Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Message

i-SnipeZ · #1 Post by **i-SnipeZ** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:39 am

Which do you prefer, ive been trying out 2k and I think im going to stay. It feels more familiar (since ive been using linux) and it at least feels 2-3x as fast.

#2 Post by **jdhurst** » Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:08 am

Your T43 with enough memory (1 Gb) should run XP Pro easily and swiftly. 2008 is too late to be sticking with Windows 2000 (a very good OS), and is still a time frame for XP Pro (also an excellent OS). Just fit out XP Pro like Windows 2000 (set for performance, not looks, and use the Classic Windows interface). ... JDH

ashleys · #3 Post by **ashleys** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:20 am

Go with XP.
It is supported until 2014 and has far greater device support.

Moreover, as JDHurst said, configure it for performance and set Classic Windows. In that mode it looks and feels exactly like W2K.

i-SnipeZ · #4 Post by **i-SnipeZ** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:33 pm

also im a little scared of XP in a sense that ive never used it more than a week or so. Ive used Vista and Mandriva Linux though and absolutly hated the performance in Vista. (2-4 seconds to open up explorer window. WTF!?) And just the GUI in linux causes it to feel sluggish. I might go to XP tonight though, ive got a MCE code that needs to be used.

#5 Post by **rkawakami** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:35 pm

If you keep all of the "eye candy" turned off in XP and have an appropriate amount of system memory (at least 1GB), then XP is fine.

#6 Post by **ZaZ** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:48 am

2K was Microsoft's best OS. I used it for years after XP came out. After they stopped supporting it, which I never understood since it's almost the same OS as XP, I migrated over. Right now I got a XP on my ThinkPad, my main desktop running Vista, a Mac and a HTPC running Linux. I got all my bases covered.

Stargate199 · #7 Post by **Stargate199** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:45 pm

If you really like the feel of Win2k, you can disable all of the GUI tweaks done in XP. There is classic theme and you can disable the sidebars in the explorer windows if you like. Win2k and XP are basically the same OS, but XP supports Wireless network cards and a few other things that are commonly used today. No one writes drivers to new hardware for win2k anyway so you might as well upgrade to XP.

agarza · #8 Post by **agarza** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:50 am

IMO switch to XP. I've been always picky about MS reliability OS'es and have found 2000 & XP to be very reliable, the latter is my favorite because as stated above it includes a wireless assistant + other cool tools that don't take that much memory. It even runs flawlessly on a 256MB A22e Thinkpad.

Bookworm · #9 Post by **Bookworm** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:20 pm

Why bother with eX Pee? What does it do that 2000 doesn't? ie 6 is still up to date, and it even runs on NT4 SP6a. Who needs support from MS? Won't they just try to sell you something?

I would just go for maximum performance. If it will work with eX Pee or Vista it will really fly with '98SE2ME and/or 2000 Pro.

#10 Post by **dr_st** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:14 am

Bookworm wrote:Why bother with eX Pee? What does it do that 2000 doesn't?

Lots of things. Better Plug-n-Play support, more UI features, more advanced networking capabilities, better support of Win9x-based software.

Bookworm wrote:ie 6 is still up to date, and it even runs on NT4 SP6a.

IE6 is a horrible browser (which I learned since I still have to use it on this one corporate PC, whereas on all others I have Firefox/IE7).

Bookworm wrote:Who needs support from MS? Won't they just try to sell you something?

Nope, it just means that if you find a bug or a security hole, or incompatibility of something with Win2K, MS is gonna tell you "Sorry, not our problem anymore, good bye". Not so with XP/Vista.

Bookworm wrote:I would just go for maximum performance. If it will work with eX Pee or Vista it will really fly with '98SE2ME and/or 2000 Pro.

Not quite. XP requires better base hardware than 2K to run to its full extend, but can extract more performance out of modern hardware than 2K can. Vista is the same, but takes it farther, that is, it requires even more resources, but once you give it a really powerful system, you will notice that it can do better things with it than XP would be able to.

As far as looks, XP can be made to look and function just like Win2K, and Vista can be made to look almost like Win2K, but the UI is still different. It definitely takes time to get used to Vista UI if you're used to XP/2K, but between the latter two, there are very negligible differences.

Bookworm · #11 Post by **Bookworm** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:19 pm

I'm still not convinced.

What, realisticly, are eX Pee's reqirements for decent performance? *If* I can get it to run really really well, and I can find either a 1950's or "Victorian" (1880's extra fancy) skin, I might downgrade.

How horrible would it be on an 850 Mhz PIII with 768Mb RAM and a 750 gig HDD?

#12 Post by **jdhurst** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:57 pm

Bookworm wrote:I'm still not convinced.

What, realisticly, are eX Pee's reqirements for decent performance? *If* I can get it to run really really well, and I can find either a 1950's or "Victorian" (1880's extra fancy) skin, I might downgrade.

How horrible would it be on an 850 Mhz PIII with 768Mb RAM and a 750 gig HDD?

XP will run decently at 768Mb. I have been running XP on such a box for 5 years and upgraded all the way to SP3. 768Mb is the minimum. I just today (total co-oincidence) upgraded this box to 2Gb.

750Gb of disk is ample. XP plus all is data, plus 3 full-fledged virtual machines will live happily in 50Gb. 750Gb will run my Vista system, 10 VM's and still have room to spare.

850Mhz is cutting it a bit fine, but it will work. Such a system will take 5 or 6 minutes to start, vs. 2 or 3 minutes for Windows 2000, but XP will run happily once started.

So your assertion that it would be horrible doesn't stand up to my experience.

But then, if you really want to run Windows 2000 instead, go ahead. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am just saying what works because I have done it myself. .... JDH

pianowizard · #13 Post by **pianowizard** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:12 am

Bookworm wrote:Who needs support from MS? Won't they just try to sell you something?

Looks like you are thinking that "support" = "customer service". That's incorrect. Support means the security patches that Microsoft provides through Windows Update. Support for XP will continue until April 8th 2014. For Windows 2000, support will end on July 13th 2010. Windows 98 support has already ended, back in 2006. I would never get on the internet on a computer that doesn't have the latest security patches. Otherwise, many files on my computer and passwords that I enter on web sites could be compromised.

mazzinia · #14 Post by **mazzinia** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:54 am

Yes, but given that using another browser like Firefox is an option... missing security patches for IE on 2000 would not be a problem.
The same can be said for Outlook Express... a newer updated 3rd party mail client can always be added, thus solving that possible issue.
As of other security issues... a good firewall or 2 to protect the pc do a lot more imo, especially if an antispyware is added to the picture.

basketb · #15 Post by **basketb** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:13 am

mazzinia wrote:Yes, but given that using another browser like Firefox is an option... missing security patches for IE on 2000 would not be a problem.
The same can be said for Outlook Express... a newer updated 3rd party mail client can always be added, thus solving that possible issue.
As of other security issues... a good firewall or 2 to protect the pc do a lot more imo, especially if an antispyware is added to the picture.

Sorry to burst your bubble but security holes in IE and Outlook have often compromised unpatched Windows systems in the past even if IE/Outlook were never used. Additionally, there were/are/will be security holes in the OS itself that you would not want to be open, no matter how many firewalls, antispyware software, etc. you have installed.

mazzinia · #16 Post by **mazzinia** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:41 am

basketb wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble but security holes in IE and Outlook have often compromised unpatched Windows systems in the past even if IE/Outlook were never used.

oh well, learned something I guess

#17 Post by **jdhurst** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:17 pm

basketb wrote:<snip> Sorry to burst your bubble but security holes in IE and Outlook have often compromised unpatched Windows systems in the past even if IE/Outlook were never used. Additionally, there were/are/will be security holes in the OS itself that you would not want to be open, no matter how many firewalls, antispyware software, etc. you have installed.

You need to explain then, why never once have I been compromised. I hear this all over the place about all the holes in Microsoft. If it were even half true, my systems would have been toast years ago and they are not. The holes that people are talking about are largely in some users' heads. It is called social engineering. I do understand that I need to add my own security suite but I did that ages ago. I am not trying to be gruff or argumentative, but just sharing with you my own reality.

BTW, my XP desktop has been running 24x7 connected to the internet since I purchase it in 2003.

... JDH

basketb · #18 Post by **basketb** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:24 pm

So, are you saying you have never installed one security patch from Microsoft?
I guess you were just lucky and have not been attacked, never clicked on a malicious link, opened any suspicious attachment, etc.

Marin85 · #19 Post by **Marin85** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:52 pm

jdhurst wrote: You need to explain then, why never once have I been compromised. I hear this all over the place about all the holes in Microsoft. If it were even half true, my systems would have been toast years ago and they are not. The holes that people are talking about are largely in some users' heads. It is called social engineering. I do understand that I need to add my own security suite but I did that ages ago. I am not trying to be gruff or argumentative, but just sharing with you my own reality.

BTW, my XP desktop has been running 24x7 connected to the internet since I purchase it in 2003.

... JDH

How often do you download torrents with suspicious content or browse websites with suspicious content and potential to install malware on your computer?

If one hasn´t been tracked down by a hacker group for some very specific reason (like they have been paid to ruin one´s business or for identity theft :knock on wood:) and one has somewhat healthy internet habits, there is not really a way how one may get affected by these security holes. I would dare to say that by now probably no one has really tried to exploit the security holes of your setup on purpose if at all, "Save yourself in order for God to save you..." In other words I believe you have been always cautious and precautious and careful enough, so that even if you had some security holes in your system, there wasn´t any chance for anyone to exploit them. Unfortunately, not all users are like this...

Cheers

Marin

#20 Post by **jdhurst** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:56 pm

I keep Windows up-to-date, Office up-to-date, Corporate Symantec up-to-date, and I don't use Bit Torrents at all. If I want something, I buy it and those sites are trouble-free as far as I can see.

And just to be clear: The Gods are not with me. I keep my little grey cells turned on full force at all times. I am with me - no one else.

.... JDH

Marin85 · #21 Post by **Marin85** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:15 am

jdhurst wrote:And just to be clear: The Gods are not with me. I keep my little grey cells turned on full force at all times. I am with me - no one else. .... JDH

That was my point as well!

Now back to the topic: @OP: you may also want to consider using nLite to modify your XP install in a way you can get rid of those things you don´t need (including a few components that bear security vulnerabilities). In the end of the day you will have a very lean and stable and somewhat more secure system installed which can run with very few resources, a well-nLited XP Pro installs in not more that about 200 MB and uses about 60-70 MB RAM... There are also other "versions" of XP Pro tweaked even slightly more than that (if you want to know more about that, feel free to PM me). Basically, it depends on what you are going to use your OS for.

Cheers

Marin

ajkula66 · #22 Post by **ajkula66** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:10 am

First things first...RAM is extremely cheap nowadays when it comes to T43 and newer machines. You can have it maxed out at 2GB for $20 or so, which makes a world of difference, as does a faster (at least a nice big 5400rpm) hard drive...

Now, to software and OS issues: although W2K is by far my favourite OS when it comes to MS, I've never had it on a T43, but would imagine it's got to be very, very fast.

Having said that, all but one of my T43/p machines (five at the moment) run XP and/or some Linux distro. All of them feel, and react, VERY fast. If I ever bump into recovery set of W2K for T43 I might give it a shot, but XP is more than fast enough on a properly set T43, no questions asked. My T43p currently has Windows 7 on it, and flies. Granted, the combination of PM780 CPU, 2GB RAM and a 7200rpm HDD is as good as it gets on any machine of this generation, but it does work extremely well. I've ran Vista on some of my previous T43p units and was less pleased, but they can run a 32-bit version pretty well after some tweaking. Given that your T43 has Intel integrated graphics, XP is still your best bet IMHO.

I plan to perform a little test, (not any serious benchmarking) and hopefully I'll have enough time in the next few weeks, and post the results here...

What I'm about to do is compare some basic stuff like boot times etc. on three high-end ThinkPads from different generations, each one running OS that it has the COA for, namely:

A31p, with a Pentium 4M 2.0 CPU, running Windows 2000.

T43p, with a Pentium M 780 CPU, running XP Pro.

W500, with Core 2 Duo T9400 CPU, running Vista 32-bit.

In the interest of a fair comparison, all machines will have 7200rpm drives and 2GB RAM...stay tuned.

Bookworm · #23 Post by **Bookworm** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:41 pm

I still say go for maximum performance. If XP will outperform 2k on a powerful enough system, then that would be the logical choice. But it looks like I'm not the only one who isn't so shure about that.

I've never had security problems other than a little spyware/adware, and AVG seems to take care of that. I don't go to dirty sites or pirate sites exept Vetusware, (sometines you need something nobody sels amymore, and Vetusware is pretty secure. Besides, if *MicroSoft* advertizes on the site, they can hardly be considered criminals.) but advertizing is everyware, and some of it won't leave you alone.

On the other hand, *any* program that takes more than a few hundred *k* is going to be slow and unreliable. I get errors from windows all the time, but never from OS-9.

i-SnipeZ · #24 Post by **i-SnipeZ** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:48 pm

Just to give you all a bit of an update.

Windows XP is decent on the T43 but its not "zippy". Its beyond fast and the window draw speed is good. But under Windows 2k, the second I click on an icon if i know where the window is gonna pop up I can move my mouse over immediatly and get where I need to go. In other words, while it would take me maybe 2 seconds to open in XP, i could open the same thing in 2k in about 1 second. Ive decided that GUI = slow. This is probably my least favorite feature of an OS and it has nothing to do w/ modernization but consumer friendlyness. Which I am not a fan of, as it makes things stupid in order to make it better for people that dont use computers and are to lazy to google or try things. While compromizing those of us that like to use things to their full extent.

#25 Post by **dr_st** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:04 am

You do know that you can remove all the themes of XP and make it look just like 2K, and you can also optimize the GUI for performance (System Properties -> Advanced -> Performance), right? Did you try all that?

i-SnipeZ · #26 Post by **i-SnipeZ** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:49 pm

Sorry to revive this. When does Windows 2k stop recieving security updates? 2010 correct?

mattbiernat · #27 Post by **mattbiernat** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:10 pm

without any kind of tweaking I second JD with 786mb of ram
if you turn off all they eye candy it will run good with 512mb of ram
with heavy tweaking you can run it smoothly with 256mb of ram

i-SnipeZ · #28 Post by **i-SnipeZ** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:36 pm

mattbiernat wrote:without any kind of tweaking I second JD with 786mb of ram
if you turn off all they eye candy it will run good with 512mb of ram
with heavy tweaking you can run it smoothly with 256mb of ram

I have 1gb which is enough, plan to buy more though. With Windows 2000 it flies, but I'm being forced into XP pretty much because I just upgraded my audio editing software (to Acid Music Studio 7.0) and it isn't compatable with Windows 2000 unfortunately. XP works fine, I just think 2000 feels better.

Dr-J · #29 Post by **Dr-J** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:10 pm

i-SnipeZ wrote:With Windows 2000 it flies, but I'm being forced into XP pretty much because I just upgraded my audio editing software (to Acid Music Studio 7.0) and it isn't compatable with Windows 2000 unfortunately. XP works fine, I just think 2000 feels better.

That's the deal. No modern commercial software supports W2K. Nice and peppy OS, but dead.

Win7 is not as quite fast, but it really is pretty decent. I've only tested it on my dual P4 with 3 GB memory and SCSI drives; YMMV. But what do I know: I mostly use FreeBSD.

i-SnipeZ · #30 Post by **i-SnipeZ** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:28 pm

Dr-J wrote: Win7 is not as quite fast, but it really is pretty decent. I've only tested it on my dual P4 with 3 GB memory and SCSI drives; YMMV. But what do I know: I mostly use FreeBSD.

I'm very skeptical about Windows 7. It looks cool, but I'm worried about what will be limited, considering I'm a power user.

Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Re: Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP

Who is online