Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Sign in to follow this  
starcraftmaster

hey windows 2000 good ?

Recommended Posts

hey guys i want some thing like windows xp (so i can run xp only programs) but dont want some thing like a system resouce hog like windows xp

so i thought windows 2000

so am here to ask is windows 2000 like a hog like win xp on older computers ???? and will it run most windows xp programs and last is it still support by M$ or is it finshed now like 9x ?

am gonna try ubuntu with wine soon hopfully that be good with my older computer but i heard that wont go so well with winxp only programs

so am planing this ::: windows me on master C:

Ubuntu on slave D:

and windows 2000 on slave (any drive letter and D: will be partitioned

sound goood ??

also i wont ditch windows me as i like it nice and fast and i like to try a linux so why i gonna have so meny OS's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey guys i want some thing like windows xp (so i can run xp only programs) but dont want some thing like a system resouce hog like windows xp

so i thought windows 2000

If you're worried about system resources, try slimming down Windows XP with nLite before you install it.
so am here to ask is windows 2000 like a hog like win xp on older computers ???? and will it run most windows xp programs and last is it still support by M$ or is it finshed now like 9x ?
Windows 2000 is less of a hog on resources. Though, it won't run all programs that run under XP. Windows 2000 has extended support until July 13, 2010.
am gonna try ubuntu with wine soon hopfully that be good with my older computer but i heard that wont go so well with winxp only programs
Wine works fine with most common XP programs.
so am planing this ::: windows me on master C:

Ubuntu on slave D:

and windows 2000 on slave (any drive letter and D: will be partitioned

sound goood ??

You'll want to install Ubuntu last to save you from a bunch of booting headaches (and it doesn't take a drive letter like Windows, fyi). So, Windows ME, Windows 2000, then Ubuntu. You might want to also consider just running it from a Live CD before you go and install it on your hard drive(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
system resouce hog like windows xp

XP a resource hog? It runs just fine as-is on a bloody ancient P3 (assuming you have enough RAM). Running fine on hardware that I'd describe as obsolete (a decade old) isn't what I'd call "a resource hog"...

will it run most windows xp programs

It uses a bit less resources than a untouched XP . But as far as compatibility goes, it's quickly becoming the new Win9x. Everybody is moving away from Win2k (much like Win9x). Win2k has like a whole 1% of the market share, and is quickly shrinking into total irrelevance, just like win9x. At the current rate, Win2k would hit the 0% market share in a year. It's basically at the same place as Win9x was last year (1%-ish and dying quickly)

and last is it still support by M$ or is it finshed now like 9x ?

Depends what you mean by supported. It will have some security fixes for a few more months, and that's about it. I'd call that the end of the road. Not a bad move, except it's 10 years too late. Even XP is already like 8 years old (released back in 2001).

gonna try ubuntu

Much, much slower than untouched XP on any hardware I've tried, old or new (assuming it even works). Perhaps if you go with a very lightweight, stripped-down distro, with a simpler desktop environment like XFCE (i.e. XUbuntu) it might be a little better. WINE is hardly what I'd rely on to run apps though. I'd try the LiveCD before I install it too. Personally, I'd MUCH sooner just throw XP on there.

Either ways, whatever you chose, it'll be at least a trillion times better than WinME (there's really nowhere to go but up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

In my opinion, W2K is the best OS MS ever produced. Sadly due to some 3rd party software that ran like crap on it, I had to give it up and move to XP.

If it runs all your programs fine, I would say go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, W2K is the best OS MS ever produced.

true, only when the second service pack for Win2000 was released. the original Win2k OS had some serious problems when it first came out. After SP2 came out in early 2001, Win2k became a reliable OS. The Automatic Updates feature was added onto Win2000 SP3 & SP4.

Edited by erpdude8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
only when the second service pack for Win2000 was released.

That only made it barely usable. As of SP4 it's not too bad. But it's hardly the best OS ever.

In fact, I always had numerous troubles with Win2k (admittedly, many which were due to poor drivers at the time -- thanks Creative & VIA!), and when XP came out, I switched away from it VERY quickly and never looked back. Moving to XP solved all the problems I had when running Win2k. Now, Win2k may be a little better than back then, as XP drivers are quite mature and for the most part still work on Win2k, but still... Quite late to move to Win2k as support is disappearing (software, or drivers)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
But it's hardly the best OS ever

Saying that an OS is the best or not the best is a matter of opinion. That's why I said "in my opinion". We all use different criteria for determining things like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CoffeeFiend win xp is a resource hog

mabye its all right when stripped down

i would have xp if it didit cost much lol

can i get a computer of the side of the sreet (thrown away) and take the sticker with the cd key and use it ? and then borrow a freinds cd ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still use 2000, and find it nice to use. XP has the luna skin, and the aero skin looks cool, but in 2000, the controls are simple to recognize. In ,7 find the buttons are a bit blended into the background (the border isn't as sharp as before).

Speed, dunno. It doesn't like dual-cores very much... But on single-core (or dual forced to single) it's fast. Booting not as fast as XP, because XP has parallel starting and makes use of SATA NCQ features for prefetch. 2000 is serialized and is a bit of a wait. Also, apparently 2000's hibernation is slower than XP, but your results may vary. Hibernation is my alternative to shutdown, as it resumes in less than 20 seconds.

I find the whole 2000 interface more intuitive than XP. (I turn off the left panel on 2000 and XP everytime. I also turned off the nav pane on 7 because it takes up too much space.)

Lack of support is starting to become a problem, although there are usually third-party remedies or KDW (the guy's website is full of recent stuff for 2000, like Safari 4 and DivX 7!). Just gotta like messing around with your system files. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need to buy a copy of XP and not take the chance.

Remember there are actual 6+ versions of XP and MS logs the keys everytime the OS is activated.

Good Luck...

Edited by Kelsenellenelvian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally i love Win2k and feels it's the best OS msft has ever made!

It's light and minimalistic and dosen't try to do you any favors, or needing 100's of tweaks to not look like an OS for 3 year olds, or to prevent it from throwing dogs at you, when you just wants to make a search etc. etc.

Win2k is just like the great NT4 but with some usefull updates added, but i don't see XP as a Win2k+ in any way, whatsoever, as all of the newly added items, i have zero use for and just thinks that it over-bloats the OS for no benefit at all!

In the default config, then XP uses about twice as much RAM as Win2k(43 vs. 86 megs)...

Of course XP can be nLited to h*** so that it comes to remind pretty much of the good ol' Win2k, but then i just don't understand why not just start from the beginning with a nice and sleek OS, instead of that over-bloated piece of an excuse for an OS!

@CoffeeFiend, HAHA - LOL @ your avatar! As an avid Opera enthusiast(i think it's the best browser and mail client in the world!), then i must admit that it hurts to see your avatar, but now i then can see how the IE lovers must feel when people use the "IE hatting" kinda avatars and talks bad about it here, HAHA! :) Anyway, nice countershoot, mate :)

Edited by Martin H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Win2k is just like the great NT4 but with some usefull updates added, but i don't see XP as a Win2k+ in any way, whatsoever

Funny you say that, because I was thinking 100% the inverse :lol: NT4 was running stable at the time, and moving to win2k sucked real hard (initially). I never actually cared much for it. I never considered going back even once (BIG step back IMO -- not that I run x86 OS'es anymore).

In the default config, then XP uses about twice as much RAM as Win2k(43 vs. 86 megs)...

I find it unbelievable some people are still arguing over 40MB of RAM in 2009 and calling "bloat" over that much... That's not even 50 cents worth of RAM. What kind of extremely obsolete hardware does an OS has to run onto before you don't call it bloated? Win2k was a LOT heavier than its predecessors too. Much like Win95 was really heavy compared to dos+win3.x... In fact, I'm sure there's many people in the Win9x section that would call Win2k bloated. You could call every version of any OS ever released "bloated" just the same (including those not released yet, and those not even in planning).

i think it's the best browser and mail client in the world!

IMO it's the absolute very worst browser of them all (including IE, Firefox, Safari, Chrome and several others), and it's also a worthless mail client compared to outlook (much like it sucks at everything else e.g. for torrents compared to any decent client). Yes, I'd actually use IE8 before Opera (and no, I'm not an IE user at all!). They also seem to accomplish the miracle of making their GUI even worse with every version seemingly (just how do they manage? no idea!) Just my $0.02.

Anyways. He can try Win2k, but I bet he won't use it for long :P

you'll never wanna go back, or atleast thats how i feel about it :)

Very much a personal thing. I've tried opera, I'd say about a million times, and each time I did feel like going back even more. It used to be OK way back then, then passable, but now it's beyond horrible.

Anyhow, asking for answers in the place where most Win2k die-hard fanboys still hangout won't really get someone objective answers. Asking for that here is gonna get you answers just as biased as asking in the Win9x section if Win98 is good or not. We already know what people are going to answer before anyone has spoken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a P4 1700MHz with 256megs ram, and yes, RAM is dirt cheap, and yes, i can afford a state-of-the-art new system with vista on it, but i preffer using a sleek and light OS with lighweight apps, instead of big bloated eye-candy filled apps and comparabel OS'es... If i where into video-editing and such, then i wold need more ram ,sure - but i'm not... I am however going to upgrade my RAM to 512Megs, but that should then also be more than enough...

About Opera, well, then i couldn't disagree more :) Except to say that you're right in that the bittorent client isn't comparabel to e.g. utorrent, but for just doing a quick download here and there, like i do, then i think that it's great that i do not have to have yet another piece of software installed for doing just that. But of course for ppl using torrents often, then a dedicated client like utorrent cannot be beaten... The browser and mail-client however, is second to none IMHO... Yes, it does takes alittle getting used to, but after awhile, then you'll never wanna go back, or atleast thats how i feel about it :)

Edited by Martin H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...