• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Win2k over WinXP

Recommended Posts

vf-    37

shocking and you have only just discovered event veiwer :o

thought u would have known since 2k pro has same thing :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ahodes1    0

I too have decided to return to Windows 2000. The performance increase is outstanding, and the stability of the operating system puts Windows XP to shame. (However I would take XP over all versions of Windows prior to Windows 2000, both 9x and NT any day). It flies on my Athlon XP 1800 with 1 GB of RAM :cheeky:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laughing-Man    0

Personally I think XP is the best OS Microsoft has to offer so far. I don't want to switch back to 2k because it is pretty much, how can I say this, "blah!". I was getting sick of that gray theme that started with Windows 95. I like to completely chage the way my desktop and theme looks now and then. That is one major factor that makes me stick with winXP. Also my games seem to behave better and I think my computer has been running them way faster then with 2k. Also now and then I like to go back to old school stuff and the compatibility mode that XP offers makes them work unlike in 2k. I am not completely dissing 2k, I am just saying I like the flashier verson of windows that has all of the bells and whistles. I am sure all of the annoyances will be solved with service pack 1 and I have had no problems with my hardware, which I did have with win2k. So guys stick with the OS you want, I don't really think one is completely better then the other. It is just a matter of personal opinion and user tastes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Krome    204

Many people that have used 2K and then try XP go back to 2K... most that I know... me too... The only thing 2k needs are the theming capability... and it will rock... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dclanz   

Yeah...I'm thinking of using win2k till XP SP1 hits the net but I need to slipstream it to SP2 cause it's messing up my comp after a clean install.:disappoin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
superbeast    0

I ran back to 2k after about 2 weeks on XP.

Then I started playing with different installation techniques for XP Pro. After all, XP is supposed to be a streamlined, improved version of 2k, and my brother was getting blazing performance from his install.

What I found is that how WinXP is installed makes a world of difference in stability. In order, from bad to good...

WinME upgrade. Forget it. Crash, bash, smash and doom, this install has given me nothing but nightmares and headaches. No idea why, especially when you see what the best scenario is...

Win2k upgrade. Speed issues. Stability issues. BSOD about once a day. You will lose boot time and frame rates in your games, plus insane video codec errors that will cause your system to reboot!

WinXP clean install. This works out well. Can be extremely satisfied with this OS install. No BSOD, no major errors. Occasional file mishandling by the OS and conflicts with running legacy games (run as...)

Win98 upgrade. I thought this would be the worst, but it turns out that I have had beautiful luck with this install. I chanced upon it after cracking my XP disc down the middle. Of course I had made a backup, but I hadn't bothered to make it bootable. And it was an emergency. So whip out the 98 disc (which had almost been thrown away more than once), do a bare bones(nothing but OS) install of 98, and poof* -> WinXP is upgrading.

Speed. Stability. No errors ever. It runs well. I've benchmarked Quake 3, and I swear I get an extra 10-15 fps over the clean install. Anyone know why this happens?

So this is how I install WinXP now. Call it bizarre, but damn if it doesn't work out well...plus, a bare Win98 install only takes about 11 min. Go figure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
h71y6    0

hey i share that exp too. I had an install over win2k. Bad. I had a clean install. Bad. Then i installed over win98 when i bought my new mobo. And it's sweet ever since. I mean sweet. Since the install, i never had it BSOD, and it only crashes on overheating, which is very rare in my case. I hardly crash at all. I don't even remember the last time it crashed. It's blazing fast too. I must be one of the lucky ones. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JnCoKiLLa    0

Xp runns rock soild on NTFS witch i just put inj 2 weeks ago....better that i had it on Fat32 since before it came out and still soild not as soild as NTFS thow....I'LL nevre switch back to 2k sorry not me no way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UKer    13

Personally I have found WinXP a dream to use - never crashed, loads in less than 15 secs (ready to use), looks good (when you get used to it) and it really works well with my hardware (nVidia mobo/gfx). With 2000 the surround sound on my mobo didnt work, my controller didnt, it crashed a few times on me and took forever to load/reboot.

At work, however, on a less spec'd machine I tried XP and it was slower than 2k - but that was the only difference. On the pro side it arranged the ten or so windows I have open constantly into some type of order - but with a PII 350 it was a waste of time and after a few weeks I went back to 2k just for the speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
superbeast    0
Originally posted by JnCoKiLLa  

Xp runns rock soild on NTFS witch i just put inj 2 weeks ago....better that i had it on Fat32 since before it came out and still soild not as soild as NTFS thow....I'LL nevre switch back to 2k sorry not me no way

Right - NTFS is the only file system I'll use under Windows-> it's rock solid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aleni    0

i was stupid that at that time i went back to win2k because i want to use tclock to make my taskbar becomes flat.

no more stupidity and i realized that im on winxp now ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToastGodSupreme    2
Originally posted by superbeast  

Right - NTFS is the only file system I'll use under Windows-> it's rock solid.

Eh, I've only found 2 probs with NTFS:

1. Tribes patches don't work. And this is just Tribes1. Heh. God how i love that game. Tribes2 is bleh IMO.

2. Page file issue. It disapears, doesn't come back. Even if you set it agian and whatnot. This is a known issue by many people. Luckily my second HD is still FAT32 so I just tossed the page file on to it. No biggie for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
superbeast    0
Originally posted by ToastGodSupreme  

Eh, I've only found 2 probs with NTFS:

1. Tribes patches don't work. And this is just Tribes1. Heh. God how i love that game. Tribes2 is bleh IMO.

2. Page file issue. It disapears, doesn't come back. Even if you set it agian and whatnot. This is a known issue by many people. Luckily my second HD is still FAT32 so I just tossed the page file on to it. No biggie for me.

Tribes I know nothing about, but several of my employees have had those same page file issues you are talking about.

But these two guys also had the same problems under Win2k -> I thought they were just cursed (or actually it was being caused by an application install that only these two were using, but I never had the time to fully follow up step by step).

Do you happen to do alot of heavy duty video editing? Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToastGodSupreme    2
Originally posted by superbeast  

Tribes I know nothing about, but several of my employees have had those same page file issues you are talking about.

But these two guys also had the same problems under Win2k -> I thought they were just cursed (or actually it was being caused by an application install that only these two were using, but I never had the time to fully follow up step by step).  

Do you happen to do alot of heavy duty video editing? Just curious.

Well, the Tribes patches are quite old and I don't think they anticipated them being used on an NTFS based drive. I moved everything to my second HD just to patch it then moved it all back and it worked great. :)

I do a mild amount of video editing. Mostly stuff from my gf's DigiCamcorder. I went in one day to up the size of the page file by 256Mb and after the reboot, it never worked again on my NTFS drive (for this installation, I haven't reformatted and reinstalled yet). I've done quite a lot of searching on google about this problem and it appears for those with Intel chipsets, are lucky, because for some reason, the instalation of the Intel Application Accelerator fixes the prob.

I'm still looking around, though it's really not that huge of a problem for me since I have my second HD taking up the slack. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
superbeast    0

All of the page file errors my guys were receiving only occured during video editing. And they were on Intel machines (PII's I believe).

I'm not intimately familiar with how the page file interacts with the OS, but my theory was a specific type of video editing application was corrupting the page file.

Does this make any sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToastGodSupreme    2
Originally posted by superbeast  

All of the page file errors my guys were receiving only occured during video editing. And they were on Intel machines (PII's I believe).

I'm not intimately familiar with how the page file interacts with the OS, but my theory was a specific type of video editing application was corrupting the page file.

Does this make any sense?

Well, my situation is a bit different. I don't get pagefile errors. I am just unable to create a pagefile on my main drive. One day, I changed the size, rebooted, it was gone and I couldn't make another... so yeah. :) Thanks anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freeza    11

i've been back oln win2000 for some time now.......i dont think i'll ever go back to xp til a service pack comes out

i was amazed at how much less ram 2k requires even with most of the services of XP turned off including the theme service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sticktron    0

I don't get why people stick to old operating systems. A lot of internal changes were made to NT 5 (2K) to get to NT 5.1 (XP). NT 5 was MS's first attempt at an all-32bit OS, and they did a great job with it, but it wasn't complete. MS admitted as much. They couldn't go all the way with it. Games didn't run nearly as fast as the old 16bit 9x platform. Much needed to be refined, before they could shift the market away from 16bit legacy to new 32bit code.

This is what NT5.1 is. They took Win2K, and finished it. They scoured over the code, and re-wrote much of it, removing all 16bit compatibility, added tons of new hardware support, improved the memory management, improved the stability, made the look-and-feel skinnable, and have delivered a completely 32/64bit OS that runs all of the markets software and games.

Now why would you want to run an old version, like NT 5, when they spent so much time improving it? And why would *anybody* run an old 9x-based version of Windows? Everything has changed since then. The new Windows is completely different under the hood.

Strange how people will go crazy over the latest driver for their vidcard, or the latest beta of some app, but when it comes to the most important piece of software, the OS, they stay with a long outdated version.

*edit: Why the concerns over how much memory XP uses? Ram is dirt cheap, so you would think that the more the OS could use the better. The more things in memory, the more responsive the computer. Anyway, XP doesn't take up that much ram, my (typical) install is only taking 76mb of ram right now. Big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToastGodSupreme    2

Sticktron, I still use 2k because MS decided to incorporate some things into XP that I can't stand and that can't be disabled/uninstalled/etc. They irk the bejesus out of me.

2k does everything for me perfectly. No BSODs, no problems at all (at least nothing that doesn't happen on an XP based system).

I stick with 2k because it's tried and true. I can secure and tweak a fresh install COMPLETELY in a matter of an hour. And that's pretty good seeing as how i have to update things, fix all the security holes and whatnot.

My version of 2k only runs 32bit apps. 16bit is no longer supported on this machine thanks to me. Same goes for POSIX support.

Even with XP configured properly, things disabled, etc, there's still enough bloat code in it to hog it down enough so that 2k kicks it's ass IMO.

SP3 is slated to come out soon, and I'm looking forward to what it will bring.

Just as I'm looking forward to SP1 for XP. Maybe after SP1, XP will be better in my eyes, but for now, it's the bigger, fatter, slower brother to 2k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freeza    11

damn right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
modem    2

Sticktron... One thing you are forgetting. Win2000 was *NOT* the first 32-bit OS from microsoft. Technically NT 3.xx was the first fully developed 32-bit, non 9x based operating system from Microsoft. It was developed from the once joint project of MS-IBM called OS2 which itself was designed to be fully 32bit. So the operating systems of NT 3, NT4, 2000, XP, etc are all fully 32-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grimman    9

i cannot REMEMBER the last time i had a bluescreen. my guess tho... 1-2 years ago.

right now i use win2kserver, a clean install... from pro :)

the longest i've ever had xp installed was 2 days. u know when u reboot to fix a driver etc (it happened alot in xp)... well, when i did that xp decided to set my speakers to 2speaker setup from 5.1... thanks. and the sound-schemes constantly re-enabled themselves. if i changed an icon on the desktop they would all line up nicely to the left.

things like that were ALWAYS going on. i swear, those two days were the worst in my OS-days ;)

keep in mind, i installed with my mind set to "i _WILL_ love xp!!!"

in the end: "why did i not listen to my friends?"

quake3: win2kserver gives me 10fps more than winxp... and that was winxp bare install (yes, drivers etc installed).

plus my mouse did not feel the same which ****ed my performance quite a bit.

why stick with old os:es? because they WORK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aleni    0

then, didnt u guys feel a loss of your money by keeping winxp in your cabinet and use the previous os ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToastGodSupreme    2
Originally posted by aleni  

then, didnt u guys feel a loss of your money by keeping winxp in your cabinet and use the previous os ?

Umm... yeah... heh... I was, umm, really mad that I had 'bought' XP and it sucked so much.

Heh. Honestly, like most, I warezed it because I was unsure if I'd like it. Though my 2k copy is legit (it's good when MS gives out free copies of their stuff when they tour).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.