Thinking of going back to Win2k

[leech]

Ok, I'm thoroughly disgusted with Windows XP's stability. And quite frankly I always switch it to Windows Classic for the theme, so theming is pretty pointless to me for windows.

Pretty much I only use windows for Video games, so would I be losing out on anything if I went back to Windows 2000 which at least should be pretty stable after being out so long...

I do have a Pentium 4 with HyperThreading, but that should be supported under Win2k Pro.

Everything else should be the same. I think the thing I'm worried about the most is the compatibility with games, I remember some of them not working all that well on Win2k, yet they worked on XP just fine.

What advantages/disadvantages would there be to doing this?

Leech

[Wombat]

Yeah. Really, I don't think 2000 desktop has anything over a properly tweaked XP box.

Whatever stability problems you're having in XP are going to follow you. Same core, same drivers. Same hardware.

[piaxVirus]

The latest versions of some applications only work on XP. As far as games go, I have never found or even heard of a game that works only on XP. Doing something like that would be suicide. That is like releasing a game only for linux.

[Marshmallowman]

win2k supports SMP not HT, you will not get the same performance advantage.

Winxp has better support for video editing etc, but that really depends on what software you like to use.

I would think that win2k IS more stable than winxp, they may have a similar base design but there are signifcant differences, more in the graphics department than anything else.

I'm toying with the idea of reverting back to win2k myself.

[UtwigMU]

I'll switch to XP on next install (temporary driving them now).

I found out what needs to be tweaked to make them more win2k like. Also the recently posted guide of Workstationizing 2kr was useful, as you can do reverse steps on XP to make them more 2k like.

[DGhost]

Personally, there are enough core differences and additional functionality in XP that i really consider using 2k along the lines of using NT4 instead of 2k.

As XP becomes the targeted platform devlopment (and i believe it is right now) the updates that are required to use software on 2000 will simply have the effect of adding all the extra things 2k that you don't want in 2k without getting any of the advantages. *shrug*

plus, XP SP2 is really, really nice. it is acctually worth it. just imho.

anyways, onto other things... personally XP is as stable if not more so than 2k... i have yet to have a single hardlock or bluescreen on my (new) rig, or my oldish laptop (366 PII, 256MB Ram, 6gb HDD). My old system has not had any problems in quite a long time (and most of those problems were related to the graphics card - ie, Matrox's Parhelia drivers or ATI's rather craptacular older drivers.

honestly, i think part of the problem that most people have is they go out of their way to tweak things. XP has a lot of automatic performance tuning tweaks in it. it may not be the best for every situation, but honestly the solutions to the psychosomatic problems people encounter often times are... well.. damaging or simply bogus.

one other things... as i stated in that other thread... using Windows Server 2003 as a desktop os is just a bad bad idea. i would almost go so far as it use the terms "idiotic" "pointless" and "iq smaller than pant size". it offers no benefit and has a fair amount of drawbacks and problems. not to mention the shear number of potential issues that come from half of the tweaks that people use. *shiver* there are so many more differences between the two that you cannot simply disable a few services and be good. even just in registry setting tweaks, there are tons and tons and tons of them. it just will never be the same or never be as good.

[MultimediaMan]

DGhost: Not to go too far OT, but there are fewer differences in Win2K3 and XP than you would otherwise expect. I am not advocating going the Win2K3 "workstation" hack, but it offers far fewer pitfalls than what you are suggesting.

[Tempest]

Yeah, that server->workstation thing has been going on for a while... I remember people tweaking WinNT/Win2000 servers for desktop use because they "were optimized for heavy I/O workloads" or whatever.
Still, I find XP very stable, as stable as Windows 2000 before it. My uptimes with both OSes have been what I need - that is, they don't crash until I reboot them (might be days, weeks, even 2-3 months).

The reason that I use WinXP is ClearType, otherwise I would stick with Win2K because it has a smaller memory footprint (even after services have been tweaked). I know that WinXP starts up faster and has better recovery options than Win2K, but I don't care about that since I only reboot a few times per month - and as soon as I see a bluescreen that can't be solved by driver-fiddling, it's reinstall time for me.

XP is a bit more easier in the "multimedia for dummies" category, but I don't care about that since I always do my multimedia thingies the hard way

[rugger]

I have had very few problems with XP. The problems I have had with XP have been:

1) Hardware problems: I did have my memory settings too agressive and that caused problems when the weather got hot. (as it does in perth)

2) Codec problems: I had a dodgy XVID codec installed for a couple of months, and that gave me endless headaches.

Apart from that, no real problems, and my current install of XP has lasted 12 months since it was installed.

[spadnos]

I've been on Win2k for 3 years+ with no reinstall. That's with tons of development software, misc. program and driver installs/uninstalls, hardware changes, and ghosting from a DeathStar drive (had to figure out how to get Ghost to continue after hitting a bad sector - it was that bad. )

I leave my machine on all the time (unless I'm changing hardware or installing software that requires reboots).

I'm getting ready to replace it (can't be without a working machine), and can't think of any reason to go with WinXP. The only experience I (or my friends) have with XP is bad.

I'd say - if you're reinstalling anyway, and there's no specific feature you NEED XP for, go with 2k. Otherwise, go fo XP.

- Steve

[DGhost]

MultimediaMan: the differences perhaps might not be quite so extreme. it definately is a possibility.

however, you do have to keep a few things in mind. the first thing is that while Windows XP and 2003 Server both did start from the same code base (Whistler, mid 2000) the project forked when it hit Beta 2 (March 23, 2001) and they became different products with different code bases. XP went gold within a matter of months (August 24, 2001) whereas the then titled .NET Server had not even hit Beta 3 at that point. it took almost 2 more years (March 28, 2003) for Microsoft to RTM Windows Server 2003 up, during which time they made numerous changes on all levels - from the HAL on up to the applications it includes and the settings they have. It made numerous changes to the way it handles drivers, device errors, memory and processor management, etc etc. A lot of things originated from the need for 24/7 uptime and availability, as well as fault tolerance and maintenance. From my understanding the codebase that started off Longhorn came from the Server 2003 codebase (in yet another fork) and a majority of the patches/bugfixes that come to the XP codebase now originate in either the 2003 Server or the Longhorn codebase.

while yes, they were the same product to start, the claim that "2003 Server is just XP with server software" is just simply not true. XP could possibly have more in common with 2000 than it does with 2003 Server, despite the fact they started with the same code base.

Although, i think that is likely to change a bit once SP2 hits.

*shrug* perhaps I am off base with this, but considering that Microsoft spent an additional year and a half tweaking the code and settings for server use, i wouldn't be so quick to lump them together in the same boat.

Tempest - last time i started up clean installs of both XP and 2000 they had similar memory foot prints. That might change as programs get used (IE being a major one), but in general they were similar. It did have a tendancy to cache data more than 2k, from what i remember, but that is in general a good thing (tm).

I might have to chuck of copy of 2000 on something to get an idea of it again.

[leech]

I think for now I'm going to stick with WinXP unless I have more problems with my new install (as of Sunday). If I have more issues (like installing games and having a hard crash before it even asks where I want it installed to... or even before the EULA is displayed) then I'll go back to Win2k. It's always seemed a bit more stable to me anyhow....

Leech

[dbdg]

Like spandos I have had 2k for years (2000 I think) and it has always been stable, I only ever rebuild when I change the majority of my hardware.

That and I can't be bothered paying out £160 for the upgrade from 2k Pro, I'll wait for the next version of Windows. (£260 spread over 5-6 years is quite good in my book)

On the games issue the only game I haven't been able to get working was the Original Raindow Six, that was an installer issue though.

[The PIT]

Originally posted by leech
I think for now I'm going to stick with WinXP unless I have more problems with my new install (as of Sunday). If I have more issues (like installing games and having a hard crash before it even asks where I want it installed to... or even before the EULA is displayed) then I'll go back to Win2k. It's always seemed a bit more stable to me anyhow....

Leech

If it does that then theres something wrong elsewhere probably hardware related. Time to start diagnosing your box.

[Belwarrior]

I am not going back to win2k as i am still on it..LOL..didnt even reinstalling to change motherboards.. going from a asusA7V via to gigabyte7n400pro. (i had to change just a couple of things..)

I use winxp pro at work that is more or less like a win2k with some extras.. personally i had not moved to winxp which is not a bad OS simply because i dont see/need the advantages it has over win2k.

@Leech, HT is not supported by win2k (supported in a later service pack???) but then HT is a software solution as the benefits of HT are only realised when programs are written with HT in mind (if i'm wrong, i must have got the wrong impression at an Intel Seminar) else having HT enabled might even slow down certain systems.
My suggestion : Try sticking with WinXP Pro.. try turning off HT and update your drivers and/or software.

But if you switch over to win2k, hey welcome back
I dont encounter any problems in my win2k and all the games i play are all working..
-regards

EDIT: oops went for lunch without hitting "submit reply" and didnt realise leech had answered..