Windows 2000 over Windows XP

Message

ambientscape · #1 Post by **ambientscape** » Fri May 05, 2006 6:44 am

I've currently using Win XP on my T23 but somehow I'm a bit fancy downgrading it to Windows 2000. What do you think guys? Worth downgrading?

#2 Post by **GomJabbar** » Fri May 05, 2006 6:59 am

I like both. With 2000, you have easier control over security. With 2000, you can install without Activation - not so with XP unless you have an OEM version. With XP, you can use Windows Media Player 10, which has more features than Windows Media Player 9. Of course, 2000 will not be supported as far into the future as XP on Windows Update.

#3 Post by **jdhurst** » Fri May 05, 2006 7:03 am

I removed the eye candy in XP to improved performance (that works), turned off simple file sharing, and turned on Clear Type (which is beneficial). Other than Clear Type, it looks and feels like Windows 2000 (which I used and liked). So I stay with XP because I like it the way I set it up, it is newer and supports newer things as GomJabbar notes. ... JD Hurst

ambientscape · #4 Post by **ambientscape** » Fri May 05, 2006 7:26 am

GomJabbar wrote:I like both. With 2000, you have easier control over security. With 2000, you can install without Activation - not so with XP unless you have an OEM version. With XP, you can use Windows Media Player 10, which has more features than Windows Media Player 9. Of course, 2000 will not be supported as far into the future as XP on Windows Update.

I've heard about the Win2K security strength, but does Win XP have a better strength over win2K since its better and newer...? SOrry, not really a software kinda guy....ehehe

#5 Post by **GomJabbar** » Fri May 05, 2006 8:20 am

I don't think there is a big difference in security between the two. It is just easier to manage security in 2000.

DIGITALgimpus · #6 Post by **DIGITALgimpus** » Fri May 05, 2006 5:04 pm

No real difference.
Windows 2000 = Windows NT 5.0
Windows XP = Windows NT 5.1

XP's main addition was a new skin, and some UI changes... that's why most companies have avoided upgrading. No real changes. Anyone who needed remote desktop already had VNC, or a sitewide license for Timbuktu... so that wasn't a gain either.

#7 Post by **Kyocera** » Fri May 05, 2006 5:09 pm

If you adjust visual effects for "best system performance" it resembles 2000.

davidspalding · #8 Post by **davidspalding** » Sat May 06, 2006 3:53 pm

DIGITALgimpus wrote:No real difference.
Windows 2000 = Windows NT 5.0
Windows XP = Windows NT 5.1

XP's main addition was a new skin, and some UI changes... that's why most companies have avoided upgrading. No real changes.

Actually, there were some very real enhancements under the hood, and some additions. But at a price ... Win2k runs with a smaller memory footprint.

For an older TP that doesn't bells and whistles, 2000 is probably just fine.

pianowizard · #9 Post by **pianowizard** » Mon May 08, 2006 1:18 am

Win2K doesn't include firewall like WinXP, right?

ambientscape · #10 Post by **ambientscape** » Mon May 08, 2006 1:40 am

I also curious about the difference between Windows XP Pro and Windows Xp Corporate Edition. What's da difference between the 2,guys?

Thanks

#11 Post by **jdhurst** » Mon May 08, 2006 5:59 am

ambientscape wrote:I also curious about the difference between Windows XP Pro and Windows Xp Corporate Edition. What's da difference between the 2,guys?

Thanks

So far as I know, there is no difference. Retail XP Pro CD's have a key on the package; Windows XP Corporate users access their key from a secure web site. Otherwise, they are functionaly the same thing. ... JD Hurst

t20user · #12 Post by **t20user** » Mon May 08, 2006 3:25 pm

I think it is a waste of CPU and memory to run XP vs 2K, especially on an older T23. My T22 900/256MB was a dog with more than one app open. I think my T20 700/256MB ran faster with 2K.

I just "downgraded" my T41 to 2K. I feel like I have more control over the way the OS is run. XP seems to do a lot of memory hogging crap without the user telling it to.

#13 Post by **jdhurst** » Mon May 08, 2006 6:55 pm

My T41 runs like a charm with XP Pro. Very fast. Windows 2000 is a good system, and I agree with using it on older systems. But a fast system like a T41 can run XP well. In fact, my T23 (gone now) came preloaded with XP, ran well, and continues to run well at its new home. However, if Windows 2000 suits you better, by all means use it. ... JD Hurst

davidspalding · #14 Post by **davidspalding** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:14 pm

Yes, Piano, Win2k did not have a built-in firewall.

You can turn off a lot of teh XP "extras" that take more ram ... though it's probably still doing a bit more. By "turn off extras" I'm talking about some performance tweaks, picking the right services to disable, etc. At that point XP has a little bit more advantage (boot-up acceleration, for example), but not a lot.

ThinkPad · #15 Post by **ThinkPad** » Thu May 11, 2006 12:59 am

I actually have windows 2000 on my desktop, works like a charm. Although some newer programs are hard to run but there is normally a 2000 substitute. But this is used for basic computing nothing fancy.

#16 Post by **AlphaKilo470** » Thu May 11, 2006 9:23 am

I'd keep XP on your computer and make sure it has all of the latest updates including Service Pack 2. I upgraded my 600E from Windows 2000 Pro to XP Pro SP2 back in March and have had nothing but good results since. The most significant differences I notice are faster boot times and multimedia playback. Under 2000, all of my DVDs would gag and lag and I had issues with other multimedia applications and under XP, everything runs well.

The few subtle enhancements combined with the fact that XP still has full support from Microsoft make me reluctant to reccomend Windows 2000 for any computer with at least a Pentium II 300 and 128mb RAM.

Nolonemo · #17 Post by **Nolonemo** » Thu May 11, 2006 3:11 pm

I love the restore point feature of XP, with w2k I was using a third party app I wasn't crazy about. I've simply rolled back after some installs of SW that I ended up not liking, and one time after getting a particularly tenacious piece of malware.

I confess to having become fond of the XP "look," (though I keep the classic folder and menu views) W2k just looks so spartan now

BikerMike · #18 Post by **BikerMike** » Fri May 12, 2006 2:33 am

My desktop has been W2K for years - so the T30 I just got is my first XP Pro system (tho I've been using XP Pro for a few years at work). It hasn't been a problem for me until tonight - I wanted to transfer some files from desktop to T30 and suddenly my network folders disappeared (the desktop's shared folders disappeared from the T30's My Network Places window). I can still see my T30's folders from the W2K desktop just fine, just not vice versa; and my attempts to find them have been frustrated by friendly but unhelpful wizards

What was once effortless (and still is on W2K) has suddenly become impossible - but only on XP.

dsigma6 · #19 Post by **dsigma6** » Fri May 12, 2006 7:40 am

hey bikermike. i have the same problem. XP desktop cannot see w2k thinkpad, but thinkpad sees the desktop. lucky for me i only wanted to be able to access the desktop from the laptop, so no functionality that i require was lost. getting a new thinkpad with xp so hopefully the network wizard actually works. cause setting it up between xp home and w2k was a pain, since xp was missing some pieces that pro would otherwise have.

#20 Post by **GomJabbar** » Fri May 12, 2006 8:27 am

See if the information posted in this thread by jdhurst can solve your problem networking W2K with XP.

http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=9293

BikerMike · #21 Post by **BikerMike** » Fri May 12, 2006 10:34 am

That is an informative thread, but it ends one message too soon! I mean where the question is asked "How do you disable simple file sharing" but the thread ends...
My roommate (a systems engineer) is the one responsible for our home network, but it's looking like I will have to learn; he's been too busy to deal with my lack of wifi connectivity (we have an Airlink+ access point, but only he can configure it so until he gets me the network key my 802.11b is useless) so asking him to fix my sudden filesharing problems is probably asking too much at least for this week.
The irony here is that my W2K desktop has never had a problem - I see the other machines in the network, I browse to their shared folders, they browse to mine, no problem. Now I have XPP on a machine (and at first it was the same deal; then it "wised up" somehow) and now the very things that Microshaft touted XP as superior at - networking and user-friendlyness - are where I am having difficulties. Thanks BG! Thanks too much!

#22 Post by **GomJabbar** » Fri May 12, 2006 11:12 am

BikerMike wrote:That is an informative thread, but it ends one message too soon! I mean where the question is asked "How do you disable simple file sharing" but the thread ends...

See if this link helps:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.as ... us;Q307874

BruisedQuasar · #23 Post by **BruisedQuasar** » Mon May 15, 2006 10:09 am

I was wondering if I was the only person who prefers W2K over XP, until I read this thread today. I intentionally looked for a factory refurbished T-23 with Win 2000 Pro, as I did not want one with XP.

I have two Dell Desktops (they are exactly the same) loaded with XP Home, XP Pro & I experiment with Linux Live CDs. My XP Home system is experimental, meaning I have never updated XP Home. It has the original release with zero updates. I do have Dell driver updates but that is all. I run security with Avast, NetZero & SpyBot Search & Destroy & another free spyware scanner. I run maintenance with System Mechanic 5.0

My T-23 runs on 2000 Pro SP3, no further updates, just lots of security. I have a full licensed copy of 2000 Pro SP3 that I got for peanuts from a reputable eBay reseller. It was bundled with a PC but the buyer wanted Linux, so I am the original user of the full 2000 SP3 copy.

My fastest system is the Dell with Win Home and NO updates, no Service Packs. My favorite is the T-23 with 2000. My slowest PC is the Dell with XP Pro and the latest updates.

Here is what I found. There is a significant decrease in operating speed from factory new to first six months of updates with the XP Pro Dell. The Dell twin with factory fresh XP Home runs as snappy and fast as the day I got it. I did the experiment with the Dells because I have had the many people I help with their Home PCs describe noticeable slow downs within about six months of buying their XP PCs. So far my suspicion is that MS knew before they released XP that it was too big and too slow. I suspect the year delay in releasing XP mostly involved stripping security from XP to speed it up. The auto updates came daily and immediately after people bought their new original release XP systems.

I predict that 1) Vista will turn out to be even bigger and more bloated than XP & 2) I think MS already knows that most pre-XP productivity software will not run on Vista. Why else shift from NT O/S core to Windows Server 2003 core?

Finally, back to 2000. Seriously, does anyone know of any mainstream programs which more than .01% of XP users need that will work ONLY with XP? I use PCs for just about anything, but gaming, that a computer is used for. Every program I have, use, know of any home or small business user using that runs on XP will also run on 2000.

2000 is smaller, faster than XP and above all I have full control over 2000. I can install, from one disk, 2000 pro on all the PCs in my home, anytime I wish. It does not send messages, invisible to me, to any MS program or site. I can run older programs on it that will not run right on XP. I run a dual boot of 98SE so I was not FORCED to buy a new XP compatible version of any programs that still do what I want to do with them.

That is me, I guess. I will not have any corporation cartel constantly milking money from me that I do not wish to spend.

A fact that is always foremost in my mind is that every study of productivity software use finds that not even professional users of word processors or MS office type packages ever use more than 10% of the features. And 70% of the features are almost never used by anyone.

An enthusiast of unique orphan mobile PCs, I learned this interesting fact. PDA makers inflate certain numbers, especially processor speed. Their marketing departments id two things as critical in selling new PDAs, processor speed numbers and battery life between charges. A 400mHz processor allowed to run full speed reduces battery life between charges. PDA groups clock these processors and we find repeatedly that no 400mHz processor is allowed to run faster than about 300mHz. Marketing wants the 400 to list as a selling point but they also need to push the battery life envelope, so the processors are throttled to jack up battery life! This is merely one example of the games run on consumers, by the Microsoft-Intel lead computing industry. Another one is constantly unneccessary software bloat which periodically fuels demand for ever more powerful hardware.

In the near future, a starter PC will ship with a minimum 4 Gig main memory & a terabyte hard drive. Will owners be able to do anything with them that we cannot do with a basic Win 98 system?

--Bruised

pianowizard · #24 Post by **pianowizard** » Mon May 15, 2006 11:39 am

I forget whether others have pointed this out, but Win2K is more stable than WinXP. I have run both OS on three computers (the TP600E, the TP240, and the Gateway E3200 desktop); when they were running Win2K, they never crashed, but after switching to WinXP, they started doing it.

#25 Post by **jdhurst** » Mon May 15, 2006 12:11 pm

pianowizard wrote:I forget whether others have pointed this out, but Win2K is more stable than WinXP. I have run both OS on three computers (the TP600E, the TP240, and the Gateway E3200 desktop); when they were running Win2K, they never crashed, but after switching to WinXP, they started doing it.

I had a TP240 and it was not certified for XP (ACPI/APM issues). I don't know know about the TP600E. The Gateway may not have been certified.

I can assure you in spades that XP is every bit as stable, reliable, and performant as Windows 2000 (I have used both). I have had XP running on my IBM NetVista Deskop now for nearly three years 24x7 98 percent of the time and no crashes.

So please, before making the statement you did, ensure (1) that the machine is certified and (2) XP was set up correctly. A sample of three with at least one machine uncertified is not a good basis to make a blanket statement.

And since BQ commented, I have not seen XP slow down after doing updates. I have heard this, but not experienced it, so I assume it is a setup problem, but not an endemic XP problem.
... JD Hurst

BruisedQuasar · #26 Post by **BruisedQuasar** » Tue May 16, 2006 11:20 am

You asked people not make blanket statements based on a few examples and then nearly did so yourself

As I indicated, I have found the XP slow down problem on over two dozen different, new XP computers. Not only have I solved the slow down problem on 24 plus PCs, I have asked several computer literate friends to experiment as I have. We all find the same thing. Our systems that we allowed no Microsoft updates are clearly faster than our systems that have all the updates. The most notable slowdown is that between initial release XP and the first six months of MS auto updates. Many professionals noticed the same thing. In fact, there were articles about update caused slow downs and instability in Computer Shopper, Tech User and other magazines that dare to risk angering Microsoft.

About ten months after XP was released Computer Shopper had a short article specifying two XP updates to delete in order to get speed back. My friends and I decided to experiment on our own to see if we found slow downs. We did. Our solution is to not allow auto security updates. The advice from national level computing gurus is this. If you run a good set of security software, you get better security from that than from any MS security update(or updates) so far.

Every PC I found XP slow down was a major brand name, brand new and they were not upgraded to XP. XP was factory installed.

I am the only one I know who tried update versus no update on two identical Dell Desktop PCs. My friends experimented with HPs, Compaqs & Systemaxs and one builds his own generic systems, completely from major brand name components. None of us are professional computer techs. ...but then most of the top free software programmers are not professionals either, nor was the 14 year old boy who made his parents AOL connection safer and who made the Firefox Browser core, mozilla.

The user who posted his finding that Win 2000 is more stable on pre-XP computers is not posting misinfrmation. In fact, many users report instability issues with their XP systems. Apparantly, each series of Microsoft XP updates renders certain XP setups unstable. If we are going to blame XP shortcomings on hardware, then what say we about the fact that Linux enthusiasts find that installing Linux on systems that new versions of Windows made obsolete usually makes them snappy, very today useable machines?

Anyone who reads all six of the leading Computing magazines and the main Linux publications (which are British publications), monthly, and reads posts in the main online windows support groups such as the WUGNET site forum is aware that techs advise certain XP system owners to delete their most recent MS XP updates as the likely cause of their sudden XP instability.

I am sure there are several people in this group who have experienced problems after an XP update. I have on my main XP system. In comparison, I have not had any problems with my IBM Thinkpad T-23 Win 2000 Pro SP3 system and my T-23 was not factory shipped with W2K... It was meant to be a 98SE machine. It is no super computer. It is a PIII 1.0 mHz processor with a mere 20gig 4500 RPM drive and integrated graphics & sound. The actual O/S of W2K and XP is the same. It is Windows NT...

No, I cannot say that what I find for 24 plus Desktops, what my computing literate friends find and verify about XP is gospel universal truth but I can tell you that our finding is vastly more trustworthy that what Microsoft claims & what the Advertiser driven computing magazines report. Magazine run tests usually involve two PCs or the limited experience of the article writer, very few of whom ever work as professional field techs! Does that fact keep thousands of readers from accepting the findings as gospel? It should but it doesn't.

What we need is a computing magazine organized on a concept similar to Consumer Reports. A magazine that accepts no advertising and demands that its writers accept no gifts from computing corporations. Such a group would present a much different picture of Microsoft Products, Mac O/S and the top Linux Distributions than we get.

I took the poster who clearly stated his limited experience with XP and Win 2000 as meaning 'HIS Experience IS...' Groups such as this one is valuable as vehicles for us to hear findings like his, as opposed to the uniform drone of Computing magazines who cater not to consumers, but to those who sign their paychecks, the major advertisers.

I don't think we want to do anything that risks silencing people with different experiences. If we just want Microsoft-Intel-Dell and friends hype, we can stick with our favorite glossy computing magazine. We can let the top ten monopolies dictate the topics and decide what is written on them. They are glad to hype the WinTel cartel all day long.

As for myself, I want to hear from adventuresome folk who dare to break down notebooks and notebook components that manufacturers and their magazines warn us not to tamper with.

Were it not for such people Casio BE-300 PDA enthusiasts would not know how easy it is to replace the allegedly factory only replaceable li-ion battery, and handheld & notebook enthusiasts would not know that expensive li-ion battery packs can be safely & cheaply rebuilt by the average person.

We need free exchange of ideas and to hear from people who dare to risk being wrong about what they conclude. Why? The marketplace is full of hype, spin, and downright falsehoods spread for the sake of profit. That we should all know as a bald fact.

We need a free forum of folks, so we can uncover some truths, so we can work around the muck hosed down by self-serving greedy folks and their self-serving magazines and media "experts".

What PC magazine guru has not "reported" that Firefox is not safer than IE, it is just less used? Linux is not safer than Windows, just less used? Free software is inferior and risky to use and many more half-truths? Fact. Firefox is considerably more secure than IE. Linux systems are considerably more secure than Windows.

One reason that has nothing to do with how many people do or do not use Linux or Firefox is superior design. Firefox is a Linux or Unix type program. Both programs consist of separate modules, which is also the prime reason a mere program crash will not crash Linux. Much of the mischief done to Windows systems is done by punk crackers, not by hackers. It takes hacker level skill to seriously threaten Linux systems and hackers are not much interested in cracking, the activity of silly punks.

In addition, is it true that Linux is not used much? Linux is a major player in the science and server domains. Do you see the major sites shutting down much due to virus, worm or malware infection? Major servers such as Google or Yahoo servers do not run on Windows. They run on Linux.

True Linux is not 100% 24/7 secure. Is that a fair ruler to use? If so, we must then compare Windows against the same 100% 24/7 secure ruler. Linux measures up vastly higher. Of course, any O/S is subject to security failures. When forming an assessment, we must ask the reality question. Theoretically, any system is vulnerable but how vulnerable is it right now? How vulberable is it likely to be in the near future?

I surf a lot with a Linux system. I never use security software when I surf with a Linux system and I will not until I have a real reason to do so, just as I never ran security when I went online with a Commodore Computer and then with an MSDOS IBM 8088 class PC.

In fact, I began running an outdated virus scanner just a few years ago (with Win 98SE), after I noticed cut and paste crackers were trying to infect my systems with old cut and paste viruses like Monkey virus. And I began running the free Avast scanner last year on a Win XP system when I saw that the Disney site that my grand children love was infested with outdated viruses, worms and some modern malware and hijack scripts (Spy Sweeper seems to scan those out well). When they visit Disney with Linux, I do not slow things down with any security.

The Microsoft supporting Magazine writers know full well that Linux is much more secure than Windows and Firefox is more secure than IE and they know why, or they are more journalist than computing expert.

Of course, this is all merely my opinion

--Bruised

dsigma6 · #27 Post by **dsigma6** » Tue May 16, 2006 11:36 am

its all hearsay!!

haha just kiddng. very interesting stuff, thank you for doing these tests and getting the word out on your experience.

you mentioned deleting updates that were mentioned in an article- do you know what updates they are?

and also, you said to disable auto security updates- how do you not allow only security updates?

THANKS!

#28 Post by **GomJabbar** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:06 pm

BruisedQuasar wrote:I surf a lot with a Linux system. I never use security software when I surf with a Linux system and I will not until I have a real reason to do so, just as I never ran security when I went online with a Commodore Computer and then with an MSDOS IBM 8088 class PC.

That sounds like not wearing a seat belt until you get into an accident. Oh well, to each his own.

#29 Post by **jdhurst** » Tue May 16, 2006 9:27 pm

BruisedQuasar wrote:You asked people not make blanket statements based on a few examples and then nearly did so yourself
<snip>
--Bruised

Not really. I said (1) I have not seen this slowdown happen (but I did not say that the sample was across multiple machines x multiple clients) and (2) that I did allow that I had heard of it. So I am not really contradicting the stories here, nor making a blanket statement - just what applies to me (on a fair-sized sample). My reference earlier was to statements about XP on known uncertified machines.
Cheers, ... JD Hurst

#30 Post by **jdhurst** » Tue May 16, 2006 9:41 pm

BruisedQuasar wrote:<snip> Apparantly, each series of Microsoft XP updates renders certain XP setups unstable. <snip>
--Bruised

You have a long post, and I am not trying to ruin the context here, but the risk exists.

I have no idea what some people do with computers (and I know there are some very loose nuts behind keyboards). However, I put computers together for clients and they simply are not unstable. I cannot account for what others do, but I can account for what I do, and I know I can apply all the Microsoft updates without destabilizing my system. I run scads of stuff including Linux machines on my TP simultaneously with XP.

Since Windows 2000 (which I used from the very day it was introduced and liked), I have had one bad Microsoft update (which was the one that killed file copies over .5Gb). I still have one OS bug that existed in NT4, W2K and XP Pro, and that is that a DOS copy (or Windows copy for that matter) of 3 - 5 Gb in size will slow down both machines to a crawl. Once the copy is complete, the machines are still slow for about 15 minutes, and then return to normal. I have long wished that CPU or heavy DISK IO jobs could be throttled back. I have experimented with Priorites but unsuccessfully.

Perhaps I can say what I mean this way: I know many people have problems. I know I have very, very few. So from my point of view, XP works reliably, stably and well and the certified hardware I use works reliably and well also. So I know it can be done.
Cheers, .. JD Hurst

Windows 2000 over Windows XP

Windows 2000 over Windows XP

W2K & XPP

Re: W2K & XPP

Who is online