setup by nlite then , it's more likely that you'll avoid crashes

by using XP instead of win 2003.

Also server 2003 comes with lots of feature that you won't be able to remove without problems.

Concerning win 2000, I would say it's almost already "lite" and fast (and stable).

If you are just interested in getting a fast system, win 2000 ** might ** be better,

especially for gaming. Some games are not supported by win 2000, but you'll enjoy more FPS with the ones that are supported.

But concerning compatibility with existing programs, XP is better (plus I like the theme engine).

Overall, XP is the best because almost everyone use it, and it's easier to get support if you encounter any problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so 2003 is basically out of the picture. I don't really care much for the themes engine, I mean it's nice but I in no way need it at all. Also, none of the games I play require XP.

So, I'm still not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi ehird,

win 2000 is as stable and lite as you would want.

If your hardware is fully supported, and don't need particular XP feature, I suggest win 2000.

The system is not completly outdated , SP4 is the latest SP I think (from 2003).

Personnally I got a great experience with win 2000, and it took me a long times to switch to XP.

Probably, I can' t resist to some eye candy, plus recent programs were better supported.

Also with win 2000, there's a great thing : no activation required.

Concerning win 2003, I just can't bear it. There are server specific services/ tools , and you can't get rid of them easily.

Currently I'm trying to get the fastest XP system with the help of nlite.

I removed lot of things I didn't like in it, so perhaps a properly "nlited" XP system is as interersting as a non nlited win 2000 sytem,

if not better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you said you want to keep support for recent programs, so I suggest to stay on WinXP

as more, XP nLited vs. 2000 nLited are quite similar, in terms of "weight"

nLite is more tested on XP, because there're far more people who work on XP

Microsoft itself begins to leave 2000, for exemple, Age of Empires III doesn't officially run on 2000 (or needs some hack)

Edited by OuTmAn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you said you want to keep support for recent programs, so I suggest to stay on WinXP

did I? I thought I said that all the programs I use don't seem to be XP-only, just 2000/XP, apart from 1 or 2 which I can't remember. As far as I know, companies still release software for 2000/XP. (However, XP is winning 4 votes to none for every other, so :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, I just added 2003 because I've heard people say for them it's more stable, secure etc.

It is more stable. Have had less problems than with XP. Which were rare on XP, but did happen.

Well 2003 has even less, and since I had a copy I decided to make my life a little easier and use that.

2003 is a little more difficult to set up to work the same as XP, but when it does its a little bit faster and more responsive and uses little bit less memory. Basically its a more refined version of XP. Not a huge difference, but its better in my opinion.

Oh yeah, don't bother with 2000. It was good long ago, but its place has been taken by XP/2003.

Edited by brucevangeorge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning win 2003, I just can't bear it. There are server specific services/ tools , and you can't get rid of them easily.

I use it and its awesome. And as for the specific service/tools, what services/tools?

You can remove them thanks to nLite, you just have to know which ones they are. You might have overlooked them which is why you still have them.

I have a liter system thanks to nLite + 2003 (and a few other tweaks & etc) than I ever did with XP Pro. You just have to know how to use the tool and leave in only what you need and nothing more. (Takes a bit of trial and error here)

Edited by brucevangeorge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the stability of 2003 but settled with XP x64. Isn't XP x64 built from the same 2003 kernel? nLite works with 2003 just fine except I use the machine as a workstation and found a few but important drivers would not install on 2003 (Logitech drivers and others). Now I use nLited XP x64 and it's great. I think there are less add-ons available because not all of them work on x64 (I miss Unlocker). But x64 uses the same kernel (or similar?) as 2003, which makes the OS definitely feel more stable that XP SP2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Win2k 'SP5' (loosely termed) properly tuned (or nLited) is wicked awesome. I STILL use it for a web server of mine running WAMP and ColdFusion. It runs inside a Virtual Machine b/c the PII box it was on is redundant now that I have a Win2k3 server.

Now, regarding Win2k3 - I'm enamoured with it and I have an nLited, BTS driver, sysprep'd image with all my 'advanced user' apps that I put on my laptop, my workstation, etc... it runs my PIII lappie pretty tight... boot times are faster than XP, crashes are less... security is tighter.

My vote would be 2k3 following the workstation guide found in the guides. But it is a bit heavy... if your requirements do not include XP features/programs, then I agree with extrabigmehdi that 2000 is wicked sweet. I mean, I've been running my 2000 box 24x7 with port 80, 21, 20 open for 3years - I don't have any virii/trojans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...