Win2000 Still Performs on 8-year-old Hardware 688
Daniel Iversen writes "Still 95% compatible with Windows XP, The Windows 2000 OS still runs very well on very old hardware - hardware with low specs it was never even meant to run on (tech setup guide - not a review). The broad question is, does the fact that you can remain compatible with today's applications and data on hardware that is almost a decade old, impede PC sales?"
Mod me "obvious" but... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's your answer (Score:2, Informative)
Sure it does. Are we looking for someone to blame? How about the hardware industry, for spending all that money to make speedy whizbang processors and huge warehouselike hard drives that hardly anybody needs?
Windows Server 2003 is the new Windows 2000 (Score:5, Informative)
Windows 2000 is amazing-- blazing fast and solid as a rock. I tried XP for a couple months and quickly switched back to 2000. Unfortunately, as Microsoft slowly discontinues updates, patches, and support for Windows 2000, you will eventually have to migrate to XP, 2k3, or Longhorn.
I installed Windows Server 2003 a year or two ago and haven't looked back. It has all of the stability and speed of 2000, except with the improved compatibility and features of XP. Subjectively, I can tell you that it doesn't "deteriorate" like XP does. (Your mileage may vary.) And did I mention it was blazing fast on my dated hardware?
It uses a newer kernel than XP, for the record. One of the major differences I've noticed is that windows redraw more smoothly with less flickering, especially in Explorer. It includes XP's WiFi connectivity features, too.
There's an excellent site [msfn.org] dedicated to using Server 2003 as a workstation, including instructions on how to disable unnecessary services and processes.
Re:The Answer Is... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you know what's funny? I keep a win98 box around for a ham radio program I want to use occasionally, and for casual browsing in the shed: it's connected to the net, and it's almost never impacted by viruses and winnukes anymore. I have a feeling that, now that win95/98/ME aren't the most common Windows revisions anymore, virus and worm writers focus their attention on more modern Windows and as a result, my silly old Windows box is left alone now
Okay (Score:4, Informative)
Nlite [nliteos.com], nuff said.
But then you wouldn't see how this measures up to the article in question. So I'll say it like this:
Windows XP SP2 running on a Pentium 166 mhz with 32 meg RAM, only possible with Nlite [nliteos.com].
I ran this along with Xampp [sourceforge.net] to provide myself with a nice little development box that could still use Firefox/Thunderbird so roommates could read the web, play web games, and check their email.
I didn't hear any complaining except during playback of certain XviD and DivX files in BSplayer.
2000 heck, I use 98se (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Windows Server 2003 is the new Windows 2000 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I just use my turbo button! (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC, many games and other software written for the original IBM PC used software timing loops for delays (assuming the watch to be at 4.77 MHz). As faster 286 and 386 machines started showing up, the software that depended on those loops became unusable. So manufacturers added a "slow" mode, for compatibility. The turbo button remained a feature on cases for a long time after; many builders didn't connect it to anything.
What about BSD and others? (Score:3, Informative)
As for Windows 2000, yeah, thats great. I suppose you can get it to run on something old, but, why? What the author is suggesting is dumb. Why not just go and get a board and chip for $150, and build something, THEN put Windows 2000 on it. I don't see how running Windows on something like that will be useful. For a server, yeah. But I'd go with Linux or FreeBSD.
Re:I just use my turbo button! (Score:4, Informative)
On a lot of old machines it actually changed the clock multiplier. Back when there wasn't a new, faster processor stepping every 5 minutes people wrote games that used loops for timing. When you bought your new 286 to replace the 8086, all your games ran too fast. Hence the turbo button. Turn it off and halve your clock speed.
Re:I just use my turbo button! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Answer Is... Linux (Score:3, Informative)
That just seems silly. Now throwly RH 9 on there instead would make more sense, or even RH 7 if you're talking 8 years ago. They are starting to merge together for me so I don't remember which versions came out when.
At any rate, I don't see how any of this is really news. Win2k was fast for me even back when it was new, I beta tested it on a 486 100mhz box. It is fairly efficient and light when compared with XP which struggles on anything slower than 300mhz. Of course, XP is dramatically newer so I'm of the mind that is not so bad. In my mind Linux and Windows have led rather parallel lives in this regard.Re:Hardware, no. OS? Absolutely. (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional
64MB RAM Minimum, 133MHz CPU Minimum.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation
128MB RAM Minimum (Though it'll install on 64) and 300MHz CPU.
So if 2000 needs less to function, that leaves more for the rest of our software. And stop with the Weasel Words [slashdot.org].
Re:Personal Experience != Reality for Everyone Els (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure what was going on there, but your numbers are crazy. I ran Win2k on a P II 350 laptop with 128 MB of RAM and it booted in something around 5 minutes, probably less. It also ran reasonably well, but I'll admit I didn't use it for a whole lot (it dual-booted Debian).
So then I installed RedHat 9 and did something you can never do with Windows. I recompiled the kernel for SMP and tweaked it with the realtime patches.
RedHat 9 supported SMP out of the box - it should've loaded an SMP kernel after installation (at least RedHat 8 and RHEL do). Tweaking it for realtime, sure.
Also, Win2k Pro supports SMP for dual processors, so I'm don't see how you can claim that's something "you can never do with Windows"
Basically, I don't disagree with your assertion that Linux can be happier and more usable on old systems. I used WindowMaker, and Debian allowed for a impressively small install image allowing me to dual boot on a 6GB drive.
Re:Hardware, no. OS? Absolutely. (Score:2, Informative)
Windows 2K licenses, not really (Score:3, Informative)
The good thing about this is that when you do throw away the old boxes with 2K or NT, you have the licenses to run XP on whatever you replace them with.
Re:The Answer Is... Linux (Score:3, Informative)
First off why would you assume you need KDE? Run oh say ICEWM and stick the web browser, email, and office apps on the menu and it's good to go.
And second, yes, I've got hardware that old, and it runs KDE fairly well, with the animations and extraneous fluff turned off.
Re:What about BSD and others? (Score:3, Informative)
Either you added an extra "I" there, or your time-frame is completely off. The first PIIIs didn't even come out until 1999, which would be 6 years ago, not 9.
Because then you are wasting $150 (probably more, actually). A slightly slower computer works just fine, thank you. People with a lot of money, to whom $400 for a new computer every couple years, won't see the point.
For those who are willing to wait a few more seconds for their application to start-up, using older computers is a very good option. Hell, I had my old 386 in service as a firewall until it died about a year ago.
My question for you is, why NOT use old hardware, when it continues to function just fine. Sure, you can't use 20 year-old hardware anymore, but unless you're doing video encoding, volume encryption, etc, a system up to 10 years old works just fine, even with Windows.
Re:The Answer Is... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Duh (Score:3, Informative)
Largely illusion - MS only kicks on PART of Windows networking beforehand is why, whereas Windows 2000 kicked it ALL on @ bootup... takes time!
(Yes, you can make XP/2003 like 2000 in that regard using gpedit.msc iirc somewhere in its tree of config items, but the point is the faster boot of XP/2003 is an "illusion" in a way of looking @ it).
It is NOT an illusion. The drivers load differently and self optimized to load concurrently as needed.
Yes the desktop does appear a 'bit' before the networking is fully initialized on WinXP, but this is so MINIMAL it isn't the reason XP Boots faster.
Additional, do you understand the Security Risks that Microsoft has had to work around because of Networking services coming online in Win2k before the Security controls for them?
Even in SP2, Microsoft delayed the Network load in XP specifically to allow UPPER level OSI security layers to fire before the network becomes live.
Bascially WindowsXP not only BOOTS faster, but truly is faster. We have test systems that are 200mhz 80mb Laptops from 1997, and even with Eye Candy turned on WindowsXP consistently benchmarks (RW Applications) 5-10% faster.
So once and for all, and for all the people sticking with Win2k because they think it is faster, let's dispell the myth and inform the world that WindowsXP IS faster than Windows2K. PERIOD.
If you want to know exactly whan and how this is possible, take a look at the optimization and kernel changes from Win2k to WinXP. Win2k was a major NT overhaul, WinXP was the Pretty and PERFORMANCE enhanced version.
Just like as the OS base code fork continues forward, you will find that even on a desktop Windows 2003 Server performs better than WindowsXP.
This is because of FURTHER optimiation of the core OS, kernel and services.
I however DO understand the users that STAY with Win2K to avoid paying the $100 upgrade cost of WinXP - that makes sense at least.
But to stay with Win2k Because you think it is faster is just silly and pure non-sense.
Oh also on the DRM rant... DRM is something that is enforce by content providers because they like the concept of 'closed box' technologies like a DVD player that hooks directly up to your TV, not a Computer or a device that has the ability to MANIPULATE the data.
This is like the HDCP specifications. Even if your new plasma screen doesn't have HDCP compliance (designed BY REQUEST by Intel in 1999) and written into Law in August of 2004, you won't be able to access any of this DRM or HD protect content no matter if you stay with Win2k, Linux, MacOSX, or ANY OTHER OS that DOES NOT SUPPORT THEM. PERIOD.
HDCP is a FCC regulated REQUIREMENT BY LAW, and just because Linux or Win2k has no mechanisms for it, doesn't mean they will get to play this content. PERIOD.
So you can pout, and blame Microsoft for DRM, but without DRM, the DRM content would not be playable on a COMPUTER. PERIOD.
And if you really want to 'complain' about companies and their DRM extremism, go look at Apple iTunes and their music store.
Apple has the MOST restrictive DRM technologies for their Music and also have EXCLUSIVE rights to it and its distribution.
At least Microsoft's DRM is something they provide to developers and companies as a CONVIENCE of Windows Media, and is not something MICROSOFT ITSELF REQUIRES. IF the content provider wants to use DRM, they can use the DRM built in Windows Media if they want, but they don't have to.
Apple on the other hand, to even play a iTune song or play it on anything BUT an iPod is deemed ILLEGAL by Apple.
Microsoft on the other hand has a fairly open DRM developement strategy and requires NO locks unless the content provider puts it in.
This is why you can download Music from 99% of all non-iTunes stores and play them on 100s of MP3 and WMA portable players.
Apple's iPod has an advantage with the 'coolness' of the iPod in the mark