Windows 2000 question....

[DarkCloud]

OK boys and girls, even though I recently just installed Win98 I was wondering if it would be worth upgrading to Windows 2000? I know it's based on the same technology as XP, but are the system requirements the same and is it stable?

[dirtwarrior]

Windows 2k is very stable. It doesnt have the frills and fluff of xp. Most of the tweaks that work on xp will work on 2k, Read before tweaking.

BTW I recomend USP 5.0 for 2k

[radoom]

Win 2K Has too many bugs which makes it doesn't work well with new guy using it. There is a lot of advance of XP,such as Security .....

It is better to use Windows XP instead of WIN2K in my opinion

[murvun]

security by obscurity? i think w2k is better, because not so much automated and not making so much things i don't want to be done.

main difference (in my mind):

xp is much more colorful - w2k can handle nice skins only with aditional programs (windows blind, or look at the nice mediaplayer9 skins...)

xp-explorer PRETENDS to react, after booting and before all services are loaded - while w2k-explorer shows you the hourglass - showing it is busy.

xp has more and newer drivers build in - keywords are bluetooth and wlan - but you are also able to use these techniques with w2k

w2k is windows nt 5.0

xp is windows nt 5.1

...

greets

murvun

[os2fan2]

I have seen nt4, 2k, xp, 2k3 workstations. I use win2k, with assorted xp fixes &c.

W

[ChrisX64]

I have seen nt4, 2k, xp, 2k3 workstations. I use win2k, with assorted xp fixes &c.

W

Aww no NT 3 & a half & a bit . Perhaps the best thing MS ever did was NT 3.51, 2000 giving it a run for the money.

But yah, 2000 beats XP easily in my book and will be noticeably more stable than 98. Plus you'll get better support in apps/games.

[-I-]

Pro's and cons. (from p o v of win2k).

Pro:

its lighter, and faster, than XP,

its more stable than ME 9x,

its security features (for files and folders ar equal to xp) and better (more avanced than 9x)

it has many security features,

its muti-user base (like xp),

it requires less diskspace than xp, and les ram-memorie.

Con;

it has, no intergrated visual styles (even though it make the system faster, its less pleasant to the eye).

it has, no sercurity center, or system-level security (like xp sp2 / sp3)

it wil not support new features (like IE7 / office 12 / MP 10 and kernel mode drivers)

bugs wil not be fixed unless its a security risk,

it has less support for /run as $user or compatebility patch.

so when should you run win2000 instead of XP,

1> if you have a computer slower than a 1ghz CPU with less than 256mb ram.(pleas i know xp runs on slower system i even got it to run quite fast on a 64mb edo-ram, - but dont bother trying its not that funny).

2> if you dont realy nead all the fancy looking stuf, and the newest software versions from ms-office, or other aplications like, autocad, or paintshop (or those alike).

3> if you dont mind not al of its features are avail from a nice looking stuctured interface,

4> if you want a smaller windows installation that is highly tweakable

5> if you know enouth about software alternatives to replace things like IE7 and office 12 and MediaPlayer 10,

6> if you have a valid windows 2k licence and dont want to spend aditonal money on an xp-licence,

7> if you can think of many other reasons why you shoun't be updating to XP.

[radoom]

May be u've misunderstand my meaning

I meant for those who know little about system ,OS,etc..

WINXP will be a better choice.

for example In windows xp,when you connect with ipc$ ,though your account may be an administrator but you only have the power of a guest.

As I know ms has stopped its free support for win2k.but you can get free hot fixes from its website

[os2fan2]

i do have win 3.51 lying around, and might load it up on a vm box. i have played around with some of the earlier stuff as well, eg 3.1 and 3.5.

in practice, one at this time is interested in 32-bit operating systems, of which OS/2 was the example per excellance. One might say in the times of the appearence of the i386: "OS/2, because a 386 is too precious to waste".

It is interesting that Windows still talks of i386 and so on, even though we have i486 and i586 chips out. the alpha, mips and ppc chipsets have gone by the wayside. You *could* treat the "consumer windows" = win9x as another kind of win32 architecture. in any case, winnt4 came with one of my hardware things so i use it since then. since this i have gone to win2k, and it seems stable enough.

W

[os2fan2]

"As I know ms has stopped its free support for win2k.but you can get free hot fixes from its website"

Microsoft makes assorted commercial decisions about whether to stop/continue support for the OS. However, Win2K has seemed to attract the OS/2 style hackers, who largely did a lot of IBM's work for it. That is, there are comparable OS/2 + Windows 2000 projects, eg

updcd cf hfslip.cmd / fred vorck's files / gurglemeier's USP5

However OS/2 never had to fight the obnoxious "difficult for difficult's sake", and thus the OS/2 bootable project is considerably smaller than the corresponding bartpe system, while still being more flexiable.

I pretty much think that we largely suffer at microsoft's whims rather than imagining that its hotfixes are evenly distributed over all problems. A lot of the hotfixes are microsoft's fault in the first instance, largely because of their move to integrate <insert some middleware here> into the OS, leads to supprising security holes.

W

[trodas]

The problem is, that these securitz holes seems only increase, as the M$ bloatware into XP becomming bigger and bigger and more and more integrated with the system, witch of course make it volunerable and sometimes even unsatable.

The nices proof is, that if you O/C your machine beyong your stable limits (to know, where there limits is, you has to break them ) and during bootup, XP freeze. W2k freeses as well, however it did not get damaged. In contrast, XP require then repair or reinstall...!!!

This is not a system for me.

[-I-]

It is interesting that Windows still talks of i386 and so on, even though we have i486 and i586 chips out. the alpha, mips and ppc chipsets have gone by the wayside. You *could* treat the "consumer windows" = win9x as another kind of win32 architecture. in any case, winnt4 came with one of my hardware things so i use it since then. since this i have gone to win2k, and it seems stable enough.

Some info about cpu's,

actualy, PPC versions of windows never realy existed (apart from af few early abandoned versions for NT.3x) mainly there where os2 at first, and ofcource there was always MacOS,

mips, ofcourse, is not a CPU, anynore, because of its stredged limitis, it grew more and more into a core component, as a processing unit, for refrigerators, routers, and thelephone / laser-copiers,

now a days, there are only 3 workstation, processors, left.

the i-x86 (like the althonXP and Pentium 4)

the i-x86(64) (like the new athlon64 optron64 and intel VIIV),

and IBM's PPC (like the G3 G4 and G5)

and for the server market, there are also

Sun's Untra Sparq

and Intel Itanium.

(both are 64bit procesors, but with a more avanced prosessor subset than the x86 cpu's).

as a last, there will also be, (in the near future)

IBM's CELL processor, (thats the one used in Playstation 3).

but the Cell wil most likely never, be used for things like running windows, or any other destop os. but instead, will be used in clusters, super-computers, and the workspace of grafical designers,

CELL wil probebly be the #1 rendering unit, in many of disney's and warner bros's animation studio's within the next decade...

Edited November 28, 2005 by -I-

[cluberti]

The i386 tree exists because NT originally ran on a 386, and the build tree was i386. It's a holdover from a previous time - it doesn't mean anything except to denote the x86 architecture, just as Windows x64 uses the AMD64 folder to hold the x64 files, regardless of whether you're using an AMD x64 processor or an Intel EM64T one. Sheesh .

[-I-]

ow realy - is it realy called AMD64????

ow my dear god LOL - actualy i find it rather stupid,of MS, since they should have known by now, that you should have been using the architecture name instead - (cant blame them for not changing 32bit names from - i386 to ix86)

(where, the official standard name is call, Intel based x86 architecture)

so now i realy wonder why they didn't call it something like x8664

(there are already 2 subsets of x64, cpu's - the IA64 and the AMD64 - wich ar far from compatible - where as, x86 and amd64 are (yes, 64bit app's CAN be run on a 32bit x68 cpu - IF, you'd create a kind of vertual machine that would first read the 64 bits, and than, execute the 2 splitted parts, in 2 following clocks),

1st task .... read 64bits, -

2nd task .... calculate b1 to b32

3rd task ..... calculate b33 to 64

4th task ..... build final, awnser,

in theory your clock would now decreas from a P4 3.2ghz. to a 800mzz 64bit emu.... (of caurce this is also the exact reason why nobody is fulish enouth to even think about such an emulator, but thats besides the point),

a better example perhaps would be to state that some of amd's 64bit machines have enabled Intels Hytherthreading mode, in a slightly diferent way - because, - instead of using the next cloak, (or remaining bits) they no use the b33 to b64 (as if it where, either a diferent clock or a diferent core) if used in 32bit modus.... meaning that if, software is optimized well enought, for HT (or multicore) a 64bit 2ghz,, cpu, would be nearly preform equal to a 4ghz 32bit cpu...

[Kramy]

I have no idea, but I doubt many programs are optimized for 64bit or dual core...

I play the game Warcraft III quite a bit, and I don't think it's very optimized for X2's. It has some glaring bugs with dual core, and my Athlon XP 2800+ w/ Win2k actually outperforms several people's X2 4400+'s running XP. Now granted, if I put XP on this rig the game runs 25% slower, but still!...

64bit processing is only better for newer stuff. The insane "boost" to performance just isn't there in the older stuff, and cheap $80 processors like mine can perform on the same level for single tasks, if you aren't playing the latest greatest game.