XP vs 2000 vs 2003 for lite system

[extrabigmehdi]

@brucevangeorge

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

Already got BSOD, when trying to disable some service 2003 specific services:

http://www.msfn.org/board/BSOD_win2003_dis...;hl=server+2003

I tried once again to nlite server 2003, and got again an other problem.

I give up with server server 2003, it's just too easy to mess up thing ; and it's not enough supported anyway.

Also, if only there was a "black viper" guide for "server 2003" ...

By the way, which version of server 2003 do you use ?

You can't apply tweakNT to corporate version, if you wish to completly transform it

i.e let believe each program you install that it is XP.

@jimanny

I like the stability of 2003 but settled with XP x64.

Which processor is best to take advantage of this 64 bit technology ?

[Oleg_II]

You won't have the latest MSN Messanger in Windows 2000 (I use Miranda + MSN plugin). Some newer games maybe won't work (not much though and some of them won't work in XP too). Maybe some software and drivers won't work but usually everything working in XP works pretty well or could be moved to W2k (some manual work with files may be needed).

Unfortuanately Windows 2000 can't be booted in RAM as XP (using only one file from Win2k3)

Well, Vista is not as good as should be. XP support will last longer (not only by MS but for third party companies and individuals).

Other than that I can't see other drawbacks of Windows 2000.

But if you have time for tuning you may go for XP - basically it's W2k + a lot of useless crap

And if you have more time go for Win2k3 - it's something between W2k and XP but tuning it takes really a lot of time and efforts (do you think it's worth? you may go for Linux then

[jimanny]

Which processor is best to take advantage of this 64 bit technology ?

Which chip, an Intel or AMD, actually processes x64 better than the other, well, I've read somewhere the AMD may do it slightly better, but exactly how, I don't know. They're definitely both x64 "capable". But if I had to pick, I'd have to go with the dual or quad core Intel chips, but only based on my experience with how they overclock between 32-bit and x64. Last year, I had an Opteron 165 running XP SP2 (32-bit) for months without a hitch at 2.9GHz. Then I installed x64, and had to drop the overclock to ~2.7GHz to be stable again. Earlier this year I did the same thing but with a QX6700 and found it to run run equally stable at 3.4GHz on either flavor, 32-bit or x64. This and the fact that XP x64 is based on the newer and more stable kernel are the reasons I stuck with x64.

[Legolash2o]

If going with an x64 OS, make sure you have all the x64 drivers for your computer and devices i.e. printer, scanner, etc... before you start

[DeepAnger]

Also, if only there was a "black viper" guide for "server 2003" ...

Hi,

http://www.vernalex.com/tools/services/?theme=1

Doesn't that help ?

I've used it to make a 2K3 install as close as a XP one. But although they really looked the same, they were a few differences:

The PHILIPS usb webcam wasn't properly detected under 2003 (but it worked with NetMeeting).

The Traffic Shaping program I use (http://www.cfos.de/traffic_shaping/traffic_shaping_e.htm) works under both XP & 2K3 but the systray icon was never displayed in a RDP session (Terminal Server) under 2K3 making the program useless as I always use remote control (Remote Desktop) of my server.

Oh, and cFosSpeed can prioritize the traffic of individual programs. And this does not work under Windows 2000 (wich means XP isn't just a bloated version of 2000 with more M$ spywares).

Greetings.

Edited October 13, 2007 by DeepAnger

[teerim]

I personally would go with Xp but ive also had very great experienced with win2k. I got mines down to under 110 mb and first boot up was recorded at only 36mb of ram usage. The build was very stable and everything worked how I wanted it.

[extrabigmehdi]

@DeepAnger

Hi,

http://www.vernalex.com/tools/services/?theme=1

Doesn't that help ?

yes that looks interesting

I've used it to make a 2K3 install as close as a XP one.

well, then send me your LAST SESSION.INI file , so that I can study it, thanks.

@jimanny

Which chip, an Intel or AMD, actually processes x64 better than the other, well, I've read somewhere the AMD may do it slightly better, but exactly how, I don't know. They're definitely both x64 "capable".

Perhaps my next "pc", will be a Mac with Intel Core Duo . I would wipe out Mac Osx, and install windows instead.

@Oleg_II

But if you have time for tuning you may go for XP - basically it's W2k + a lot of useless crap

Although XP has some interesting feature added, I agree somehow with this.

When XP was released I was very frustrated to see that it would become the next generation OS,

and with lot of unwanted stuff. I reached the paroxysm of exasperation when I saw that little animated search assistant.

Until I discovered most thing I didn't like could be disabled.

Perhaps if Windows 2000 was more used by home users, XP would have less success the time it was released (almost all home user were switching from Win 98 to XP).

Now, again Vista seems to be XP + even more crap added. Since most of people already got an experience with XP, it's easier for them to reject the Vista encrapped stuff. Tell me if anyone is interestered by the speech recognition feature ? I'd better install "Dragon Naturally Speaking"

@Oleg_II

You won't have the latest MSN Messanger in Windows 2000

Since I love to get rid of this MSN Messenger thing, it doesn't annoy me. I use trillian ...

Unfortuanately Windows 2000 can't be booted in RAM as XP

Don't know what's this. I use hibernation in XP.

Have anyone tried "Longhorn 2008" as a workstation ?

[HachiRoku]

Hi

At least for me, Server 2003 is the way to go.

It's true that's a bit more complicated to tune than XP, but once you get it right, it's just so good.

I've been using it for a long time, with the help of HFSLIP + nLite, it simply has no rivals. Everything runs faster.

It might need more time to tweak, but in the end, the results are amazing (I've spent lots of time testing, but now it's almost perfect [for me, and anyone who ever used my PC]). I have to say, I use "windows" only because of Server 2003. The other choice [for me] is Linux...

Bye

[extrabigmehdi]

@HachiRoku

There's no update pack ready for sever 2003, like the one from xable or RyanVM

Edited October 13, 2007 by extrabigmehdi

[GrofLuigi]

Hi

At least for me, Server 2003 is the way to go.

It's true that's a bit more complicated to tune than XP, but once you get it right, it's just so good.

I've been using it for a long time, with the help of HFSLIP + nLite, it simply has no rivals. Everything runs faster.

It might need more time to tweak, but in the end, the results are amazing (I've spent lots of time testing, but now it's almost perfect [for me, and anyone who ever used my PC]). I have to say, I use "windows" only because of Server 2003. The other choice [for me] is Linux...

Bye

I agree with every word.

@extrabigmehdi: after SP2 there are very few updates that can be easily slipstreamed.

GL

[Outcast]

@HachiRoku

There's no update pack ready for sever 2003, like the one from xable or RyanVM

There was by boooggy. Unfornately it has been stop.

Anyway, I vote for nLite + Win2K3. Never reinstall for 2 years straight and it runs better than XP (at least for me). With XP, I have to reinstall every 6 months due to some crappy problems.

Moreover Win2K3 SP2 is the newer service pack around, so lesser updates.

[extrabigmehdi]

hi Outcast

With XP, I have to reinstall every 6 months due to some crappy problems.

Every 6 month ? It's not bad ... I keep a clean acronis image of my XP system,

and I restore it in 30 min as soon as I detect an annoying problem.

Unfortunately, since I'm a bit a perfectionnist I tend sometimes to re-install everything (with updated software, better drivers etc..)

With XP, I have to reinstall every 6 months due to some crappy problems.

I thought that each times there was a "crappy problem", it was because of the stuff I've installed. (I like to experiment new softs)

As long as I don't install something new, I never observe a "crappy problem" in XP.

Also many tweaks are missing in nlite to convert server 2003 in workstation.

For instance: enabling directx acceleration, or in "memory usage" adjust performance for "programs" rather than "system cach"

So you have some additional work, after installing an nlited image of server 2003.

And can't get the server 2003 image as lite as the XP one... 50 Mb of difference.

some tips/remarks regarding people complaining of "stability" :

- using firefox instead of internet explorer , can limit damages done by spywares.

- Using an explorer replacement (I recommend directory opus) , can somehow improve stability of system.

- I tend to avoid automatic updates ... Good firewall & antivirus prevail any security hotfix .

[Sancho]

I will never understand how people can screw up a whole OS so easily. I've been using this installation of XP for over a year and the only issue is the bloat caused by so many installed programs. I guess some people just don't know how to fix things so they get one problem on top of another and so on.

I've also used Server 2003 since last year, and it is really quite better than XP in a lot of small ways. Things are just a bit faster because there is less junk and it's actually updated (SP2) for performance, not just patches to keep it running and for compatibility. It also doesn't require a lot of tweaks that XP does, because it comes with less junk enabled, but you still have to get rid of all the Server utilities and services that will never be used.

By the way I think it's pretty retarded that some people completely dismiss Server 2003 because they got a BSOD from disabling too much stuff. Wow you can't turn off that one or two services; that 100k of RAM totally makes it worth it to go back to XP! ...I don't even think they know what all those things really are.

[aviv00]

i choose nLine + Other (reply)

cuz i like windows server 2008 [vlited]

its has aero and organizing and fast [even more then xp fmo ]

[weEvil]

its has aero and organizing and fast [even more then xp fmo ]

da! Iz fastester cuz its numbers is HIGHER!

2008 soundz faster than 2003!

But seriously. Unless you have at least 2GB of ram, it will NOT perform faster.

I've been using it for a long time, with the help of HFSLIP + nLite, it simply has no rivals. Everything runs faster.

I know. Even PC games perform a little better. Higher framerate.

Where do you get the updaes for 2003? I tried getting some off windizupdate since it downloads individual .exe's . No luck. I only got a couple of updates.

Where can I find a list of post-SP2 download links for the hotfixes?

It might need more time to tweak, but in the end, the results are amazing (I've spent lots of time testing, but now it's almost perfect [for me, and anyone who ever used my PC]). I have to say, I use "windows" only because of Server 2003. The other choice [for me] is Linux...

LOL! Me too. I used Ubuntu since I was fed up with my XP system. It was much better, but then I found out more about 2003 so I decided to give it a shot. All the problems I had were gone. Its a more refined XP in my opinion.

Goodbye Ubuntu.

Edited October 14, 2007 by brucevangeorge