Windows 2000, just as good?

Message

bishy · #1 Post by **bishy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:23 am

Hi All,

I am currently running XP on my T23 1.2 with 768 ram and it runs o.k. I would like some advice re. Windows 2000. If I was to install this, would my trusty T23 run any better and what would I be missing after being used to Windows XP........I.E. does it handle wireless as well as XP does, and what about general day to day stuff, is windows 2000 just as good or does it take some coaxing to get it to run everything?

Sorry to ask such a lot of questions, but I don't want to go through the whole reformat thing if I'm only going to regret it and have to re-install Windows XP.

Thanks to everyone on here for such a great forum and for all the help past and present.

Speak to you soon.

bishy.

#2 Post by **jdhurst** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:57 am

Windows 2000 was a very good OS in its day. I used it from the very beginning. However, it is going out of support, and XP (properly configured) is every bit as good and as fast. ClearType makes it better (especially on laptops), and just in general is more modern. So dump the XP interface (My Computer -> Properties -> Advanced -> Performance) and it should be just fine. ... JDH

#3 Post by **RealBlackStuff** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:58 am

Your T23 can handle W2K just as easy, if not better, than XP.
There is less overhead in running W2K. If you run XP in Classic Mode, it looks and feels identical to W2K.
768MB RAM would be excellent.
You would not have all the crap from M$ Genuine Bloatware Verification, and basically you could install W2K on as many PCs as you like (but you would be illegal according to Billy G.).
It will take Office 2000 and 2003, but I don't think you could run 2007 (and nobody in their right mind wants that anyway).
Most XP drivers are the same as W2K.
Before you install W2K, slipstream it with Service Pack 4.
Then install it, and install Firefox 2.0.0.11 or newer (no Beta version).
Install an Antivirus program (like free AVG) and a Firewall.
If you pick the Comodo FW, download their version 2.4.
Then surf over to WindizUpdate to fully update your W2K.

pianowizard · #4 Post by **pianowizard** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:02 am

With 1.2GHz Pentium III and so much RAM, you won't notice any difference in performance. In fact, you probably would find that Windows 2000 takes a little longer to boot. So, I suggest that you stick with XP and focus instead on tweaking XP to speed it up (e.g. this list by jdhurst). Also, do you have a 7200rpm hard drive? If you don't, upgrade to one.

mattbiernat · #5 Post by **mattbiernat** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:25 am

tweak your XP. mine only uses 95mb of ram and has only 25 processes running = quick boot. turn off all the eye candy crap, support for older apps (unless you have any) and you are ready to go. explorer in my T23 is as fast as the one in my T60 and look at the difference in specs!

bishy · #6 Post by **bishy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:06 am

Hi all,

Thanks for the tips, I have tweaked as per the list you suggested, just one more question if I may, now i have the 'Classic' desktop, I have the recycle bin back on the desktop, I know how to get rid of the icon, but how do I make Windows delete files straight away when asked rather than sending them to the recycle bin first?

Thanks again for all your help.........I am noticing the difference already.

One little thing, is it just my old eyes or does 'cleartype' seem slightly blurred to you?

Thanks again.

bishy.

mgo · #7 Post by **mgo** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:25 am

bishy wrote:One little thing, is it just my old eyes or does 'cleartype' seem slightly blurred to you?

Thanks again.

bishy.

In XP sometimes it helps to run "clear type tuner" , which is a official Microsoft utility. This will help adjust Clear Type to work better with the type of monitor or display your machine is using.

Here's the address:
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/cle ... Step1.aspx

Also, make sure your hard drive is defragmented, and in addition to thre regular defragmentation task, go to the CMD windows and type type "defrag c: - b" (leave out the quotes, of course) which is a undocumented (but legitimate) defragger for the Prefetch folder. It will help to speed things up as well.

If you have a 3rd party defrag proram it will be more effective than the totally lame XP defragger. If you don't want to spend the bucks for a 3rd party defrag program, just make sure you run XP's defrag monthly.

bishy · #8 Post by **bishy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:16 am

Hi mgo,

Thanks for the tips, I've defragged and used your command line defrag as well, also tweaked the cleartype with the url you provided and it is a lot better.

Thanks very much for the help it is much appreciated, all I need now is to find out how to immediately delete files instead of sending them to the recycle bin (I know you can hold down the shift key when requesting delete but I wondered if there was any 'permanent' way to delete files with one click.

Thanks again to you, and to everyone else who has helped.

bishy.

pianowizard · #9 Post by **pianowizard** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:20 am

bishy wrote:all I need now is to find out how to immediately delete files instead of sending them to the recycle bin

See this page.

I hate ClearType and always turn it off.

bishy · #10 Post by **bishy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:28 am

Hi Pianowizard,

Thanks for that. Delete works just how I like it now.

I must say that I'm not a great fan of 'cleartype' myself although the tweaking utility that mgo sent does make it more bearable.

Thanks again for your help.

speak to you soon.

bishy.

mikey pizano · #11 Post by **mikey pizano** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:34 am

Another really good application is called CCLeaner. http://www.latest-ccleaner.com/ver2/?gc ... GgodV3Q7QQ
This will rid your computer of crap that builds up like the browser cache.

For zip and rar files, there is a very nice freeware called IZArc.
http://www.izarc.org/

bishy · #12 Post by **bishy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:59 am

Hi Mikey,

Thanks for the links. I have downloaded them and will try them out. I am especially grateful for the izarc link as I needed a program to unrar rar files as my winrar has gone beyond the trial period.

Thanks again for your help.

bishy.

mikey pizano · #13 Post by **mikey pizano** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:19 pm

No problem. They are the first things I install pretty much!

#14 Post by **gator** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:43 pm

W2K is a great OS and will run very well on your T23. I tried both WinXP and W2K on my T23 and found that the machine was much more responsive with windows 2000. I have had -0- issues with it till date. Ofcourse it is going out of support, and as jdhurst says it is better to stick with XP (without the eyecandy) if you plan to keep this machine for a while.

You can use 7-zip inplace of winrar/winzip, it is opensource and it opens almost all compressed formats.
http://www.7-zip.org/

bishy · #15 Post by **bishy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:20 pm

Hi gator,

Thanks for your comments, however I am a little confused, how will the fact that support from microsoft is to cease for windows 2000 make it less viable for me to use? I know that this is probably a silly question, but I cannot see how this therefore makes XP a better option................or am I missing something?

Anyway when all is said and done which way would you go?

Sorry to keep asking questions but I simply cannot decide which way to go for the best.

In answer to your last sentence, yes I do intend to keep the machine for some while, as I have 768 mb of ram, my next upgrade will be a 7200 rpm hard disk.

Thanks again for all your help.

Speak to you soon.

bishy.

pianowizard · #16 Post by **pianowizard** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:28 pm

bishy wrote:how will the fact that support from microsoft is to cease for windows 2000 make it less viable for me to use?

That means Microsoft will soon stop offering security updates for Windows 2000, so it won't be safe to get on the internet, i.e. someone might hack into your system. I always avoid getting on the internet from computers that don't have all the latest updates installed.

gator wrote:W2K is a great OS and will run very well on your T23. I tried both WinXP and W2K on my T23 and found that the machine was much more responsive with windows 2000.

I must confess I haven't compared XP and Win2K on the T23, but I've done that on several Pentium III machines and there's no obvious difference in responsiveness. Did you turn off all unnecessary features like the eye candy? How much RAM does your T23 have?

bishy · #17 Post by **bishy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:47 pm

Hi Pianowizard,

Thanks for your help, yes I have turned off all the 'eye candy' as per the jdhurst list.

I have 768 mb of ram so I am thinking that there will be not much difference between the two systems. What do you think.

Speak to you soon.

bishy.

#18 Post by **gator** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:49 pm

PW, my T23 is maxed out with 1 GB of RAM and overall I find that it runs W2K better - by responsiveness I mean everthing from how soon the machine boots to how much free memory I have to how cool it runs. My T23 runs XP fine (since it meets and exceeds all the min. specs needed for XP) but I really prefer 2000. Even with all eye candy turned off and services tweaked and optimized, XP is a tiny bit slow compared to 2000 - maybe I am just too picky.

Ofcourse with 2000 you don't get all the awesomeness in XP, like built-in wireless support and the host of drivers for everything. It finally boils down to personal preference, I just like 2000 better on the T23. Just my $0.02.

bishy, your machine will run XP really fine. If you get a 7200 rpm hdd (which I dont), you'll do VERY well with XP and have lesser headaches in the longer run with drivers/support/security updates.

mikey pizano · #19 Post by **mikey pizano** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:08 pm

Hey, I can run XP Pro on my T20 with only 384MB of RAM okay and thats with Office 2007!

pianowizard · #20 Post by **pianowizard** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:17 pm

bishy wrote:I have 768 mb of ram so I am thinking that there will be not much difference between the two systems. What do you think.

Minimal difference, certainly not enough to justify spending half a day installing Windows 2000 and other programs from scratch.

mikey pizano wrote:Hey, I can run XP Pro on my T20 with only 384MB of RAM okay and thats with Office 2007!

That's nothing. I have a Packard Bell desktop with 233MHz Pentium-MMX and 128MB RAM that's running XP Pro!

mikey pizano · #21 Post by **mikey pizano** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:22 pm

Nice. I ran it on my 570 when it had a hinge too!

BillD · #22 Post by **BillD** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:14 pm

I personally prefer Win2000 on the older 600's and T2x's..

It just seems to run faster and crisper than XP does on the older machines, and the few perks XP has that 2000 doesn't have don't bother me at all( only IE 6, Older Media Player).

But the downside is MS is support for Win2000 is probably close to it's end life.

bishy · #23 Post by **bishy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:37 pm

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your comments and help. Do you (or anyone else) know if wireless access sets up just as easily on 2000 as on XP, also does 2000 handle wpa encryption, as I have a 'sky' locked down router and am unable to change it. I noticed that a friend of mine using the same router and service provider (sky) only had XP service pack 1 and this did not support wpa encryption and he had to upgrade with service pack 2 before he could get any internet access, so I am worried that 2000 will not support this.

Thanks to everyone who is helping with this, it is a true pleasure to be part of such a knowledgeable friendly forum.

bishy.

#24 Post by **RealBlackStuff** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:19 pm

WPA depends on the drivers for that particular card, AND if that card supports WPA.
Older 802.11b don't support WPA.
Give us your exact wifi card details, please.

BillD · #25 Post by **BillD** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:29 pm

bishy wrote:Hi Bill,

Thanks for your comments and help. Do you (or anyone else) know if wireless access sets up just as easily on 2000 as on XP, also does 2000 handle wpa encryption, as I have a 'sky' locked down router and am unable to change it. I noticed that a friend of mine using the same router and service provider (sky) only had XP service pack 1 and this did not support wpa encryption and he had to upgrade with service pack 2 before he could get any internet access, so I am worried that 2000 will not support this.

Thanks to everyone who is helping with this, it is a true pleasure to be part of such a knowledgeable friendly forum.

bishy.

Yeah, as Blackstuff says thats dependent on the card and the card software..I don't use the built in Windows wireless software anyway, in 2000 or XP... As far as wireless working on 2000, no problem at all for me.. Just load the card drivers, plug in the card, and your a go..

bishy · #26 Post by **bishy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:29 pm

Hi RealBlackStuff and BillD,

The card is an external pcmcia card made by Newlink, it is a wireless 802.11g 54Mbps card and it says on it that it supports wep and wpa.

I have a drivers disc for this card but have never used any of the software on it as windows XP has always recognised it, set it up and said it is ready to find available wireless networks, windows finds my sky router, asks for the network key and away I go.

Hope this makes some sort of sense to you.

Thanks again for your help.

Speak to you soon.

bishy.

pianowizard · #27 Post by **pianowizard** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:18 pm

bishy, looks like you're determined to downgrade to Win 2K. Please let us know whether the system gets noticeably faster. From my experience, for computers (both desktops and laptops) with 128MB RAM, 2K is much faster. With 192MB and 256MB, the difference is still obvious but much smaller. At 512MB and above, I find both to be equally responsive. Since you have 768MB, I predict that you won't notice any difference, but I hope I am wrong because otherwise you would have wasted a lot of time!

bishy · #28 Post by **bishy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:49 pm

Hi again pw,

well I don't know about determined but I foolishly installed Office 2007 and after uninstalling it I seem to have files and folders everywhere left over from this, which, for the most part I am unable to remove (they keep coming back !!!). So I suppose a format of some description is unavoidable, what I am trying to do is make sure I don't have to do the whole thing twice.

My own stupid fault for trying out office 2007 eh?.........still I won't do that again, next time I'll try something else.

Thanks again for your help and conversation, it is all gladly received.

Speak to you soon.

bishy.

BillD · #29 Post by **BillD** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:53 pm

bishy wrote:Hi RealBlackStuff and BillD,

The card is an external pcmcia card made by Newlink, it is a wireless 802.11g 54Mbps card and it says on it that it supports wep and wpa.

I have a drivers disc for this card but have never used any of the software on it as windows XP has always recognised it, set it up and said it is ready to find available wireless networks, windows finds my sky router, asks for the network key and away I go.

Hope this makes some sort of sense to you.

Thanks again for your help.

Speak to you soon.

bishy.

Yeah, XP takes over the wireless operations.. 2000 doesn't, the wireless Utility on your driver CD will handle that, and any encryption you want to use. So with 2000 you'll have to load the utility and driver from your wireless card CD...

Don't let me, or anyone else talk you into using 2000 if XP is running good and stable for you now. As I said I prefer 2000 on these older Thinkpads, BUT with 768 of RAM your XP should be running pretty [censored] good.. You may want to think long and hard before you go through the headache of installing 2000.

Andersonjoe711 · #30 Post by **Andersonjoe711** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:42 pm

Hmm this has answered a few questions for me as well. Looks like I won't be switching to 2000.

Windows 2000, just as good?

Windows 2000, just as good?

Who is online