Windows 2000 on new hardware, is it a good idea?

F

FM 3370

Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2002
Messages
791
I plan to build a system with an Intel Core 2 E6600 with a NVidia 8800 GTX and was wondering if there is any big problem with running my copy of Windows 2000 Professional I already have. I still use it with my 3Ghz Pentium 4 and it's been perfect for me.

If it's not wise to run Windows 2000 on this new hardware is it better to get Windows 2003 64-bit or Windows XP 64-bit and why? I pretty much use my computer to play games like Half Life 2, Flight Simulator 2004, Doom 3 and to watch movies and look at pr0n.
 
FM 3370 said:
I plan to build a system with an Intel Core 2 E6600 with a NVidia 8800 GTX and was wondering if there is any big problem with running my copy of Windows 2000 Professional I already have. I still use it with my 3Ghz Pentium 4 and it's been perfect for me.

If it's not wise to run Windows 2000 on this new hardware is it better to get Windows 2003 64-bit or Windows XP 64-bit and why? I pretty much use my computer to play games like Half Life 2, Flight Simulator 2004, Doom 3 and to watch movies and look at pr0n.
Click to expand...

Boy that pr0n is gonna look great with that 8800GTX. :D </heavy_heavy_sarcasm>

2K had it's time in the sun, now it's past. Get XP SP2 on there and you'll be fine. As most others will tell you, with any 64 bit OS you're going to encounter issues with gaming and drivers. I personally don't have any issues at all on this Core 2 Duo running at 1.66 GHz and using Intel GMA950 onboard graphics, so that monster you're going to build would absolutely scream with XP or Vista for most intents and purposes.

But sticking with 2K at this stage in the "game" of Windows and computer hardware would be like putting racing stripes and a Recaro seat on a Segway...
 
There is no reason to not run it. Other than perhaps driver support for newer hardware. If you don't want to pay for XP and don't have a copy and you do have a copy of 2000, then why not. Old software is not a legitimate reason. There may be a legitimate reason. Say for instance, you needed to run IE7 for some reason. Or drivers, or whatever but not because it's an old OS. Ideally I would put Vista or if you have a legal copy of XP and don't want to spend the money on Vista then XP. Linux would blaze as well, though running windows apps via wine, or whatever is current for windows emulation wouldn't be ideal for gaming. If you have drivers, if your apps/games work on it, then by all means, knock yourself out.
 
XP and 2k are very similar at the core. If you like it, run it.

Unlike with 95/98/Me, 2k is modern like XP and very stable as well. It also works with pretty much everything XP will (drivers, software, etc.)

In my mind there is no reason to upgrade, and hardware wont make a diff either. Conroe will run 2k just as well as XP.
 
2k is an awesome, awesome, awesome OS

I have a friend that runs a Conroe and 8800 on it, and he loves it, everything is super fast, and that OS has barely any bloat.


I say, install it, and use it as long as you can b4 upgrading to Vista or Linux
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Boy that pr0n is gonna look great with that 8800GTX. :D </heavy_heavy_sarcasm>

2K had it's time in the sun, now it's past. Get XP SP2 on there and you'll be fine. As most others will tell you, with any 64 bit OS you're going to encounter issues with gaming and drivers. I personally don't have any issues at all on this Core 2 Duo running at 1.66 GHz and using Intel GMA950 onboard graphics, so that monster you're going to build would absolutely scream with XP or Vista for most intents and purposes.

But sticking with 2K at this stage in the "game" of Windows and computer hardware would be like putting racing stripes and a Recaro seat on a Segway...
Click to expand...

Haha...yeah I gotta be honest and say I do look at pr0n. At this time there really isn't a reason to run a 64-bit OS is there? I'm not aware of any applications that require a 64-bit OS.

ktwebb said:
There is no reason to not run it. Other than perhaps driver support for newer hardware. If you don't want to pay for XP and don't have a copy and you do have a copy of 2000, then why not. Old software is not a legitimate reason. There may be a legitimate reason. Say for instance, you needed to run IE7 for some reason. Or drivers, or whatever but not because it's an old OS. Ideally I would put Vista or if you have a legal copy of XP and don't want to spend the money on Vista then XP. Linux would blaze as well, though running windows apps via wine, or whatever is current for windows emulation wouldn't be ideal for gaming. If you have drivers, if your apps/games work on it, then by all means, knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

What would you say about Windows 2003 R2 Server? As for driver issues I'm not sure if using XP drivers on Windows 2003 R2 would work or be a good idea. Right now I'm on the fence of just using my old 2000 which I would love to use but since it's not supported anymore and I'd hate to have to be forced to upgrade to something newer. If 2003 is a bad idea then I guess I'll have to shell out some money for Windows XP. That's the option I don't want to do. Also since the E6600 is a 64-bit processor I probably won't be forced to upgrade to near in the future if I go ahead and install my copy of 2003 R2 which is already 64-bit.
 
The rule of thumb should be:

"If ya got it, flaunt it..."

You got pretty much the newest and best dual core processor on the planet, you got pretty much the newest and best video card on the planet, why hamstring it with an old OS? Get Vista on their and let it rip...

32 bit, 64 bit, who cares at this point. If it was mine it would have Vista 64 bit of some edition on it, immediately and without looking back.

Just my $.02...
 
i just put 2k on this build...was the only OS i had laying around besides vista. i woulda kept vista on but my wireless card isn't supported yet and thats my only real means of getting online so 2k it is...love it though. like was said before, its blazing fast and all my hardware works, so i'll be stickin with this until drivers come out for my wireless.
 
But aren't there some games that are XP-only? (some of the boxes seem to suggest so...)

That's the only reason I didn't throw 2K on my newest game machine back in Feb: it appeared from the boxes that some games were coming out now that wanted/needed XP... (demanded...)

I wasn't going to risk going to install a new game on my new machine, just to go "doh!" when I realize it demands XP...

Or is the baloney and the boxes that say "XP" aren't so?

(hmph, never bothered to install it yet, but my TrackMania Sunrise box says "XP", but a review says it will even work on '98...)

Well, I like 2K too, but can't say I regret having XP on this machine though either...
 
Win2k is a great, stable OS. "XP" only games is kinda a farce, the two OS's are close enough, and typically use the same drivers for hardware. I doubt any game that would run under XP would not under Win2k.

I don't like running the server versions for gaming and power user needs, you run into lots of software that won't run because it does not recognize the OS.....
 
TheRapture said:
Win2k is a great, stable OS. "XP" only games is kinda a farce, the two OS's are close enough, and typically use the same drivers for hardware. I doubt any game that would run under XP would not under Win2k.

I don't like running the server versions for gaming and power user needs, you run into lots of software that won't run because it does not recognize the OS.....
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would suck if it's gonna be a hassle to install alot of software. Also Windows 2000 doesn't recognize the second core of a dual processor if I'm correct. Would that really matter? Is the second core used often anyway? I don't think any games recognize the second core.
 
FM 3370 said:
Haha...yeah I gotta be honest and say I do look at pr0n. At this time there really isn't a reason to run a 64-bit OS is there? I'm not aware of any applications that require a 64-bit OS.



What would you say about Windows 2003 R2 Server? As for driver issues I'm not sure if using XP drivers on Windows 2003 R2 would work or be a good idea. Right now I'm on the fence of just using my old 2000 which I would love to use but since it's not supported anymore and I'd hate to have to be forced to upgrade to something newer. If 2003 is a bad idea then I guess I'll have to shell out some money for Windows XP. That's the option I don't want to do. Also since the E6600 is a 64-bit processor I probably won't be forced to upgrade to near in the future if I go ahead and install my copy of 2003 R2 which is already 64-bit.
Click to expand...

Your concerned about paying for XP and asking about server 2003? You'd use 2003 drivers though XP drivers may work for some hardware. 2K3 is a server OS and is fairly expensive. Not really a choice for a home user everyday OS.

As to the comment about a second core. OS sees dual core as two procs. Some games will utilize SMP. I'd think most contemporary games would be able to recognize and utilize a multiprocessor box.
 
ktwebb said:
Your concerned about paying for XP and asking about server 2003? You'd use 2003 drivers though XP drivers may work for some hardware. 2K3 is a server OS and is fairly expensive. Not really a choice for a home user everyday OS.

As to the comment about a second core. OS sees dual core as two procs. Some games will utilize SMP. I'd think most contemporary games would be able to recognize and utilize a multiprocessor box.
Click to expand...

I already have copies of 2000 and Server 2003 and never saw a need to install 2003 even though it's newer than 2000. If I want XP that's when I'll have to open my wallet.

That's nice that newer games do recognize and utilize multiprocessors. I thought all of them only utilized one. Interesting...
 
"utilize multiprocessors" != SMP capable

The OS is going to do it's very best to alleviate and balance loads across multiple processors or cores, but unless the game is specifically written to take advantage of such power - meaning it's multithreaded - then the game is going to work just as if you had a single core or a single processor.

There aren't too many games out there currently that are fully multithreaded and SMP-enabled, but that will change over time. Hell, it's already changing, and it'll speed up as soon as Vista hits store shelves.
 
W2k works fine with certain limitations. If your install cd is old (like mine, SP1) it won't support large harddrives. That will leave the maximum size to 137Gb. Of course the remaining part can be partitioned later so its no biggie.

But there _are_ certain games that will not run on W2k. Not because it's not compatible - but because the install script will not let you install the game on anything but XP or newer. Company of Heroes is one such example.

Vista.. well it's not even an option at the moment. It costs more, it brings nothing but bugs and problems to the scene at this moment. It's slower on games, lacks proper driver support and will require more memory for daily tasks if all the widgets, aero etc. crap are enabled. That combined to restrictive DRM that will disable your hardware functionality at RIAA/MPAA's will do make it a big no-no especially for people who use pc for sound reproduction. It's not advisable to install even a mediaplayer above 9 because starting from 10 MS has taken away a users right to back up purchased media licenses. That means youre restricted to listen to your legally owned media on just one computer - and here's the real kicker - lose your money if the harddrive gets bust.
 
Finn said:
W2k works fine with certain limitations. If your install cd is old (like mine, SP1) it won't support large harddrives. That will leave the maximum size to 137Gb. Of course the remaining part can be partitioned later so its no biggie.

<snip>
Click to expand...


As for that limit, all you need to do is install something called the Maxtor or Seagate Big Drive Enabler. That's how I have 200 and 500GB hard drives running well on my Windows 2000 system.
 
Finn said:
Vista.. well it's not even an option at the moment. It costs more, it brings nothing but bugs and problems to the scene at this moment. It's slower on games, lacks proper driver support and will require more memory for daily tasks if all the widgets, aero etc. crap are enabled. That combined to restrictive DRM that will disable your hardware functionality at RIAA/MPAA's will do make it a big no-no especially for people who use pc for sound reproduction. It's not advisable to install even a mediaplayer above 9 because starting from 10 MS has taken away a users right to back up purchased media licenses. That means youre restricted to listen to your legally owned media on just one computer - and here's the real kicker - lose your money if the harddrive gets bust.
Click to expand...

No offense, but you really need to stop spreading that Vista F.U.D. around here and go learn more about it before spouting off with that/those kind(s) of statements.

It's just ignorant and fast approaching stupid, period. You read a .txt file someone wrote online and suddenly it's "The Vista DRM Bible" and that's just not the case since most of that entire .txt file is F.U.D. as has been discussed at length here and across the Net itself for a while now.

Enough is enough, man.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
No offense, but you really need to stop spreading that Vista F.U.D. around here and go learn more about it before spouting off with that/those kind(s) of statements.

It's just ignorant and fast approaching stupid, period. You read a .txt file someone wrote online and suddenly it's "The Vista DRM Bible" and that's just not the case since most of that entire .txt file is F.U.D. as has been discussed at length here and across the Net itself for a while now.

Enough is enough, man.
Click to expand...

Will I be able to use my S/PDIF port when listening to music or watching movies on Vista?

Thanks in advance.
 
FM 3370 said:
As for that limit, all you need to do is install something called the Maxtor or Seagate Big Drive Enabler. That's how I have 200 and 500GB hard drives running well on my Windows 2000 system.
Click to expand...
No, don't install any of that drive overlay crap. Use Autostreamer, and slipstream your 2000 disc up to SP4. It will save you a ton of time, and is a lot less likely to hose your system, should you make changes later.
 
djnes said:
No, don't install any of that drive overlay crap. Use Autostreamer, and slipstream your 2000 disc up to SP4. It will save you a ton of time, and is a lot less likely to hose your system, should you make changes later.
Click to expand...



Are you saying that using the Big Drive Enabler is a bad thing to do with Windows 2000 on hard drives over 137GB? I don't understand why.
 
Because if you slipstream Service Pack 4 into the CD you have now and make your own custom Windows 2000 Professional Service Pack 4 CD, you won't need those questionable and very unreliable drive overlay utilities.

Simple.

48-Bit LBA Support for ATAPI Disk Drives in Windows 2000

That page clearly explains that Win2K SP2 and prior did not support 137GB or larger hard drives, while SP3 and SP4 do. Since SP4 was the last service pack released for Win2K, obviously that is the one to use if you choose to make your own custom install CD - and if you don't create that CD, you won't get access to the full drive until after you install 2K then update to SP4 and then you'd get it all.

Better to just create a custom 2K SP4 install CD and never have to bother with it again.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Because if you slipstream Service Pack 4 into the CD you have now and make your own custom Windows 2000 Professional Service Pack 4 CD, you won't need those questionable and very unreliable drive overlay utilities.

Simple.

48-Bit LBA Support for ATAPI Disk Drives in Windows 2000

That page clearly explains that Win2K SP2 and prior did not support 137GB or larger hard drives, while SP3 and SP4 do. Since SP4 was the last service pack released for Win2K, obviously that is the one to use if you choose to make your own custom install CD - and if you don't create that CD, you won't get access to the full drive until after you install 2K then update to SP4 and then you'd get it all.

Better to just create a custom 2K SP4 install CD and never have to bother with it again.
Click to expand...

Ok that makes sense. The last time I installed Windows 2000 I installed the OS, ran that Big Drive Enabler patch then installed SP4.
 
2000 pro imo is superior to XP, in fact the only reason to get XP is because microsoft decided to essentially kill 2000 pro when they released sp2 and killed the 2000 pro version of it, then the whole IE7 scandal followed. If I were building a system today I'd run server 2003. You can run 2000 pro just fine with the exception of the cons of not having the benefits of SP2. Once configured, 2000 Pro will be nicer imo....XP is like a goddamn nanny state until you turn off every little warning then every setting that controls the warning...once you do that and get rid of the fisher price graphics it's overall not too annoying.

2003 Server would be the best option though imo. Once tweaked it's probably the best microsoft OS out there. If I were building a new PC it's what I'd put on it if the $ was there. I've never been a fan of XP if you can't tell :).

edit: how did it go?
 
Finn said:
Will I be able to use my S/PDIF port when listening to music or watching movies on Vista?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Of course you can! As long as the media provider doesn't care.

Most of my movies/music are mp3's / divx / xvid so it doesn't affect me at all. If you go out of your way to purchase HDDVD or Blu-ray disks then you won't be able to use S/PDIF out per the DRM restrictions that the content provider implements.

edit: my bad, I bit ;)

Well, to keep this on topic, with that new of hardware, you will greatly benefit from Vista's built-in performance features.
 
Finn said:
Vista.. well it's not even an option at the moment. It costs more, it brings nothing but bugs and problems to the scene at this moment. It's slower on games, lacks proper driver support and will require more memory for daily tasks if all the widgets, aero etc. crap are enabled. That combined to restrictive DRM that will disable your hardware functionality at RIAA/MPAA's will do make it a big no-no especially for people who use pc for sound reproduction. It's not advisable to install even a mediaplayer above 9 because starting from 10 MS has taken away a users right to back up purchased media licenses. That means youre restricted to listen to your legally owned media on just one computer - and here's the real kicker - lose your money if the harddrive gets bust.
Click to expand...

I see that, when challenged, you've cut that back to one specific complaint which may or may be be a concern to the topic poster.


On-topic.

Nobody's mentioned RAM. Your sig indicates you currently use 1Gb of RAM but how much do you plan to install on the new rig? That question alone goes a long way toward determining your decision. If you plan to stick with 1Gb then Win2000 is plenty adequate, especially if you can tolerate all the restrictions Win2000 imposes. If your needs are more simple and you can tolerate the fiddling about then it's fine.

But if you plan to make the jump to that 2Gb to 4Gb of installed RAM then there is every reason to make the jump to a 64-bit OS installation, and that means, for the Windows platform, either XP x64 or Vista x64.
 
If Windows 2000 runs all the apps you want to run, and you can find drivers for your hardware, I see no reason not to use it. It uses fewer resources than XP, lacks that unpleasant web-veneer that Vista has, and with Firefox and a software firewall can be pretty much just as secure as XP or Vista. 2k has a lot of advantages over newer versions.
 
Langford said:
If Windows 2000 runs all the apps you want to run, and you can find drivers for your hardware, I see no reason not to use it. It uses fewer resources than XP, lacks that unpleasant web-veneer that Vista has, and with Firefox and a software firewall can be pretty much just as secure as XP or Vista. 2k has a lot of advantages over newer versions.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say with some caveats:

1. Although Win2K, WinXP use less resources, they will perform considerably slower than Vista due to the performance features I mentioned - the extra resources Vista uses goes to good use and they are cleanly, quickly disabled/paged to disk when you actually need those resources (i.e., playing a game, etc).

2. Yes Win2K can be secured - however, Vista has easy-to-use IPSEC configuration tools that are not present in 2K/XP. Additionally, the built in Windows firewall will stop random attempts to compromise your system (worms, etc) and is only present in XP SP2 or later. Also, the Windows firewall improves system performance since your TCP/IP libraries will have less to process.
 
I still haven't seen a computer where Vista would outrun W2k or XP.

Give me one good reason why I should start using Vista? Just one, please.
 
Finn said:
I still haven't seen a computer where Vista would outrun W2k or XP.

Give me one good reason why I should start using Vista? Just one, please.
Click to expand...

To feel the "WoW" and brag about your shinny user interface.






:rolleyes:
 
Finn said:
I still haven't seen a computer where Vista would outrun W2k or XP.

Give me one good reason why I should start using Vista? Just one, please.
Click to expand...

If you don't know by now why Vista can indeed, be better, then you are obviously set against it and no amount of bickering would show you.
 
You can run it. I would recommend XP SP2 for sure... but whatever. 2k Will work just fine.
 
TheRapture said:
If you don't know by now why Vista can indeed, be better, then you are obviously set against it and no amount of bickering would show you.
Click to expand...

So I guess you didn't find even one viable reason why people should pay $300 over it. That's what I thought, too.

If I want eye candy I download it for free from CrystalXP.net. Thanks. :cool:
 
Finn said:
So I guess you didn't find even one viable reason why people should pay $300 over it. That's what I thought, too.

If I want eye candy I download it for free from CrystalXP.net. Thanks. :cool:
Click to expand...

We've discussed this Finn - offloading desktop 2d geometery processing from the CPU -> GPU is not simply a matter of eye candy... although if eye candy is all you are interested in, CrystalXP might be for you -
 
from what I've read.. The best thing about vista is that it adds a virtualization layer between hardware and drivers. e.g. drivers now must go thru vista to get hardware access. This is significant because it adds a layer of protection from a driver fault. whereas before, a fault in your video driver would freeze your whole screen or a fault in your sound driver would give a BSOD.... vista can recover.

i'm sure there's more but thats a big one
 
Spetsnaz Op said:
2000 pro imo is superior to XP, in fact the only reason to get XP is because microsoft decided to essentially kill 2000 pro when they released sp2 and killed the 2000 pro version of it, then the whole IE7 scandal followed. If I were building a system today I'd run server 2003. You can run 2000 pro just fine with the exception of the cons of not having the benefits of SP2. Once configured, 2000 Pro will be nicer imo....XP is like a goddamn nanny state until you turn off every little warning then every setting that controls the warning...once you do that and get rid of the fisher price graphics it's overall not too annoying.

2003 Server would be the best option though imo. Once tweaked it's probably the best microsoft OS out there. If I were building a new PC it's what I'd put on it if the $ was there. I've never been a fan of XP if you can't tell :).
Click to expand...
There are quite a few noted benefits of XP over 2000, but I'm not about the derail the thread. Gaming is also another area where XP shines, but then again, with only 512 MB of system memory, you should stick to the minimum, which would be 2000. 2003 also isn't meant for the desktop, and you may have difficulty finding drivers for many home, consumer type devices. All in all, it's the same argument currently going on between the Vista and the XP crowd. If you can't see the benefits and/or differences, you haven't opened you're eyes far enough yet.
 
FM 3370 said:
Yeah, that would suck if it's gonna be a hassle to install alot of software. Also Windows 2000 doesn't recognize the second core of a dual processor if I'm correct. Would that really matter? Is the second core used often anyway? I don't think any games recognize the second core.
Click to expand...
Windows 2000 does recognize the second core, I've used it myself with my Core 2 E6400. However, if you had a single core processor installed prior to your Core 2 and you haven't reinstalled windows after the switch it will not recognize it automatically. You will need to install the ACPI Multiprocessor PC driver from the device manager to get it to work.

Another thing to take into consideration is that Windows 2000, at least SP4 does not have "big LBA" enabled by default which means it has problems reading from and writing to any partition larger than 128 GB. You need to edit the registry to fix this.
 
One downside to consider...

Security Updates for 2K have either stopped, or will be stopped before long.

Other that that it is indeed a great OS.
 
I'd say keep 2K until you're ready to switch to vista.

I ran 2K until January 07 when I went with vista.64. The only real problem you're going to run into will be some games won't load on 2K (personal experience).
There might also be some issues if you want more than 2GB ram.

Why drop the money on XP when you've got a reliable OS and Vista is getting closer and closer to being ready for prime time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top