Tech Support banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited by Moderator)
I'm interested in how many of you are still using win2k an why? A couple of years ago I could understand it, what with the old saying that it was more stable than Xp but now under SP2 I'm finding that the versatility and stability are second to none, and my experience goes back to all Windoze from 95.

Are newer programs still working fine with 2k? Any problems finding drivers?

Reason i ask is that I do remember a couple of benefits last time I tried when I had a few problems running Operation FlashPoint. The OS uses less resources of course so loaded quicker, it came with less bull and here's a funny one...the drivers made the game look so much richer in colour. Well, curosity kills me most of the time (which is how I've learnt so much!) and I'm wondering the same again, mostly for BF2.

I don't think it's really worth downgrading with my spec unless anyone can come up with a reason otherwise?
 

·
TSF Team Emeritus
Joined
·
5,580 Posts
welcome to techsupportforum.

i edited your post, to remove a certain word, you may not know, but we try to keep the language acceptable for all ages, but, no warning is being handed out, i just wanted to tell you to keep it down in the future.

as far as win2k, i still use it, but not as my main os.

i find that xp is the best choice for a main os, as 99% of the applications out there are being built with windows in mind.

windows 2000 makes an excellent workstation, and can still be a strong webserver.

it can be used as a main os, we have a few moderators here who use it as a main os, and they are loving the security and peace of mind.

i do have to say though, i don't know what you mean by windows 2000 loads faster. on my machine, i was getting 35 second boot times with windows xp, and when i went down to win2000, my boot time more than doubled.

other than that, i love it, but only for certain things.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
236 Posts
I must agree with you that XP SP2 is the best Microsoft O.S. ever released. It's good for anything you wanna use it for. But offhand I can think of a few reasons for using 2000.

#1. Price. Windows 2000 Professional can be had for under $150.00 U.S.
Compare that to XP Pro at twice the cost. XP Home is cheaper still, but it's networking isn't quite up to professional standards so it's undesireable for those purposes. Still good for gaming and home use though.

#2. Works on machines too slow for XP. XP is a wonderful O.S. for computers that can handle it, but older boxes will Run 2000 at a much faster clip. And it provides most of the stability and features of XP making it a great upgrade from 98. (ugh!)

#3. No activation procedure after install. The OEM 2000 Pro disc I own can be erased from one machine and transferred to another without Microsoft involvement.

XP takes the prize for startup speed In my experience. Especially on laptops. I upgraded a former laptop of mine to 2000 Pro from 98 (ugh!). I had a minute and a half startup, even with only a bare minimum startup. But on a desktop computer I've found the wait is still longer than XP but FAR less objectionable and nowhere near what I saw on the laptop.

So while 2000 isn't king of the hill anymore, I'm not throwing away my 2000 disc anytime soon. (Unlike my 98 disc, I think I'm just waiting to give it to the needy)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,747 Posts
I did some work for a company that had about 120+ workstations. All with Win2K. The reason they don't upgrade to WinXP? Think of the cost for the 120+ XP licenses. Not part of their budget.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,890 Posts
#3. No activation procedure after install. The OEM 2000 Pro disc I own can be erased from one machine and transferred to another without Microsoft involvement.
Still a violation of the EULA ...

But, my $0.02 ... If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
Chevy said:
Still a violation of the EULA ...

But, my $0.02 ... If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
thrilling...that's one EULA that billy bob gates can shove where the sun don't shine...if its only being used on one machine, then so what?...if billy bob don't like it, I guess he better come arrest me, cause I've moved my version across a total of 3 machines..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
796 Posts
hmmm...

WaltSide said:
i do have to say though, i don't know what you mean by windows 2000 loads faster. on my machine, i was getting 35 second boot times with windows xp, and when i went down to win2000, my boot time more than doubled.
Don't be fooled by what MS did.... just because you see the desktop faster doesn't validate a faster startup time. Most of the XP boxes I have worked on aren't much faster if you take look compare the times of when the operating system is "ready to use."

Other than that, I agree.... MS is getting better, but I am still hanging on to Win2000.... I have too many quirky issues with the XP Pro boxes in our domain to root for XP just yet.
 

·
TSF Enthusiast
Joined
·
6,298 Posts
My brother uses 2000 on a 450MHz PIII machine, and it runs at a pretty decent speed. I'd imagine that computer would probably choke on XP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
i still use Win2kp as my com wont support XP
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Tell 'em Wortzer. Good for u Wortzer...like Billy Bob needs the XP franchise money. I want to be layed out in my coffin and buried with my w2k disk in my hands. I go back before WIN 3.0 (3.1 was wonderful) to the days of 300 baud rates and 32 hour dumb terminal transmissions. I am glad to hear someone is happy with XP, because I have to move 1 of my 3 PCs from w2k to XP pro to use certain new 64bit apps. I will keep at least 1 w2k machine to operate 32bit apps until 64 bit drivers are available for them. It forced me into a power/speed upgrade also because my Asus P4T 1.4 , 1.5 and 1.6 won't cut it any more.
Incidentally, I'm confused about the difference between Home and Pro. Someone told me they were both 64 bit. I thought the difference was (among other goodie things) was that Home was only 32 bit, whereas, Pro was 64 compatible with 32. I am wrong, and Someone is right, right?
If XP had not come along my W.I.P upgrade to 840XE P5ND2-Sli would be less stressful. But then again, I could have said that about using a dumb terminal and 300 baud rates!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,747 Posts
Luckyme said:
Incidentally, I'm confused about the difference between Home and Pro. Someone told me they were both 64 bit. I thought the difference was (among other goodie things) was that Home was only 32 bit, whereas, Pro was 64 compatible with 32.
There are actually 2 versions of XP pro. A 32 bit version and a 64 bit version. I haven't seen a 64 bit version of XP home. I don't think they make it.
The difference between Home and Pro is some of the network capabilities. You cannot join a WinXP Home machine to a Domain.

If you need the 64 bit version if XP, make sure it says Windows XP 64
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
236 Posts
cjessee said:
Don't be fooled by what MS did.... just because you see the desktop faster doesn't validate a faster startup time. Most of the XP boxes I have worked on aren't much faster if you take look compare the times of when the operating system is "ready to use."

Other than that, I agree.... MS is getting better, but I am still hanging on to Win2000.... I have too many quirky issues with the XP Pro boxes in our domain to root for XP just yet.
In the case with the laptop however, the startup difference was very real. Sure the desktop came up quick, but it was still about a minute and thirty of disk thrashing until it was ready to use. You couldn't even open My Documents until it was done. As for the desktops I've seen it on, I would say the difference is not pronounced, but it is there.

As for the EULA issue, I don't register my software so I'd like to see Uncle Bill determine which machine it was originally intended to go on. And let's be honest: He doesn't care. I also have a backup copy on CD-R. So good golly, somebody better get me off the streets before I hurt somebody!

Microsoft has cut off mainstream support, no new versions of Media Player and MSN Messenger are being written for 2000. Or even Adobe Reader for that matter. XP is Billy's current pride and joy, soon to be replaced by Vista, then to be replaced by....whatever. It's the "circle of life". Microsoft's attention to Windows 2000 is already waning.
 

·
TSF Team Emeritus
Joined
·
5,580 Posts
Leroy77 said:
Microsoft has cut off mainstream support, no new versions of Media Player and MSN Messenger are being written for 2000. Or even Adobe Reader for that matter. XP is Billy's current pride and joy, soon to be replaced by Vista, then to be replaced by....whatever. It's the "circle of life". Microsoft's attention to Windows 2000 is already waning.
to me, this is sort of a good thing.

no more constantly being told i need to update.

i can't stand having to update messenger, and media player, just to use them for the same old content.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
236 Posts
It's not even that big of a deal anyway. There are other apps besides Messenger and WMP. Divx player and Videolan for one, AIM for another, etc. I also think that perhaps Windows 2000 holds a special place in my heart because it was the first Microsoft O.S. I'd ever used that didn't make me want to hurt myself while using it. I've made it no secret that I am VERY biased against anything that ends with 9x or ME. I don't enjoy working with it even if it's someone else's computer. But I also understand that some people don't feel like buying a new machine so I just grit my teeth and deal with it. Windows 2000 has also stood the test of time very well. It just doesn't "FEEL" obsolete like the others.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,290 Posts
Win2k PRO on many machines here!

Rock solid and stable, I only have 1 machine in the house with XP Pro and I am not fully ready to make the jump. I do not actually use that machine very often.

XP is nicer for burning CD's and doing other things, but I have other programs that handle this well on my Win2k machines.

You will find many companies still use Win2k as it is a very solid and stable OS at this point. I probably will contine to use if for some time to come.

JamesO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,890 Posts
Wozer said:
thrilling...that's one EULA that billy bob gates can shove where the sun don't shine...if its only being used on one machine, then so what?...if billy bob don't like it, I guess he better come arrest me, cause I've moved my version across a total of 3 machines..

Maybe so ... but it doesn't change the fact that the EULA is legal and has been held up in court.

Personally, I think the differentiation between OEM and Retail is bogus, meant only to support the major system builders. That said, as a system builder, I've got to follow the rules - and I happily turn in other companies that violate them. They gain an unfair advantage, which in turn hurts my business.

I would love to see everyone play by the rules. This way, when faced with the expenditures, more and more would turn to *nix and Open Source solutions., which in turn would force M$ to rethink its approach, and possibly lower the cost to something more reasonable (and realistic).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,290 Posts
The difference between OEM and Retail is $$$$.

With OEM, the OEM supplier is the first line of support for end user MS questions.

The additional $100-$150 you pay for retail allows the end user to get support directly from MS.

Now how many times has anyone ever contacted MS for support??

I did only 1 time when a copy of XP could not be installed for a fresh reload. It turned out not to be a MS problem, but a problem with the optical drive (that fully read an OEM XP disk without issue, but failed halfway with a retail XP disk that had no marks or blemishes), however, the COA was retail and a retail COA will not work with an OEM disk and vis versa!!

JamesO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,955 Posts
I'm a W2K Pro fan, and have run it on my machine for years. I cannot remember ever having a problem running any software on my system. I don't really favor all of the extra finctionality that marks SP2, so I am happy to have that simpler platform that is W2K.

No OS is invincible, but I have not had a crash, as yet, using W2K. In fact, I see it as a tank; it takes a lot of doing to disable the OS.

I do think that SP2 was one giant leap for Bill Gates, so my continuing choice of W2K is not about other OS's being bad, but rather W2K being good.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top