Jump to content

hey windows 2000 good ?


 Share

Recommended Posts

I like windows 2000.

it is stable as hell and can be on for month without reboot.

XP needs reboot after a few days.

So on my computer that are on 24 7 I use windows 2000.

but for the computer I shutdown every day I can use XP.

and about RAM Why should the OS take up much resources as XP do.

an OS should only be in the background.

and XP with some stuff installed and drivers ready it take up allot of ram 150-200MB ram and it is easy to add eyecandy that make XP take up 300-400MB ram.

But everything installed and some apps run at first run in Windows 2000 it only takes up 80-90 MB of ram.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I like windows 2000.

it is stable as hell and can be on for month without reboot.

XP needs reboot after a few days.

Are you serious here? XP every few days? You must be doing something wrong there. Even Windows 98 could be on for a long time. My record for 98 is 3 months. I can't prove the 98, but I can prove the XP.

th_processes.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious here? XP every few days?

Has anyone ever experienced finding a machine rebooted (and all running programs closed) with a nice message by Windows Update that a reboot was needed? :whistle:

jaclaz

Link to comment
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 ???

XP is pretty good even not stripped down.

XP stripped down is awesome!!!

Running an nLited install of XP on all my main PC's and I have a P3 beast :whistle: which has only a 1Ghz CPU, slow 40GB IDE HDD and 512MB PC133 RAM but boots up in under 35 seconds :D I use it to watch movies and play old games mainly.

I want to get win 2K actually as I do not have an install CD and would not mind trying it out on one of my own PC's just to increase my knowledge of computers further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like windows 2000.

it is stable as hell and can be on for month without reboot.

XP needs reboot after a few days.

Are you serious here? XP every few days? You must be doing something wrong there. Even Windows 98 could be on for a long time. My record for 98 is 3 months. I can't prove the 98, but I can prove the XP.

th_processes.jpg

Yes Win98 can stay on stable for long time.

But XP is getting slow after few day or a week.

I have one machine with win98 but not using it right now.

When I did use it it could be on for month without a problem.

Same with 2K 3-4month without problem and still fast.

But XP Dont clean up memory as good as Windows2000.

so it getting slow quit fast.

But now it was long time I try have WinXP running for a long time.

And on my Windows2000 I have never ever have and BSOD on it.

But on XP I have that a few time.

Not many But it has happend.

So if anyone want a great OS Without allot of eyecandy then Windows2000 is the best alternative.

But if anyone want it look nice XP is good choice.

But I choose Windows 2000 as the best OS.

We will see if Win 7 Being the next very good OS.

Edited by Tripo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will see if Win 7 Being the next very good OS.
lol with its system specs i dont think so
Just out of curiosity... If you have tried Windows XP, at the time, what hardware were you running it on?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol with its system specs i dont think so

Yes, because the only important thing about an OS is running on grossly outdated hardware, right? :rolleyes:

At least, that's what it seems to be all about when you hear all those people who keep saying win9x and win2k are great. Most of them seem to not want to replace their 10 year old hardware (in average) either (P2's and P3's with 128MB RAM or so) or are just stuck in the past, or unable/unwilling to adapt to any changes. 2010 is right around the corner, it's not 1999 anymore.

XP is history as far as I'm concerned, and Win 2003 is quickly heading there too (and Vista in a few years). Win7 will be released in 4 months, then they'll start working on its replacement (Win 8, or whatever it'll be called)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least, that's what it seems to be all about when you hear all those people who keep saying win9x and win2k are great. Most of them seem to not want to replace their 10 year old hardware (in average) either (P2's and P3's with 128MB RAM or so) or are just stuck in the past, or unable/unwilling to adapt to any changes. 2010 is right around the corner, it's not 1999 anymore.

For me personally, then i'm perfectly willing to adapt to any new changes/trends if they however fits my way of thinking, and since the newer OS'es don't, then that's why i'm using such an old OS, and certantly not because im scared of progress or anything like that... Some changes are good for some, and others aren't, that's just the way of life.. Also, when Win2k runs great on my PC which i bought 6 years ago, then why should i go out and by another box, just to be able to run an OS that i don't like??? Of course if I actually where into big bloated OS's then I would go buy another box right away...

Also marketshare-meassures has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the OS, so such numbers are totally irelevant to me, personally...

Btw, i fully agree with what you said about asking win2k questions in a win2k related forum and i also admit to being biased in my oppenions when OSes are concerned... :)

CU, Martin :)

Edited by Martin H
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol with its system specs i dont think so

Yes, because the only important thing about an OS is running on grossly outdated hardware, right? :rolleyes:

At least, that's what it seems to be all about when you hear all those people who keep saying win9x and win2k are great. Most of them seem to not want to replace their 10 year old hardware (in average) either (P2's and P3's with 128MB RAM or so) or are just stuck in the past, or unable/unwilling to adapt to any changes. 2010 is right around the corner, it's not 1999 anymore.

XP is history as far as I'm concerned, and Win 2003 is quickly heading there too (and Vista in a few years). Win7 will be released in 4 months, then they'll start working on its replacement (Win 8, or whatever it'll be called)

my 2K box is an P4 3,2ghz with 2GB of ram.

But if there was an x64 windows 2000 I should have run it on my x64 instead of XP X64 on my.

because 2000 is a better OS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

opera s***s all over internet explorer lol

and you guys sure do leave on your computers on for a long time

do you really leave your win 98 comp on on for 3 mouths Tripredacus?

Yes in 2002 to 2003 I used my Windows 98 PC as a server. It ran Shoutcast and Quake 3 Dedicated. The motherboard died in 2005. I did end up using it again back in February when my regular PC died. I only have 1 monitor and don't like KVMs so I don't actively use it. One day I want to get a new Power Supply so I can get it back up and running again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...