dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6525
share rss forum feed

scottp99

join:2010-12-11

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


redxii
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Sherwood, MI
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..

scottp99

join:2010-12-11
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?


sbconslt

join:2009-07-28
Los Angeles, CA
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


mozerd
Light Will Pierce The Darkness
Premium,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

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
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".


CylonRed
Premium,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


digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2

1 recommendation

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.


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
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


sivran
Seamonkey's back
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Irving, 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
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
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.


Darkfairy
Aeolus, your daughter flies.
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Tampa, FL
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


Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1
4gb is plenty


darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
said by Cheese:

4gb is plenty

That is not universally true.
--
♬ Music is life ♬


Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1
said by darcilicious:

said by Cheese:

4gb is plenty

That is not universally true.

100 percent disagree.... for 95 percent of the world, it is absolutely true...


darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:4
LOL 95% isn't universal; but 100% is
--
♬ Music is life ♬

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
reply to Darkfairy
Nonsense.


workablob

join:2004-06-09
Houston, TX
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

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.


workablob

join:2004-06-09
Houston, TX
kudos:4
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.


workablob

join:2004-06-09
Houston, TX
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Cheese
said by Cheese:

4gb is plenty

This!
--
I may have been born yesterday. But it wasn't at night.


Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1
reply to not
Not everyone runs 64bit first off, and 32bit isn't going to see more than 4gb. And even on a 64bit machine, 4gb is PLENTY for MOST users.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
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

Wow... I run W7 ultimate on machines ranging from as low as a 2GB ram atom CPU netbook up thru 16gb ram core i7 beasts. Runs rock solid.

Um. What are you running? Perhaps you're running something that needs more than 4gb ram? Are you swapping?
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

MrIcehouse

join:2006-02-07
Saint Petersburg, FL
reply to Cheese
32bit will see between 2.5 to 3.5gb depending on your BIOS and many other factors, you will never see 4gb of memory on a 32bit system due to memory addressing.

Back to the original poster, something is wrong with your Win 7 install, bad drivers or other problems, I had an old laptop with Win 2000 on it and now it has Win 7, much faster and no crashes.

MrIcehouse

join:2006-02-07
Saint Petersburg, FL
reply to scottp99
Win 2000 is more stable on older machines, You have driver or software issues, Windows 7 is very stable even with 2gb of ram like my older laptop. My desktop has 7 Ultimate 64bit with 4gb memory , currently running Photoshop, Indesign, Illustrator, TV turner program, email, chat and 10 tabs open on the browser, no crashes, hangs or slow downs.

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to scottp99
Make a backup of your Win 7 current installation (just in case)... Then install whatever OS you want and compare. If you have drivers both Windows 2000 and XP will run very fast on your computer (you will be surprised to see how fast it will be). And both OS's are stable. Not to mention that they use considerably less resources (HD space, memory for background processes/services, etc). Nobody can tell you here what is better for your environment. Only you can check it and make your own conclusion.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


not

@comcast.net
reply to Cheese
said by Cheese:

Not everyone runs 64bit first off, and 32bit isn't going to see more than 4gb. And even on a 64bit machine, 4gb is PLENTY for MOST users.

4GB will cause a slow machine, that's why it's suggested 6GB min. At today's prices, most machines come with 8GB anyway and 64bit is super stable without any issues. $50-$100 to upgrade a machine from 4 to 8GB is almost a no brainer.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

4GB will cause a slow machine.

Nonsense. Or at least, ridiculous generalization without data to back it up.

Mind you, I agree that if you're buying a new machine, you might as well buy 8GB. But it is far from clear that an existing 4GB system will be anything that can be called 'slow'. Especially since you don't bother to specify any kind of app load.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
said by dave:

4GB will cause a slow machine.

Nonsense. Or at least, ridiculous generalization without data to back it up.

Mind you, I agree that if you're buying a new machine, you might as well buy 8GB. But it is far from clear that an existing 4GB system will be anything that can be called 'slow'. Especially since you don't bother to specify any kind of app load.

I just bumped my work laptop from 8 to 16gb. For something like $85. Yeah, it just had to hit swap one time, and I was done
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

BlitzenZeus
Burnt Out Cynic
Premium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:3
reply to dave
If you buy a package they tend to overcharge you for 6 to 8GB, but if you build it yourself the cost difference between 4 and 8GB is so little you might as well.

Gamers might need more than 4GB, it's not a guarantee either, but games do need to cache quite a bit of data to prevent frequent loading screens, otherwise dynamically load areas as they enter them. People who do video editing, and things of this nature definitely can benefit from having more than 4GB.

There will be slow response when programs need are brought back to the active program, and were put into the pagefile, however only when the majority of the memory has already been used. In some case programs with memory leaks will cause this behavior, and tie up the resources to produce this effect also.

Overall I agree that the average person still doesn't need more than 4GB of ram for things your average consumer does, and are still fine on machines with 2GB of ram. I still use a machine to this day with no slowness on average applications with on 2GB of ram as it's the motherboards limitation, but I don't use it for gaming anymore. When I did game with newer games it would want to use all the memory it could, and forced some background programs into the pagefile, however the game was still playable without slowness. This machine is running Vista SP2, which Win 7 gold generally was.

So again, people saying that everyone with 4GB will have slowness is bunk.
--
I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires- Susan B. Anthony
Yesterday we obeyed kings, and bent out necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to the truth- Kahlil G.