win2K versus winXP

Message

migo2137 · #1 Post by **migo2137** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:44 pm

Hi!
I´m thinking of installing windows 2000 on my T22 (512 MB RAM, 30 GB Hdd), instead of the WinXP pro SP2 I´m currently using. A firend of mine is complaining about WinXPs security problems and parises Win2K. I think that the older OS might work more smoothly and give me a faster, more responsive machine.

Any comments?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

T22 (2647) 1GHz, 512 MB RAM, 30 GB Hdd, Win XP pro SP2

CoolRunnings · #2 Post by **CoolRunnings** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 4:56 pm

Any suggestions? Sure! Ignore the rabble that acts like Windows 2000 is a superior OS! I have supported both XP and 2000 for a living for the past 3 years and Windows XP Pro is better by a long shot in my experience. Windows 2000 is really showing its age these days. It's ok, and it's a LOT better than any Windows 9x based OS, but the performance is not any better than a properly-configured XP machine. XP can easily be made to look/perform like Windows 2000 though. Try turning off all the fancy graphical features for starters. Post back here if you need instructions for doing so. Also, if you have any personal-level Norton products like Systemworks, Internet Security, or Antivirus, they are known to give severe performance penalties in comparison to the corporate versions of the same. I run NAV Corporate on my laptop and it's vastly superior in my experience (from a performance standpoint). Just my $.02...

migo2137 · #3 Post by **migo2137** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:39 pm

Thanks!

I sure tried to turn of all the fancy stuff in XP but without any difference to my thinkpads thermal situation. And I´m also using the Norton 2005 System works premier. I´m not sure whether it´s the personal or the corp. It says "Norton SystemWorks 2005
Version: 8.02 Build: 6". I suppose it´s the personal version.

#4 Post by **jdhurst** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:08 pm

I generally echo CoolRunnings comments. I used Windows 2000 when it first came out and it is an excellent operating system. But I now use Windows XP Pro exclusively. I use Pro (not Home) for better networking and file security. Also I use the Classic Interface and turned off all the visual eye candy (Performance Settings), and it runs just great. I would not go back for any reason now. Microsoft has fixed many of the security concerns and on my Laptop, I run Symantec Corporate Client Security. All just excellent. ... JD Hurst

CoolRunnings · #5 Post by **CoolRunnings** » Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:09 pm

Is it a performance issue or a heat issue you're trying to address? Systemworks will give a pretty nasty performance hit, but it doesn't do THAT much for any heat issues...

migo2137 · #6 Post by **migo2137** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:24 am

It´s probably a heat issue, which I maybe confuse with a performance issue. I suppose my thinkpad would be running better without the eye candy, but so far I haven´t noticed any difference whith the classic theme turned on.
The hard drive gets hot after a short while and (therefore?) the fan kicks in. I normally use Firefox and the usual office suite.

Bob Collins · #7 Post by **Bob Collins** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:37 am

jdhurst wrote:.... I use Pro (not Home) for better networking and file security. ... JD Hurst

Pro and Home versions are identical, according to Microsoft's propoganda, with the exception of the use of `corporate' networking features. The assumption from that is full AD and DDNS integration of Pro over Home.

As for file security and networking, aren't they are the same for both versions? NTFS under Home and Pro are the same, or so it would seem. It is when AD level security is applied that the Home version differs, but should have no effect on use/performance.

The file security and networking issuse would only truly show up at your home if you are runnig an AD based Windows 2000+ server, no?

CoolRunnings · #8 Post by **CoolRunnings** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 12:10 pm

Nope, you can't change NTFS permissions or disable simple file sharing on an XP Home box in normal mode, nor can you log in as administrator. Additionally, you have to go to safe mode to reset any of the NTFS permissions. XP Home is basically a crippled version of Pro, so performance wise (with respect to speed) they're the same, but there are some significant security differences even if you aren't on a domain.

#9 Post by **jdhurst** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:28 pm

I agree with CoolRunnings. I checked all this out before I started with XP, and there is no way I would ever use Home. ... JD Hurst

hausman · #10 Post by **hausman** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:38 pm

I believe also that Pro has Backup while Home doesn't. It's a pretty good backup, too, written by Veritas and based on Backup Exec.

(Of course now that Symantec has goobled up Veritas...)

Bob Collins · #11 Post by **Bob Collins** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 5:35 pm

CoolRunnings wrote:Nope, you can't change NTFS permissions or disable simple file sharing on an XP Home box in normal mode, nor can you log in as administrator.

Interesting, someone in my office just got a new box with XP Home and I stuck it on our domain to install our corporate anti-virus. No troubles. I'll have to look more into it. Always learning something new.

BTW, is administrator not present with quick user switching turned on? I thought if you changed that eye candy piece you could admin login? I'll have to get some more time on that just for grins.

In our office all WIndows versions are ordered as Pro for simple domain integration, so I have no time with Home other than noted above...

Cheers

CoolRunnings · #12 Post by **CoolRunnings** » Sat Jan 29, 2005 5:44 pm

Nope. Logging in as administrator doesn't work in normal mode on XP Home no matter what (unless you hacked it into Pro). Getting rid of the welcome screen is done by pressing Ctrl-Alt-Del 2x at the login screen. That will give you the domain-style logon but it still won't let you log in as administrator. You can do it in safe mode though. You can connect to a domain just fine with Home, but you cannot join a domain.

I believe the reason they disabled the ability to log into administrator in normal mode is because so many people were using the administrator account on Windows 2000 machines and don't understand that just because they have administrative rights does not mean they are THE administrator. For those that don't know, the administrator acount is a special privileged account that should never be used for one's day-to-day use. It's only for administrative tasks that require that level of permissions (ie. resetting a user's password). Even if someone is the only person using that computer and they aren't on a domain, it's a very bad practice to use the administrator account as your only account. If you do that, and that account gets damaged, you're pooched. Clean install time. There are a miriad of other security problems with using the administrator account that way but I'll get off the security soapbox now. If you need more information on that, feel free to PM me.

AbsoluteRaleigh · #13 Post by **AbsoluteRaleigh** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:08 am

Bob Collins wrote:
jdhurst wrote:.... I use Pro (not Home) for better networking and file security. ... JD Hurst
Pro and Home versions are identical, according to Microsoft's propoganda, with the exception of the use of `corporate' networking features. The assumption from that is full AD and DDNS integration of Pro over Home.

As for file security and networking, aren't they are the same for both versions? NTFS under Home and Pro are the same, or so it would seem. It is when AD level security is applied that the Home version differs, but should have no effect on use/performance.

The file security and networking issuse would only truly show up at your home if you are runnig an AD based Windows 2000+ server, no?

MS explains most of the differences here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/ ... sing2.mspx

win2K versus winXP

win2K versus winXP

Who is online