Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to Cheese
Re: [W2K] Is Windows 2000 still considered a rock-solid OS? This!
--
I may have been born yesterday. But it wasn't at night. |
|
 CheesePremium
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. |
|
|
|
 JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
·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
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 |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
OZOPremium
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. |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8 | 4GB will cause a slow machine.
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. |
|
JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| 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 |
|
 BlitzenZeusBurnt Out CynicPremium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:2
 ·Frontier FiOS
| 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. |
|
OZOPremium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 | reply to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ: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
It always amuses me to hear suggestions on this particular forum and it comes as a panacea for all problems related to Windows OS - "upgrade memory, it's cheap". Yeas, it's cheap ... if you can install it on your computer. But in majority of cases users can't upgrade memory on their computers, because of "planned obsolesce" embedded into majority (if not all) of consumer computers. And particularly - in chipsets supplied for CPU. Here is how it works - you buy a new computer and you stuck with destiny to replace is soon. Why? Because usually memory was already maxed out at the time of the purchase... You're happy for a while, until you discover a bit later, that someone in this forum will give you that very common advice - "just upgrade memory. Memory is cheap". Which usually translates in plain English - go and buy a new computer with a new and lifted up memory limit ... until some one else will tell you here again - go and upgrade memory, memory is cheap... As you probably have already noticed - it's plan endless loop, driven by the marketing trick: you've got a problem - go to buy memory, it's cheap (actually meaning - go and buy a new computer). Probably good for economy, not so good for personal budget though...
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
 BloodRosesAeolus, your daughter flies.Premium
join:2003-03-17
Louisville, KY | I don't have these issues because I outfit my computers with an appropriate amount of system memory. Currently the one I am using has 32GB. My machines regularly last 5 or more years.
--
Fairy Blessings,
Stefanie |
|
CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | And majority of users will function just fine with 4gb  |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8 | reply to OZO
But we're apparently talking about OS upgrades in this thread, and RAM is cheaper than software (and for good reason, in my opinion).
So the first suggestion should not be "add more RAM" but "don't upgrade the OS". The notion that you should somehow expect to run newer software on the computer you bought three years ago, given knowledge of the rate of technology change, is the flawed part of the plan. Yes, it can be done, but not necessarily by the naive. Figure out ahead of time whether the hardware you have will run the software you don't yet have. Don't buy the software and then find out you can't run it well.
Buy a computer system that will likely be adequate for N years, where N depends on your budget, and then use it for at least N years. And don't forget that system = hardware + software. |
|
JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| reply to OZO
said by OZO:said by JohnInSJ: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
It always amuses me to hear suggestions on this particular forum and it comes as a panacea for all problems related to Windows OS - "upgrade memory, it's cheap". Yeas, it's cheap ... if you can install it on your computer. But in majority of cases users can't upgrade memory on their computers, because of "planned obsolesce" embedded into majority (if not all) of consumer computers. And particularly - in chipsets supplied for CPU. Here is how it works - you buy a new computer and you stuck with destiny to replace is soon. Why? Because usually memory was already maxed out at the time of the purchase... You're happy for a while, until you discover a bit later, that someone in this forum will give you that very common advice - "just upgrade memory. Memory is cheap". Which usually translates in plain English - go and buy a new computer with a new and lifted up memory limit ... until some one else will tell you here again - go and upgrade memory, memory is cheap... As you probably have already noticed - it's plan endless loop, driven by the marketing trick: you've got a problem - go to buy memory, it's cheap (actually meaning - go and buy a new computer). Probably good for economy, not so good for personal budget though... Um... ok. So, this was a laptop. It has two memory slots. You unscrew two screws & take off the ram cover, remove the two sodims, and put in the two new sodims with twice as much memory on each. It takes about 5 minuets.
Heck, I've disassembled a mac mini and swapped out its ram - it's not rocket science.
That said, my first post was "it works fine on my atom netbook with 2GB ram" - win7 works OK with 1GB, and good with 2GB, so long as you're not running memory hungry apps, or a lot of apps.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8 | Sure, mechanically it's easy, but his point about the chipset is still valid. |
|
 markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
·Comcast
| reply to BloodRoses
said by BloodRoses:I don't have these issues because I outfit my computers with an appropriate amount of system memory. Currently the one I am using has 32GB. My machines regularly last 5 or more years.
I change the batteries in my smoke detectors every time I buy a new computer. I haven't had one catch on fire yet in 15 years!!!
There is more than RAM quantity to future-proof. 4 GB of RAM is a good amount if that is what you have. If you are building/buying today, 8 GB is a better target, but not required. Other factors are much, much more important.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix |
|
JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| reply to dave
said by dave:Sure, mechanically it's easy, but his point about the chipset is still valid.
But still hardly rocket science for ram upgrades
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by JohnInSJ:said by dave:Sure, mechanically it's easy, but his point about the chipset is still valid.
But still hardly rocket science for ram upgrades Think further back, JohnInSJ  , way back, when restrictions instead of installation hurdles existed... when Compaq's only had one socket, or HP's could only use single density, or some crappy northbridge link was maxed at 512MB per stick, then 1GB, etc.
Not so much an issue today, really. Even the base line Acer, Dell, and Lenovo's seem to take 4GB sticks x 2. Although, when 8GB becomes "you need more RAM" then we can add these to the list as well.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix |
|
JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| said by markofmayhem:said by JohnInSJ:said by dave:Sure, mechanically it's easy, but his point about the chipset is still valid.
But still hardly rocket science for ram upgrades Think further back, JohnInSJ , way back, when restrictions instead of installation hurdles existed... when Compaq's only had one socket, or HP's could only use single density, or some crappy northbridge link was maxed at 512MB per stick, then 1GB, etc. Not so much an issue today, really. Even the base line Acer, Dell, and Lenovo's seem to take 4GB sticks x 2. Although, when 8GB becomes "you need more RAM" then we can add these to the list as well. I can think all the way back to installing individual ram chips in sockets. When 8KB was a massive upgrade to an S100 bus CP/M machine.
Yeah. Way way back. Good times. Anyway, today (where today started sometime in 2007-9) you can replace a laptop for less than a ram upgrade would have cost you 5 years ago. Your option is to buy a new machine if your old machine isn't upgradable.
The OP has a high end machine which isn't old at all...
HP Z200 Workstation:
Memory Type Supported DDR3, UDIMM (Unbuffered), ECC and nECC
Memory Expansion Slots 4 DDR3 memory slots
Maximum Memory 16GB
takes PC3-10600 DDR3-1333 nECC Registered DIMMs
wants: same ram in each slot
upgrade: 4 identical PC3-10600 DDR3-1333 nECC Registered DIMMs
Over at Crucial.com, a pair of 8GB upgrades (two each) would be $82 and max you out.
That took 3 minutes to figure out via google.
Not rocket science.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
