Windows 2000 vs XP

Odigo

Odigo

Gawd
2FA
Joined
Apr 22, 2002
Messages
820
I'm currently running Windows XP (32bit) and wanted to know how Windows 2000 still is as far as compatibility goes with software, drivers, and gaming performance. The reason why I want to downgrade to 2000 is because well I love it. Absolutely no bloat ware. I'm not running anything dual-core or hyper threaded. My system specs are as follows:

MSI K8N Neo4-F
2GB PC3200
AMD 3700+ Processor
Geforce 7600GT
Onboard Audio.
 
I would stick with XPSP2. Windows 2000 does not feature the hardening of XPSP2. If you look at worms like Zotob for example, on XPSP2, even though the flaw it exploited was in the operating system, it was properly sandboxed to not be anonymously remotely exploitable. (It was exploitable, but had to have been done by a user with credentails to connect to the box)

Windows 2000 is also in extended support...

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
Another vote for stay with XPSP2. Just do this:
1. Goto system properties, select max performance.
2. Taskbar properties and set startmenu to clasic mode.
3. Folder Optoins, and set to classic folders and disable common tasks.

Shazham! Win2K!

Everything *should* work in Win2K without compatibility, drivers, games, applications.

WinXP has a lot of refinement and minor tweaks here and there for USB devices, digital cameras, networking(especially wireless), etc.
 
Another vote to stick with XP.

Google can help disable some services that will help with memory usage.
You can also uninstall some XP apps, go to add/remove programs and then "windows components" on the left.
 
2000 is in my opinion the best OS MS made (once it is fully patched ;). It is fairly lightweight with minimum system overhead and it gets the job done.

After 2000 too much "bloat" got added, bloat that for the most part is un-needed by me, but no way to really remove it
 
eeyrjmr said:
2000 is in my opinion the best OS MS made (once it is fully patched ;). It is fairly lightweight with minimum system overhead and it gets the job done.

After 2000 too much "bloat" got added, bloat that for the most part is un-needed by me, but no way to really remove it
Click to expand...

QFT. I could not agree more.
 
2000 sucked for me..... came on my laptop. Numerous things made it completely screw up! I installed an app and after that I couldnt open up anything without explorer crashing.

For me, it was worse than WindowsME

I love my XPSP2
 
Well 2000 is coming to the end of its life cycle now, M$ is stopping support.

Win Me was bad but to be honest I thought 95a was by far the worst
 
Jay_oasis said:
Well 2000 is coming to the end of its life cycle now, M$ is stopping support.

Win Me was bad but to be honest I thought 95a was by far the worst
Click to expand...

I thought 2000 was hasn't been supported for months now, didn't it stop at the same time as the support for win98se and winME?

I vote for xp just due to minor refinements, i loved 2000 but found a bit more smoothness and compatiblitiy for games under XP
 
If you love 2000, you can easily make XP look and feel like 2000, with all the benefits of XP. If that system is really bogged down with "bloat" from XP, it's time to look at the other software you have running on that computer. I have a spare laptop that's a Pentium III 1 GHz, with 512 MB of memory, and XP SP2 runs very well on it. You're computer is plenty capable of running Vista, so it would have no problem with XP.
 
Jay_oasis said:
Well 2000 is coming to the end of its life cycle now, M$ is stopping support.

Win Me was bad but to be honest I thought 95a was by far the worst
Click to expand...

Anybody remember Windows 3.1? Ah, the MS-DOS days. Those were the days (in a nastalgic sort of way). I also have a spot in my heart for MS-DOS 6.22.
 
Its worth noting there are programs starting to come out now that don't support Win2k. Supreme Commander being an example, requires XP SP2 or better. There is a work around to get it running in Win2k, though. I guess the point is, since Microsoft isn't supporting Win2k anymore for the general public, software developers are not gonna want to either. I realize that I only gave one example and it is a game, so if gaming ain't your thing then w/e, but I think we'll be seeing more of this as we roll in to 2007 on more than just games.
 
eeyrjmr said:
2000 is in my opinion the best OS MS made (once it is fully patched ;). It is fairly lightweight with minimum system overhead and it gets the job done.

After 2000 too much "bloat" got added, bloat that for the most part is un-needed by me, but no way to really remove it
Click to expand...

QFT x2

I had win2k on my HTPC and tried dual-booting Win XP MCE. BUT XP fried my 2k install so I'm stuck with XP MCE until I decide to reformat. The computer is noticeable slower, just browsing files takes more time as it seems to want to do a deep analysis of every file in the folder when I open it. I really wish I had not installed the damn thing.
 
you can make xp look like 2000, but you can't give 2000 the support and compatibility of xp.
 
I still use Windows 2000. It's a good OS. I have not had a single security or instability issue with 2000 and it meets all of my needs so I have never felt the need to upgrade.
I don't like XP becuase it comes with a few annoying features like the new autorun that gives you a list of software to open with, system restore, activation, remote login, fast user switching, drag windows contents on move, new start menu, new interface, non-classic control panel, built in CD/DVD burner, slide show mode, scan video file properties when opening folders containing them (takes too long), large icon mode, etc

I know I'll come up with more given time too..

I know all of these can be turned off within XP or removed using nlite but I say all the better if they didn't exist in the first place.
 
If want all the features of 2K - speed, efficiency, tight memory usage, very responsive GUI, etc - as well as all the goodies and features of XP - firewall (not the best but hey, it works), IE6/7 since 2K can't use IE7 at all, etc...

Windows Server 2003 is the OS for j00. And now with SP2 for 2K3 out, it's even faster and more efficient than ever before. Microsoft offers a 6 month trial of it, why not give it a go. It takes more configuration to get up and running and offers a lot more "stuff" to learn, but it can and is regularly used by many people - myself included - as a "workstation" OS with a bit of tweaking.

Do a Google search for "windows 2003 workstation" and you'll find a guide that shows you how to enable/disable some stuff and what you'll need to install.

2K3 will outperform nearly any OS ever made out of the box with little to no tweaking needed - the tweaks I'm talking about are to configure it for more workstation-like behavior and not performance - it's already fast as fuckin' hell.

And XP x64 on a 64 bit capable machine works just as well if not better because it's based on the 2K3 core code and kernel architecture - and for the ultimate speed boost, get 2K3 x64. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top