Windows 2000 Pro, better than XP Pro

by **Albinoni** on Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 am

I've heard from quite a few people that 2000 Pro is a far better OS than XP, especially when it come to networking issues. I think that this XP was just another hype like what ME was, gosh that was a total disaster, stupid move by Microsoft, and honestly speaking I am sure that alot of corps. out there would be upgrading from 2000 to XP, but lets wait and see how many of them would go back to 2000 pro. I use 2000 Pro, love it, its stable, fast, efficient, user friendly and one hell of a OS. Sorry I dont think that I would ever put XP on my systems here, but perhaps one day I might.

by **glock20rocks** on Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:07 pm

Damn right! Win2K is the best!

by **BoGMan1a** on Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:47 am

And, let's not forget the best part - - no activation process. Means we can keep building rigs without blowing $200-300 on a new OS every time! :wink:

by **dhc014** on Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:01 pm

Derek agrees, don't you Derek?

by **Derek** on Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:19 pm

I use Win2k on 3 of my 4 computers. (The 4th being a laptop that can't handle it). First of all, I can't handle how WinXP is organized, even if you disable all the new UI stuff. Second, Win2k just runs faster. There isn't as much "junk" tacked onto the NT5 base. The driver support is just as good for 2k as XP (they are SO similiar that drivers are almost identical). And, I don't have to reregister it when I replace some components.

The only problem I face is that I plan to be building an Athlon 64 system soon and the native 64bit support in Win2k won't be there. I'll have to use Longhorn, or some new 64bit version of XP shudder. I CAN run it in Win2k, but the support for x86-64 programs won't be there. Time will tell...

Derek

by **coolestnitish** on Sun Jan 05, 2003 5:03 pm

I think I heard somewhere that Microsoft is soon going to stop support for Windows 2000 ie. no more Service Packs for those who are running 2k. I have XP Pro and I like it. Yah, its a bit flashy but that's how I want OS's to be. lol.
WinME wasn't a failure for Microsoft. Remember whenever Microsoft comes out with an OS, Dell, IBM, HP, Gateway all quickly start recommedning that and sign Billion $$ deals with Microsoft. Microsoft got a lot of money for developing a crappy OS. That's all Microsoft wants lots of $$$ :evil:

The activation process of XP is just :evil:

and their SP1 has that built in code to recognize copies

I think if they actually start pricing their software more reasonable, more people would go the legal way. Let's say if they sold XP for $30, I think there would be a lot more legal copies than there are today.

by **F1Pilot** on Mon Jan 06, 2003 9:49 pm

I'm usually able to damage and pile an OS with my finesse. I've been using 2000 Pro for awhile now, and it rocks. Stable as hell...never FUBARed.

I've had XP, I've run XP and then uninstalled it. I'll pass.

by **UALOneKPlus** on Wed Jan 08, 2003 6:40 am

I use Win 2K on my laptop as well. I also use win ME, 98, 95 on my other pc's.

The only thing I HATE about my Win 2K is as follows:

When I 1st installed NetSwitcher to my PC, the boot up process went from 30 secs to 1.5 minutes.

Now, for one reason or another, (ie downloading windows updates, etc...) my Win 2K is slower than Molasses. What I experience is as follows: when I browse a shared file on a file server, the speed is relatively fast. When I try to open windows explorer or internet explorer on my PC, there is a dely of almost 5 seconds, due to Windows trying to parse some file or something. Also, when I right click on a file and select properties, there is a similar delay.

This drives me crazy. I can't reformat and reinstall cause it's a company PC with company image, but I absolutely hate this.

by **blakerwry** on Thu Jan 09, 2003 3:33 am

I prefer winXP... I have found it has been much more stable on this system than win2k(Soyo Dragon plus (kt266a) w/ AthlonXP 1700+).. I don't know why.. I think winXP just has better built in support for VIA chipsets.

winXP also has MUCH better IRQ handling... win2k puts as much as it can on a single IRQ and this causes problems if you have a piece of hardware that doesn't play so nice (such as a SB Live/Audigy or any older ATi PCI card such as the TVwonder)...

winXP splits up the devices onto a much broader IRQ range and this seems to alleviate many problems caused by IRQ conflicts.

This was also something that was addressed in winME... win98 had terrible IRQ handling.. infact I couldn't run win98 on my last PC (this was a slot Athlon 750)because I ran out of IRQ's... winME solved this because of it's much improved handling of IRQ's.

by **Han** on Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:08 am

UALOneKPlus wrote:The only thing I HATE about my Win 2K is as follows:
When I 1st installed NetSwitcher to my PC, the boot up process went from 30 secs to 1.5 minutes.

Check the Network configuration in details and make sure the firewall doesn't block certain address, vital for smooth communication.

by **Derek** on Thu Jan 09, 2003 8:55 am

Win2k, Soundblasters, and VIA Mobos are notorious. Creative is just too lazy to fix their PCI drivers, telling VIA it was there problem. VIA said they could do nothing about it and all creative had to do was fix a line or two in the drivers.

Derek

by **europanorama** on Mon Jan 13, 2003 10:48 pm

UALOneKPlus wrote:I use Win 2K on my laptop as well. I also use win ME, 98, 95 on my other pc's.

The only thing I HATE about my Win 2K is as follows:

When I 1st installed NetSwitcher to my PC, the boot up process went from 30 secs to 1.5 minutes.

Now, for one reason or another, (ie downloading windows updates, etc...) my Win 2K is slower than Molasses. What I experience is as follows: when I browse a shared file on a file server, the speed is relatively fast. When I try to open windows explorer or internet explorer on my PC, there is a dely of almost 5 seconds, due to Windows trying to parse some file or something. Also, when I right click on a file and select properties, there is a similar delay.

This drives me crazy. I can't reformat and reinstall cause it's a company PC with company image, but I absolutely hate this.

use norton system works, download all symantec and microsoft updates. check security inside nsworks or go directly to symantec.
i have spent so much time checking security-the security holes could but need not have something to do with your problems. if i cannot localize the causes of problems ii always act like this. nsworks is a must be-product. there are also security-issues discussed in microsoft-site. i already downloaded the tools but had no yet time using them. my w2k-p4 is security-tight. there is a tool called msconfig(from xp) which shows the start-ups and services running at boot-up. if you are logged-in as administrator you can change some entries in services. not all services are needed. same with start-ups(can be deactivated any time). you need to know why they are needed or not. i guess if your system is secure you must accept speed-loss. but not slow reaction you described.

by **EEG161** on Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:03 pm

I'm currently using Win200 Pro Sp3 with no problems. Rock solid stable.
I do have WinXP Pro and Home Edition full versions on CD. I don't see any compelling reason to upgrade to WinXP. I'm hesitant to upgrade to XP because my W2K system is running so well.

I may put WinXP Pro on a different HDD and try it with a removable rack and switch between XP pro and W2k Pro, just to see if it's worth keeping XP in use. IF it doesn't run as stable as my current W2K install, it's goooodddbbyyeee XP, until a better build is released or a new OS from MS.

by **UALOneKPlus** on Thu Jan 23, 2003 5:37 am

I can LOVE my Windows 2000 Pro again!!!

My Laptop got REALLY REALLY slow today. It was booting up in almost 7 minutes, and everytime I tried to open Internet Explorer or Windows Explorer it was really really SLOW.

I had enough!!!

I disconnected all my mapped network drives, and went thru my IE settings and deleted an obsolete Indus River VPN setting, and disabled that piece of #$% junk in my systems profile.

I deleted a customized "hosts" file for IE and restored the default "hosts" file.

I then upgraded my IE 5.5 to IE 6.1, and installed the latest service packs.

I also did this:

==============================================
I have seen reports that Windows XP is slow when accessing network shares. I use XP daily on my local home network and a corporate LAN. I haven't noticed the network slowness. But if you do, there are reports that deleting a particular registry key resolved the problem. You can give it a try. I would backup the key first.
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current Version/Explorer/RemoteComputer/NameSpace/{D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF}
To backup and delete the key, In the regedt32 registry editor navigate to the NameSpace key :
· Right click {D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF}
· Click Export. From the Export Registry File dialog box in the File Name text box :
· Type the filename of your choice as in restoreshare
· Click Save
This saves the file names (in my example), restoreshare.reg to the My Documents folder. Its now safe to delete the key.
· Right click {D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF}
· Click Delete
· Click Yes in the Confirm Key Delete dialog box.
If your system is unstable or weird after deleting this key, you can restore the key. In Explorer, double-click on your reg file. This will restore the deleted registry key.
===============================================

As soon as I did all this my Windows 2000 Pro speeded up 300% !!! The difference is amazing!!!

I felt like I upgraded from a 486 to a Pentium 4 2Ghz processor!!

Right now I'm upgrading my Win 2k from Svc Pack 2 to Svc Pack 3. I'm loving this PC and life again

by **voltron** on Thu Jan 23, 2003 5:19 pm

windows xp is fine, all you people who say it is crash prone and lame and slow and crap have only yourself to blame.

i'm running xp on a 1.4ghz athlon, and my visual settings make it look just like windows2000 or any other windows. i am not going to lie and say i've never had a crash, that's just not true, but usually it's faulty software i'm using (lots of dev stuff from sourceforge) or my own fault.

xp is fine for the average joe as well as the more power inclined user. it's hard to name something that windows 2000 truly excels at over windows xp.

btw, if you build a lot of systems, you can use the same windows key, provided you don't mind calling for reactivation if you change more than x parts. like i said, the average joe doesn't change more than 3 parts in his/her computer every few months.

coolestnitish: i bought windows xp from microsoft legally for $39 as part of their kickoff program, of course it's the not for resale versions, but it gets me a legit key and unlimited updates.

f1pilot: i've run windows2000 for the longest while as well, but i just upgraded since i couldn't find something windows xp couldn't do on par as windows2000. windows xp is just as stable as windows 2000.

UALOneKPlus: another prime example of windows not being slow, the user installing un-necessary and/or crappy-made software. personally, i just install software on another computer to see if affects performace much then i'd move it to a work-comptuer. btw the tip you posted is pretty old and anyone who uses network browsing should use it, *gasp* it works for xp as well.

blakerwry: the included via drivers are a little old for windows xp but i haven't changed them since my hd speeds are wonderful:

<< on a brand new formatted system, without changing visual settings. it's a smidgeon higher without cpuidle/visuals running.

i am no xp lover, but i just aint no xp basher either.

voltron

by **Matt** on Tue Jan 28, 2003 11:25 am

I agree with voltron, you can make XP look identical to 2k, after that, most of the underlying components are 2k.

Things on XP I can't do without:

1. Fast user switching... this is a GOD send if you have multiple people using one machine.

2. Remote desktop protocol. I can access everything on my home box from work without installign or changing anything on my work box.

by **glock20rocks** on Tue Jan 28, 2003 3:45 pm

I'm changing my vote. I stopped using Win2K. No, I'm not using WinXP. I put Linux on, and couldn't be happier now.

Let's see here Linux:
Is Fast and Stable, and easier to setup than Windows (at least Mandrake is)
Has a 100% Customizable interface (you can even make it look like XP)
Is FREE
Has TONS of free software - that's actually good, too (there are several Linux Office-type apps that are compatible with MS Office, and don't cost $300)
Can run alot of Windows programs with WINE - which is much, much faster than using something like VMWare/VirtualPC (I've used both, WINE is runs stuff just as fast as windows).
It's got all the major internet browsers except IE-which can run under WINE...but Opera's better

Bad points:
No Nero, no UT2K3. But Quake 3, UT, The Sims, and tons of other native
Linux games. And KonCD and X CD Roast are very easy to use, will still quite powerful.

Pain in the butt to install 3-D drivers

Now if they could just make the drivers install like Windows...

It's not perfect, that's for sure. But it is one heck of a lot better than Windows. And it's free.

by **Matt** on Tue Jan 28, 2003 4:05 pm

glock20rocks wrote: ... But it is one heck of a lot better than Windows

... for you. Not for everyone. I tend to follow the saying, "use the right tool for the job."

by **glock20rocks** on Tue Jan 28, 2003 5:55 pm

True, it's not for everyone. But I still love it

by **UALOneKPlus** on Wed Jan 29, 2003 7:08 am

Sorry for taking this thread a bit off topic:

I'm interested in Linux. I've got a spare box that is REALLY old. It's got a Pentium 100 Mhz processor, 2 GB HD, and 32 MB RAM.

Would Linux run efficiently on this machine?

How did you get your Mandrake version of Linux? Did you have to buy it? How well does networking function? Can I map my Win2K laptop to this machine once it's installed with Linux?

Thanks for your info...

by **socheat** on Wed Jan 29, 2003 10:56 am

glock20rocks wrote:I'm changing my vote. I stopped using Win2K. No, I'm not using WinXP. I put Linux on, and couldn't be happier now.

Heh, I was reading through this thinking "I probably shouldn't mention Linux...", but I'm glad somebody did. I'm with you glock, I can't live without. It runs on all my machines, 3 desktops and 2 laptops. I better stop here before this turns into a linux thread... :wink:

But Matt's right. "Right tool for the job" I had my father on 98 for the longest time, and I knew W2k would just be BAD for him. WinXP has so many automated gui's that he no longer has to write down my instructions for doing anything. It's that easy. And it saves me time.

Not saying people who use WinXP are computer illiterate like my father, since he uses the Home edition which is definately not meant for the tech savvy/server admin users. They do offer an easy and productive work environment, it just comes at a very high price. I will say that, from my experience, XP is slower on the same hardware (obviously), but it's just as stable as 2k, and 2k wasn't too bad. Far better than WinME. ymmv, i guess.

by **dodecahedron** on Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:05 pm

UALOneKPlus wrote:Would Linux run efficiently on this machine?

more efficiently than windows, that's for sure...hehe...

when i finally get around to installing Linux on my system, i will have to seriously consider changing my name to Linuxahedron...LOL

by **glock20rocks** on Wed Jan 29, 2003 5:45 pm

UALOneKPlus wrote:I'm interested in Linux. I've got a spare box that is REALLY old. It's got a Pentium 100 Mhz processor, 2 GB HD, and 32 MB RAM.

Would Linux run efficiently on this machine?
Thanks for your info...

I had Linux running on a 486 before, so yes it well run. The various GUI's may be slow, though.

For Mandrake I got it here: www.linuxiso.org

I've got a cable modem, so the two cd download wasn't a big deal.
As for networking, I don't have a second machine setup, but it can do it. I would assume it wouldn't be too hard to do. Mandrake did fully automatically setup everything for my cable modem, something Windows can't do. Plus it ID'd my printer, even with it off, and set it up no problem. Installing the buggy-as-heck drivers from HP takes about 1hr+, because I have to go in and rip out the junk it installs. Hope that helps.

Socheat, nice pic of Tux! I had to dig a bit for the Mandrake-Tux

And I wasn't really trying to "push" Linux, but get poeple to at least consider it. The most common reason I hear for people not trying it is "but everything's on Windows". True, but quite a large chunk of equalivent software is there for Linux, and for free. Can't beat free. Most people will still end up having a dual boot setup. I just use Windows for the games, now.

by **socheat** on Wed Jan 29, 2003 8:20 pm

I've given up trying to convince people to try it. I can't win them over on the free software, because they already get "free" software for Windows. I also can't convince them that "free" is different from being truly free (not just in price). :-?

by **glock20rocks** on Wed Jan 29, 2003 10:41 pm

True enough...

At least WE have it!

Windows 2000 Pro, better than XP Pro

Windows 2000 Pro, better than XP Pro

Who is online