1 edit | [W2K] Is Windows 2000 still considered a rock-solid OS? I heard that Windows 2000 was one of the most stable rock solid Windows OS ever made next to Windows 7. Is this true?
However, I still think Win 7 is pretty unstable for its slowness and applications crash even on a machine that has 4GB of RAM on it. I mean its very very slow OS.
Hence - thinking about downgrading from Win7 to Win2000 if my machine supports it. The biggest pain being to download the drivers for it. Thats the hard part of it.
Thanks |
|
 redxiiPremium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Sherwood, MI
Suddenlink
ISDN
Fiber Optic
Broadband Tweaks
/dev/null
| How old is your machine and specs? Windows 7 is usually unstable on unstable hardware and Windows 2000 won't change that.
Another thing is to consider the programs you run, if they will run on Windows 2000 (not all programs stated as being compatible with XP will run on 2000). What good is it if it is stable if you can't do anything.
--
Moe, I need your advice… See I've got this friend named Joey Joe-Joe... Junior... Shabadoo.. |
|
| Its an HP Z200 Workstation with 4GB of RAM.
There is no issues with my PC, but my question was, that is Windows 2000 is more stable than Win 7 is? |
|
| reply to scottp99
Windows 2000 end-of-lifed in July, 2010. It is no longer possible to run securely, because Microsoft has not patched it since. Do not run Windows 2000.
--
Scott Brown Consulting |
|
 mozerdLight Will Pierce The DarknessPremium,MVM
join:2004-04-23
Nepean, ON | reply to scottp99
said by scottp99:I heard that Windows 2000 was one of the most stable rock solid Windows OS ever made next to Windows 7. Is this true?
Hence - thinking about downgrading from Win7 to Win2000 if my machine supports it. The biggest pain being to download the drivers for it. Windows 2000 is very solid -- Since 2001 still running strong in one data center I support but this will be decommissioned this year and replaced with Windows Server 2012 when the DB application gets upgraded.
You cannot compare Windows 2000 with windows 7 ... many applications that run under Windows 7 will not run under Windows 2000. Many modern peripheries will not run under Windows 2000 and THAT in itself renders Windows 2000 useless.
Windows 2000 replaced Windows NT4.0 --- stability and performance ALL depends on how abusive or astute [knowledgable] one is with all facets of the integration process [hardware/software/environment. For example, in the UNIX world restrictions is the norm --- You must know what you are doing from the get go. In the Windows world, due to the enabling nature of the OS, you do not necessarily need to know what you are doing so its much easier to screw up. 
--
David Mozer
IT-Expert on Call
Information Technology for Home and Business |
|
|
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8 | reply to scottp99
How do you define and measure 'slow' ?
And, as usual, I must be running a different OS to you: total of zero crashes across the 5 Windows 7 machines I use every day.
Windows 2000 is, of course, perfectly stable in the sense of "will never change". |
|
 CylonRedPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | reply to scottp99
I think it is 'solid' - stable but I would consider Win7 to be many times better. My work machine has Win7 and 4 gigs of ram - no issues what so ever with it being 'slow'. It is also anything but unstable...
Sounds like you have OS or bad applications more than anything else.
--
Brian
"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain |
|
 digitalfuturSees More Than ShownPremium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2 | reply to sbconslt
Agreed. I don't understand the "nostalgia" of being online and unsecure with old OSs, without thinking about the security aspects and how that impacts other users online.
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke. |
|
 not
@comcast.net | The Z200 is supposed to be a Core i5 based workstation with 8GB of RAM. If you think W7 is slow on a system like that, you either bought a base config system or there's another issue. As long as a system has a fast drive 7200RPM, 8GB of memory and at least a modern multi-core proc, the system should be fine. I'm running W7 Ultimate 64bit on a Core2Duo P9600 w/8GB of memory and it's fine. It's even a laptop, which sometimes makes for a slower machine depending on architecture.
Also, W2K won't properly support the chipset and proc technology in that PC. That system was built for W7. Upgrade your memory to 8GB. Why anyone would run less than even 6GB under W7 is beyond me. Make sure your OS is 64 bit first, otherwise you're wasting money on the extra memory, but it's time to step up to 64bit and a minimum of 8GB of memory if you want a proper speed machine. |
|
 markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
 ·Comcast
| reply to scottp99
said by scottp99:Its an HP Z200 Workstation with 4GB of RAM.
There is no issues with my PC, but my question was, that is Windows 2000 is more stable than Win 7 is?
Yes. XP, Vista, and 7 are "more stable" than Windows 2000. Garbage collection and kernel panic states are improved to help recover lost data, if that is how "stability" is measured...
Windows 2000 is no more or less stable than 1.0, 2.0, 3.1, 3.11, NT1-4, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, XP, Vista, 7, or 8 once you load drivers and applications that crash the entire OS. When 2000 was released, SMB devices with marked-up price tags and consumer grade electronics were starting to take hold with drivers that were poorly deployed. With 400-500 workstations deployed, the move to 2000 was more traumatic than the move to XP, Vista, or 7 combined. Printers/scanners, Office Suite, VS Suite, internal tools, etc. crashed and burned frequently. Our transition to XP Pro in 2003 was a breath of fresh air as hardware support and program suites solidified. The move to Vista in 2009 was smooth. We finalized roll-out to 7 64-bit this spring with minimal casualties. Does this count towards the OS "solid" stability? I wouldn't say so, the drivers/programs between 1998 and 2002 were horrid, a very bad time. XP/Vista/7 also gave a much smoother dual-boot and VM roll-out for our *nix workstations as well. I wouldn't count that towards "stability" either.
It should be mentioned that hardware improved at this time as well (2009 on). The middle-cheap workstation from Dell/Lenovo with leasing and volume pricing came with more suitable horsepower than generations previous. Overheating and power starvation was much less of a concern than years prior as the hardware become more efficient (same cheap PSU's were less overloaded, less heat as waste).
If you are on a Microsoft OS that isn't Vista/7/8, planning to migrate should be serious and of immediate concern. EoL of the OS is a place to avoid, aggressively avoid.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix |
|
 sivranOpera convertPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | reply to scottp99
Ah, Windows 2000. I ran a 2000 Server at home for quite a while before finally moving on to XP. I think the only time it crashed was when I put in a new video card and used the drivers off the CD, rather than downloading newer ones.
I probably wouldn't bother with it today, even on the same computer I used to use it on. That machine right now is my linux playtoy, it's too old for any Windows beyond XP.
--
Think Outside the Fox. |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·VOIPo
 ·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to scottp99
I think some people glorify Win2K because at the time, it was compared to Win9X/ME, which required daily/weekly reboots. If you weren't a gamer, Win2K Pro was a great platform (games weren't well supported yet).
I do not have fond memories of Win2K server. It was VERY buggy at release if you used the newer features. They resolved most of it by SP4.
Today I don't see any advantage in going with Win2K vs. XP. The performance differences aren't significant enough on modern hardware. You're going to have increasing amounts of issues as security patches and software don't support your OS.
XP is where it's at if you want something that's stable due to the sheer amount of time it's been refined, but still supported by most things.
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.
|
|
 BloodRosesAeolus, your daughter flies.Premium
join:2003-03-17
Louisville, KY | reply to scottp99
I would seriously considering increasing the amount of memory you have. 4GB is pretty low these days. It's fine if all you do is Facebook and Email, but anything more you'll find it less than responsive.
--
Fairy Blessings,
Stefanie |
|
 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | 4gb is plenty  |
|
 darciliciousCyber LibrarianPremium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:2
·Frontier FiOS
| That is not universally true.
--
♬ Music is life ♬ |
|
CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | 100 percent disagree.... for 95 percent of the world, it is absolutely true... |
|
darciliciousCyber LibrarianPremium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:2 | LOL 95% isn't universal; but 100% is 
--
♬ Music is life ♬ |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8 | reply to BloodRoses
Nonsense. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to scottp99
said by scottp99:I heard that Windows 2000 was one of the most stable rock solid Windows OS ever made next to Windows 7. Is this true?
However, I still think Win 7 is pretty unstable for its slowness and applications crash even on a machine that has 4GB of RAM on it. I mean its very very slow OS.
Hence - thinking about downgrading from Win7 to Win2000 if my machine supports it. The biggest pain being to download the drivers for it. Thats the hard part of it.
Thanks
There's obviously a problem with your Windows 7 build that most users don't experience.
Once you get that sorted out you will not even consider Windows 2000 or even XP as an alternative IMHO.
Good luck fixing it.
Dave
--
I may have been born yesterday. But it wasn't at night. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to not
said by not :The Z200 is supposed to be a Core i5 based workstation with 8GB of RAM. If you think W7 is slow on a system like that, you either bought a base config system or there's another issue. As long as a system has a fast drive 7200RPM, 8GB of memory and at least a modern multi-core proc, the system should be fine. I'm running W7 Ultimate 64bit on a Core2Duo P9600 w/8GB of memory and it's fine. It's even a laptop, which sometimes makes for a slower machine depending on architecture.
Also, W2K won't properly support the chipset and proc technology in that PC. That system was built for W7. Upgrade your memory to 8GB. Why anyone would run less than even 6GB under W7 is beyond me. Make sure your OS is 64 bit first, otherwise you're wasting money on the extra memory, but it's time to step up to 64bit and a minimum of 8GB of memory if you want a proper speed machine.
Heck, for a LONG time I ran 7 on an old 2006 Dual Core Dell tower with 1.5GB RAM.
It didn't support Aero but I never once thought of reverting to XP or 2000.
Dave
--
I may have been born yesterday. But it wasn't at night. |
|
