W2K or WXP? Seriously...

[ShadeX]

No intention of starting a holy war or hate thread, just looking for some honest opinions.

After having tried WXP for a few months, and esp. after trying out SP2, i find myself thinking about going back to the W2K path.

For the record, SP2 does little for me but annoy me even more. My Internet connection runs through a Linux gateway (no firewall/windows worms problems), i've dumped IE a looong time ago (NS6/7-Firefox since 0.9), OE went along (NS6/7-Thunderbird since 0.8?), all my apps come from either legit sources or get scanned by several AV's long before they hit my box.

IMHO, WXP always felt more "intrusive" to me than W2K ever managed to be, and with SP2 it gets on my nerves REAL FAST.

Apart from the odd app or so that is WXP specific, and with wich i can live without (all from same software vendor, all with better non-XP-specific previous versions wich worked far better), i gained very little.

Now, i know that sticking to a 4+ year old OS is not good, but WXP and further SP's look even worse. So, what i need is some honest opinions on WHY WXP is better Moving from NT4 was based on need to do, NT4 had no AGP support, DX was stuck on 5, no USB, no PNP, no many things. So, what does WXP have that W2K doesnt that "could" make WXP a NEEDED upgrade?

Faster boot doesnt cut it, and AFA security goes, i learned how to take care of the tipical MS "holes and problems" back in the NT4 days (get a real firewall, get a software firewall, dump IE, dump OE, turn off any unnecessary services, etc etc...)

TIA for all opinions.

 

[OMG1Penguin]

Poll~

I use W2k after using each for about a year.
It seems more "to the point". Then again, that's why people like XP (more "fun").

Shrug

Coke or Pepsi?

 

[kylef]

There are lots and lots improvements in XP (far too many to list here in a thread), but whether or not they mean anything to you is a different story entirely. To know that, we'd need to know more about your hardware (processor, memory, peripherals), your typical apps (any development? games? etc), and your typical computer use habits (do you only use the command line? do you launch apps frequently?).

But honestly, since you already have XP, I have no earthly idea why you'd want to revert to Win2k. What advantage do you think you're going to get?

What is it about XP in particular that you don't like? Please be specific. "Too intrusive" or "I've read horror stories about SP2" won't get responses.

 

[MrChad]

This question has been asked about 19,231,350,985 times on this forum, but I'll offer my two cents.

The differences between XP and 2000 are minimal at best. Here's my take:

• Interfaces can be hit or miss with some people. I happen to like the new XP start menu and find it more intuitive than earlier versions, once you get used to it. Of course, you always have the option of reverting to the "Classic" interface if that's what you prefer.
• XP supports new hardware better than 2000. Got a new P4 with Hyperthreading? You'll need XP to recognize your CPU as two logical processors versus two physical ones (and thus use the feature most effectively). Got an Athlon 64? You'll need XP SP2 to utilize the hardware data execution protection (DEP) features that AMD has provided. These are only two examples, but even as new hardware is introduced, Microsoft has been updating their flagship desktop platform to keep up. 2000 users will be left behind.
• XP boots faster than 2000
• XP SP2 is more secure than 2000. The bottom line is that you won't get the protection of SP2's new security code any time soon if you downgrade to 2000. I don't buy the excuse of "I run a firewall and anti-virus, I have nothing to worry about." Exploits have gotten around these protections before using Windows vulnerabilities, and they will continue to. SP2 helps patch things up quite a bit.
• XP will continue to be supported by Microsoft long after 2000's lifespan has ended.

These are just a few reasons, but I'm sure lots of people will chime in with more.

 

[ShadeX]

Box specs : A7N8X Deluxe AMD 2600+ 1GBDDR400, 40GB Seagate 7200 ATA100 Sys HD 120GB Seagate 7200 SATA Data HD, GF4-4200. So, my box isnt holding XP back ,)

I work as tech support for a living and do some gfx/video work and some web design. Some dev, but not much nowadays. A couple of games (Mostly Q3A, my REAL games box is a P233MMX with old games, cause most stuff nowadays plain suckx). Nothing really new, no cutting edge apps (unless i have to test the for work related issues).

As for frequently launching apps, its a matter of opinion I usually have 4/6 apps open, plus a fair few browser windows and Windows Explorer windows. Couple of Putty/SSH windows. Plus my regular stuff like Daemon Tools, TightVNC, Gaim, FF/TB, etc ...

But honestly, since you already have XP, I have no earthly idea why you'd want to revert to Win2k. What advantage do you think you're going to get?

Peace of mind? Not getting treated as a moron? Not even even Apple treated its users to such a degree of "you are too dumb to do anything without 10 warnings and 5 requesters...

What is it about XP in particular that you don't like? Please be specific. "Too intrusive" or "I've read horror stories about SP2" won't get responses.

I have to reconf it to look like W2K classic, "Best performance" rings a bell to you? After SP2 i have to get rid of a firewall I NEVER ASKED FOR. I got Auto updates back on again, even tough i HAD TURNED THEM OFF. I need to hack sys files because of TCP connection rate limiting??? As i said i do it for a living, so, its not "horror stories" its everyday life to me...

Kylef, tough it might sound like it, im neither pro or con Windows/MS. From where i stand now, i got boxes running stuff from Linux to DOS to QNX to Windows, so im not OS centric as some ppl.

NT4->W2K was a good upgrade for the reasons i mentioned and some else. From W2K->WXP i dont see many. Therefore the original question. What did XP bring to the table that i somehow missed and is lacking in W2K?

p.s. Just a matter of "feeling" but XP does seem to get "dirtier" faster. After 8 months, my XP box feels slugish than my W2K did after 2 1/2years.

 

[MrChad]

I have to reconf it to look like W2K classic, "Best performance" rings a bell to you? After SP2 i have to get rid of a firewall I NEVER ASKED FOR. I got Auto updates back on again, even tough i HAD TURNED THEM OFF. I need to hack sys files because of TCP connection rate limiting??? As i said i do it for a living, so, its not "horror stories" its everyday life to me...

1. SP2 provides a firewall out of the box. You can use a third-party one if you choose. If you choose neither, XP will reprimand you (as it SHOULD, because you should be running a firewall no matter what). You can even turn this reprimanding off if it bothers you so much.

2. Many users don't have auto update enabled. They should, because unlike you they don't go to Windows Update regularly. You can still turn auto updates off, if you choose.

3. There is no limitation on TCP connections, there is a TCP connection queue that has been added. The queue should have little to no impact on any programs, except of course worms and viruses. This has been discussed before on these forums and was explained very well by bsobel.

 

[ShadeX]

Originally posted by: MrChad
[*]XP SP2 is more secure than 2000. The bottom line is that you won't get the protection of SP2's new security code any time soon if you downgrade to 2000. I don't buy the excuse of "I run a firewall and anti-virus, I have nothing to worry about." Exploits have gotten around these protections before using Windows vulnerabilities, and they will continue to. SP2 helps patch things up quite a bit.

Sorry, but i just HAD to reply to this one My usual config is Cable Mode -> Broadband Router w/ firewall -> Linux Gateway -> Windows XP + Keryo 2.15 (just for internal alerts really). ATM BB router is getting fixed Wont say it cant be exploited, but ur gonna have a LOT of trouble at it... And as i said, IE+OE have been long gone from use. Only time IE sees some use is when i test some site wich happens to LIVE in my internal webserver...

Its not my fault that ppl keep junking their PCs with malware, virus and really shaddy apps they download. Its not MS's fault either. Kudos to MS for giving it a try, but it would have been better to tell them to get a HARDWARE firewall. And then again... You might come across someone who put its XP SP1 into the routers DMZ cause MNS's voice doent cope all that good w/ firewalls. Did i hear Sasser?

These are just a few reasons, but I'm sure lots of people will chime in with more.

Hope so

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: OMG1Penguin
Poll~

I use W2k after using each for about a year.
It seems more "to the point". Then again, that's why people like XP (more "fun").

Shrug

Coke or Pepsi?

More like coke vs coke classic. Or maybe coke vs coke c2 (the semi diet one).

W2k and WinXP are escencially the same OS. W2k = NT5, WinXP = NT5.5

I'd go with WinXP every time if given the choice. Why? Because it's slightly newer. It's the "consumer" OS so it's going to get best support for games, drivers and such. It'll be supported slightly longer. The usefull lifetime/support of the OS from MS will extend just a little bit longer.

However, if I had a perfectly good W2k liscence laying around and I would have to go out and buy a seperate WinXP license to run XP, would I do it? Nope. No point.

If you dont' like the gui stuff just disable it. Personally I prefer a seperate firewall from my computers. Better to put it in the router instead of sticking it on the OS that your using for a desktop. Just less stuff to go wrong and firewalls you get for Windows tend to goober up the works.

 

[ShadeX]

Originally posted by: MrChad
1. SP2 provides a firewall out of the box. You can use a third-party one if you choose. If you choose neither, XP will reprimand you (as it SHOULD, because you should be running a firewall no matter what). You can even turn this reprimanding off if it bothers you so much.

REPRIMAND??? How about EDUCATE them? Tell them why they DO NEED a firewall? Oh, its because the avg Joe doesnt care, and we keep up this trend and he never will. Most ppl NEVER cared about teh security of their boxes, most never will. Hey, i should know. This last year i made a living out of virus, malware and worms... You can stop many things with AV's and firewalls, you CANT stop clueless users. Thats where education comes in. If they know what they face, they can prevent it, or at least minimize it.

2. Many users don't have auto update enabled. They should, because unlike you they don't go to Windows Update regularly. You can still turn auto updates off, if you choose.

If you mean Critical Updates, fair enough, if you mean all the other junk, forget it.

3. There is no limitation on TCP connections, there is a TCP connection queue that has been added. The queue should have little to no impact on any programs, except of course worms and viruses. This has been discussed before on these forums and was explained very well by bsobel.

P2P apps come to mind. Multiple connection FTP too... What was the max connection failed b4 queue? 10? ,) I might not care much for P2P, and even less for worms/bots, but neither do i like "artificial limitations".


And this is going off topic... plz lets get back on track... me included

 

[ShadeX]

Just thought of something... PCI-XPress... Anyone knows if GOOD support will be XP only, or is W2K included? ATM it makes little diference 4 me, but that could move some ppl on this W2K/WXP decision.

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: ShadeX
Hey, i should know. This last year i made a living out of virus, malware and worms... You can stop many things with AV's and firewalls, you CANT stop clueless users. Thats where education comes in. If they know what they face, they can prevent it, or at least minimize it.

Then you should know that only users who want to be educated will learn. The motivation is typically higher when they've escalated their frustration to your level (tech support).

Look, the Windows Firewall by default was a no-brainer. We have absolutely no control over what hardware people connect the computers to. But we do have some degree of control over how we expose people to hardware pitfalls. Turning on the firewall is the right thing to do for 95% of people.

And believe it or not, it is probably the right thing to do for you, too: if anyone were to drop by and connect to your LAN behind your firewall (say, a friend brings over a laptop) and this person's computer happened to have a worm for which your system didn't yet have the patch (because you didn't have Automatic Updates enabled), then you're quite possibly Up the Creek without a Paddle.

2. Many users don't have auto update enabled. They should, because unlike you they don't go to Windows Update regularly. You can still turn auto updates off, if you choose.

If you mean Critical Updates, fair enough, if you mean all the other junk, forget it.

The only patches Automatic Updates installs are critical ones and service packs (suitably delayed to permit testing).

And this is going off topic... plz lets get back on track... me included

So far, I think you've already decided you don't like XP. Since "perception" is usually more important than reality, why not just go with your gut?

True support for hyperthreading is only available in XP, but you don't have a HT processor. Suspend/Resume is MUCH better in XP, making it the obvious choice for laptops, which you don't have. Processes launch faster on XP due to Prefetch, but you think XP performance is worse. If you're a developer (which you are not), XP has all kinds of improvements like live process debugger attachment. Tab completion is enabled by default in cmd.exe. Explorer is skinnable, although it sounds like you don't care for that (you can always turn it off). XP is more robust to buffer overflow exploits because most system binaries are compiled with stack overrun protection, but it has a ~2% perf hit which I'm sure you will object to. XPSP2 supports hardware "data execution prevention" (using the NX pagetable entry bit), but your CPU doesn't support it.

There are lots more, but I'm just thinking that for each thing I list, you will find a reason not to care about it. That's why I say go with whatever makes you happiest.

Edit: As far as PCI-Express is concerned, Windows supports whatever you have a driver for. If you have a PCI-Express bus driver from your motherboard chipset manufacturer, it should work in 2k or XP.

 

[BespinReactorShaft]

I use 2k at work, and XP at home. 2k is functional and more than satisfies for "office-oriented" tasks. XP has the aesthetics and that "ready-for-gaming" feel.

BTW, this is referring to the pre-SP2 release of XP.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: kylef
True support for hyperthreading is only available in XP, but you don't have a HT processor.

HT is enabled and works in W2K, but the OS doesn't know that those two CPUs share cache resources, etc., so it's not optimized for HT. But it will work.

Originally posted by: kylef
Suspend/Resume is MUCH better in XP, making it the obvious choice for laptops, which you don't have.

But Hibernate is still broken, by design, for all but the most minimalist of scenarios, which MS doesn't adequately describe, nor protect against the mis-use of, leading to issues and data-corruption in most cases.

Originally posted by: kylef
Processes launch faster on XP due to Prefetch, but you think XP performance is worse.

Or slower, if the prefetch data is "stale".

Originally posted by: kylef
If you're a developer (which you are not), XP has all kinds of improvements like live process debugger attachment.

I can do that fine with VC6 in W2K SP2.

Originally posted by: kylef
Tab completion is enabled by default in cmd.exe.

Nothing more than a registry entry modification needed in W2K either.

Originally posted by: kylef
Explorer is skinnable, although it sounds like you don't care for that (you can always turn it off).

Whoohoo! One point for XP - new, more-flashy GUI support. Color me enthused.

Originally posted by: kylef
XP is more robust to buffer overflow exploits because most system binaries are compiled with stack overrun protection, but it has a ~2% perf hit which I'm sure you will object to.

Worse, I don't think that this can be optionally disabled, correct? I never enable that option when compiling code, it does result in some pretty spectacular bottlenecks in the inner loops.

Originally posted by: kylef
XPSP2 supports hardware "data execution prevention" (using the NX pagetable entry bit), but your CPU doesn't support it.

Here's what I don't totally understand - Linux has supported the same sort of thing, for some time now, but with regular x86 CPUs, not needed any special hardware support. I know x86 asm, but I'm not a low-level Linux guru, so I'm kind of curious how they are pulling this off.

Originally posted by: kylef
Edit: As far as PCI-Express is concerned, Windows supports whatever you have a driver for. If you have a PCI-Express bus driver from your motherboard chipset manufacturer, it should work in 2k or XP.

I don't have a PCI-E system, but everything that I've read about it, claims that it should be software-compatible with existing drivers, everything is still logically the same, aside from some new additional features for isochronous channels and stuff.

Originally posted by: kylef
There are lots more, but I'm just thinking that for each thing I list, you will find a reason not to care about it. That's why I say go with whatever makes you happiest.

That's really *the* deciding factor between XP and W2K, for most people. Quite frankly, I do find WinXP to be, well, rather annoying at times. Much moreso than W2K does. W2K does what it should, and stays out of the way. XP always tries to get in your face, assuming that you are "just a stupid user". Not to mention all of the new glitzy, but buggy and highly-exploitable, add-on features, like shell support for images, zip archives, etc., and a whole host of other things. Plus all of MS's monopoly-supporting bundled appware, like MSN Messenger, which is pretty-much impossible to remove unless you know the semi-secret incantation to modify one of the shipping installer .INF files to allow it to be removable. An end-user shouldn't have to go to those extremes, just to configure *their* computing environment in the way that they feel most comfortable about it.

Suffice it to say, my main environment is W2K SP2, although I still have Win98se and also WinXP SP1 installed on this box too. I just wish Win98se and W2K had better USB/USB2.0/802.11 support.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: kylef
XPSP2 supports hardware "data execution prevention" (using the NX pagetable entry bit), but your CPU doesn't support it.

Here's what I don't totally understand - Linux has supported the same sort of thing, for some time now, but with regular x86 CPUs, not needed any special hardware support. I know x86 asm, but I'm not a low-level Linux guru, so I'm kind of curious how they are pulling this off.

I believe that SP2 has some software-based DEP as well. Text

Software-enforced DEP

An additional set of data execution prevention security checks have been added to Windows XP SP2. These checks, known as software-enforced DEP, are designed to mitigate exploits of exception handling mechanisms in Windows. Software-enforced DEP runs on any processor which is capable of running Windows XP SP2. By default, software-enforced DEP only protects limited system binaries, regardless of the hardware-enforced DEP capabilities of the processor

 

[Sideswipe001]

At work we have a mixed Win2K / WinXP environment; I have seen little practical difference between the two. I prefer XP professional. I would personally go XP Pro --> Win2K --> XP Home. For a technical user, 2K might be preferable to XP. But the idiot end user "feels better" using XP. They like faster boots. They like prettier looks. They like all those stupid things that you, and many other more technical people disable. I like the firewall because it's one less thing for me to have to install on every freaking computer in the office. I like the added security; and believe it or not, XP has been generaly more stable here, than 2K is (though neither crashes very often).

As a side note, Windows Server 2003 (XP in effect) is much MUCH improved over Server 2000 family. There was a lot of nice Active Directory improvements, etc, enough that I wish I could convince the boss here that we need to upgrade. But alas, it would just be money to make MY job easier.

 

[Sunner]

ShadeX, I agree on the part about educating users. unfortunately, that kind of utopia seems entirely impossible since a majority of the world's people don't want to learn anything they don't absolutely have to.
This doesn't just go for computers, but for just about anything more advanced than a toaster.
I still think there should be a license to be allowed to use computers

VirtualLarry maybe this will explain the Linux NX support.
Granted, that is how OpenBSD does it, but AFAIK they were first, and the Linux guys probably did something similar.

 

[Canterwood]

Personally I prefer 2000 over XP. I get annoyed that XP Pro is just as dumbed down as XP Home! Its PRO for god's sake!

I also prefer that 2000 give you the base OS, then you can add the apps you want, as opposed to being swamped with what MS wants you to use in XP.

At the moment ther's no compelling reason for me to use XP. (other than on a test rig)

Its all personal preference, at the end of the day.

BTW, Virtual Larry, Win2K SP4 does have USB2.0 and 802.11 support (though I've never tried using wireless under 2K). Is there a compelling reason your still on SP2?

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
HT is enabled and works in W2K, but the OS doesn't know that those two CPUs share cache resources, etc., so it's not optimized for HT. But it will work.

Which is why it's not true support. In fact, using HT in Win2k actually degrades single-thread performance under most cases: overall throughput in this case is generally better only if multiple threads are in the ready queue more than a certain percentage of time. Below that, overal performance degrades too. In general, HT on Win2k is a losing proposition. (The Win2k situation is much worse on a Dual Xeon system...)

Or slower, if the prefetch data is "stale".

I don't have the data in front of me, but stress runs show that Prefetch is almost always faster than no-prefetch.

Originally posted by: kylef
If you're a developer (which you are not), XP has all kinds of improvements like live process debugger attachment.

I can do that fine with VC6 in W2K SP2.

Sorry, I meant to say live *detachment*. Which is very important when debugging server processes of any kind. You can detach and let the app continue as though it had never been debugged. And BTW, VC6 has problems of its own (but those are a topic for another thread).

Whoohoo! One point for XP - new, more-flashy GUI support. Color me enthused.

Some people demand "cool" GUI computer experience features like this. You're obviously not one of them.

Worse, I don't think that this can be optionally disabled, correct? I never enable that option when compiling code, it does result in some pretty spectacular bottlenecks in the inner loops.

This can absolutely not be disabled. From a technical standpoint, that would mean distributing two copies of every system binary, which is not feasible.

And the /GS flag should incur no "bottlenecks in the inner loops"... the perf hit is in the compiler's generated code for function prologs and exits (using a hash to verify return addresses before blindly jumping to them). In other words, function calls/returns incur the overhead. The interior of functions incur no performance overhead from /GS whatsoever.

Here's what I don't totally understand - Linux has supported the same sort of thing, for some time now, but with regular x86 CPUs, not needed any special hardware support. I know x86 asm, but I'm not a low-level Linux guru, so I'm kind of curious how they are pulling this off.

Linux support for this is most likely based on the use of the x86 segment descriptor (base and limit) registers, which aren't traditionally used in modern OSes. This is a fairly well-known trick, but has its own disadvantages (the registers' behavior is highly implementation-dependent). The NX bit, on the other hand, was designed to work at the virtual page (not segment) level and is much more suitable for modern implementations. That's why all of the chip makers have gone towards the NX path.

Not to mention all of the new glitzy, but buggy and highly-exploitable, add-on features, like shell support for images, zip archives, etc., and a whole host of other things.

Shell support for these items you have mentioned is not exploitable. And honestly, most people LOVE these particular extensions because you don't have to go install more software just to open a zip file, or view the photos from your digital camera. I'll skip the "monopoly" comment because I didn't bring my asbestos suit today.

But Shell support for random application plug-ins IS highly buggy and exploitable. This problem has existed on every Windows release since Win98 (it's less exploitable in XPSP2 but just as buggy). Shell plug-ins cause all kinds of problems. Have you ever had Explorer.exe crash on you? The chances are good that the culprit was a poorly-written 3rd-party plug-in Dll that caused explorer.exe to crash. DivX installs shell extensions, for instance, and has caused my explorer.exe to hang when hovering over .avi files with the mouse (or right-clicking), or worse to fail to delete files because the plug-in is leaving file handles open. I cannot over-emphasize how evil these plug-ins truly are. Whenever I install an application, the first thing I look for are any Shell extensions that I can remove.

An end-user shouldn't have to go to those extremes, just to configure *their* computing environment in the way that they feel most comfortable about it.

Agreed, absolutely. Luckily Microsoft agrees too and is working on componentizing Windows so that minimal installs are truly possible. With a code base as large as Windows is now, it's a serious engineering feat. The component dependency graphs are amazingly complicated.

 

[ShadeX]

There are lots more, but I'm just thinking that for each thing I list, you will find a reason not to care about it. That's why I say go with whatever makes you happiest.

Wrong Tough you're right about me not caring for those things you mentioned (because i cant have them on my current setup), it was the kind of stuff i wanted to know that might put WXP apart from W2K.

On the "Anti-Stack-Smash" feature, i fell a bit split. In a server, i'd rather hit a 2% perf penalty than to be vulnerable. On a workstation, its a 50/50 situation. So, 2 sets of compiled binaries would be needd The NX function is the way forward, but you need the hw, so i guess its gonna be a server mostly thing for the time being.

Shell support for these items you have mentioned is not exploitable. And honestly, most people LOVE these particular extensions because you don't have to go install more software just to open a zip file, or view the photos from your digital camera. I'll skip the "monopoly" comment because I didn't bring my asbestos suit today.

Winrar/Winace. Zip was never my choice. And the builtin un-arch doesnt support RAR/ACE/BZ2/TGZ AFAICR. ACDSEE/IRFANVIEW and quite frankly the thumbs/preview built-ins suck. Monopoly isnt bad, if you use it right But cut downs suck. Defrag vs DiskKeeper Pro anyone? What makes me sad is that MS has SOOOOOO much $$$ it could bolt-in all kinds of decent stuff into Windows, yet always manage to bolt-in crappy cut down stuff. Sure, ppl would cry out MONOPOLY but for once it would be a GoodThingTM.

Agreed, absolutely. Luckily Microsoft agrees too and is working on componentizing Windows so that minimal installs are truly possible. With a code base as large as Windows is now, it's a serious engineering feat. The component dependency graphs are amazingly complicated.

Best wishes and best of luck. That would be a glorious day. A chance to get a "custom built" Windows would be sweet. Tough i pretty much doubt it would work for long. Too many inter-dependencies. So many apps REQUIRE stuff they DONT EVEN USE but insist on having. Reminds me of an app a long time ago in another OS that REQUIRED a lib to be present at install, even tough it never made a single call to it...

 

[M16Grenadier]

I still use W2K since WXP always gave me bluescreens after 2-3 months.

Longest time between installations of OS on my PC (This was my first attempt at W2K), and I haven't had any of the problems that I would have been plagued with XP by now.

W2K is basic and reliable. I have been running just as smooth as I was when I first loaded Windows 2000 on June 5, 2004. I don't use system restore with any OS, which was probably the only thing WXP had over W2K.

 

[AngleDust]

i prefer win2k as well because its more "to the point" like penquin said, but i'm playing around in xp again after the release of sp2.
i doubt microsoft will stop supporting 2k before xp, i mean lots of businesses and schools (well my school anyway) are primarily 2k right?

 

[Sideswipe001]

Originally posted by: AngleDust
i prefer win2k as well because its more "to the point" like penquin said, but i'm playing around in xp again after the release of sp2.
i doubt microsoft will stop supporting 2k before xp, i mean lots of businesses and schools (well my school anyway) are primarily 2k right?

They definitely will stop support for it first. They want to force those named organizations to upgrade, not stay with what they had. There are still buisnesses out there that use NT; but Microsoft stopped supporting it to make people upgrade. So you bet your life they will cut out support eventually.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: AngleDust
i prefer win2k as well because its more "to the point" like penquin said, but i'm playing around in xp again after the release of sp2.
i doubt microsoft will stop supporting 2k before xp, i mean lots of businesses and schools (well my school anyway) are primarily 2k right?

Well, XP Pro is the immediate successor to Win2K Pro, so it's either upgrade or eventually lose support.

 

[kylef]

Originally posted by: Sideswipe001
They definitely will stop support for it first. They want to force those named organizations to upgrade, not stay with what they had. There are still buisnesses out there that use NT; but Microsoft stopped supporting it to make people upgrade. So you bet your life they will cut out support eventually.

Before making any assumptions, you should check the facts at the official Microsoft Product Lifecycle Chart.

There are two phases of support, Mainstream and Extended. On products released since this new Support Lifecycle was announced, each of these periods last 5 years from release date. Extended support basically includes critical fixes (security-related) only.

Windows 2000 Professional is scheduled to have its Mainstream support end in June 2005, and Extended support end in June 2010.

Edit: So you're right, obviously, that Win2k support will end before XP. But NT4 Server is still in Extended support. (And it turns out that this generally means that any critical updates released for NT4 server will also make it to NT4 workstation, but that's unofficial).

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: kylef

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
HT is enabled and works in W2K, but the OS doesn't know that those two CPUs share cache resources, etc., so it's not optimized for HT. But it will work.

Which is why it's not true support. In fact, using HT in Win2k actually degrades single-thread performance under most cases: overall throughput in this case is generally better only if multiple threads are in the ready queue more than a certain percentage of time. Below that, overal performance degrades too. In general, HT on Win2k is a losing proposition. (The Win2k situation is much worse on a Dual Xeon system...)

I'm going to be stubborn here, and ask what exactly 'true support' means. HT is a processor feature. W2K supports it, in as much as it properly recognizes and schedules for two virtual CPUs. I'll admit, that XP has slightly optimized this in order to recognize HT explicitly, and to use processor affinity in the scheduler as to avoid cache-thrashing as much as possible.

But the actual operation of HT, and the possible performance degradation that occurs, depends on the two threads scheduled, and the processor itself, not in any way the OS. The problem is the L2 cache and write/write-combine buffer contention on the CPU itself. XP can't magically elide those issues. Therefore, it's my assertion that W2K supports HT just fine. MS's line on requiring XP for HT is marketing FUD designed to push people to upgrade to XP. The only real issue is software licensing, and that has nothing to do with CPU execution efficiency.

Originally posted by: kylef
Sorry, I meant to say live *detachment*. Which is very important when debugging server processes of any kind. You can detach and let the app continue as though it had never been debugged.

You're right, I do remember reading something about that now.

Originally posted by: kylef
And BTW, VC6 has problems of its own (but those are a topic for another thread).

Oh, trust me, I could tell you some stories too..

Originally posted by: kylef

Worse, I don't think that this can be optionally disabled, correct? I never enable that option when compiling code, it does result in some pretty spectacular bottlenecks in the inner loops.

This can absolutely not be disabled. From a technical standpoint, that would mean distributing two copies of every system binary, which is not feasible.

That's what I suspected, thanks for clarifying.

Originally posted by: kylef
And the /GS flag should incur no "bottlenecks in the inner loops"... the perf hit is in the compiler's generated code for function prologs and exits (using a hash to verify return addresses before blindly jumping to them). In other words, function calls/returns incur the overhead. The interior of functions incur no performance overhead from /GS whatsoever.

Ok, I should have left out the word "inner" there. But in my experience, "/GS" does cause a notable slowdown.

Originally posted by: kylefShell support for these items you have mentioned is not exploitable. And honestly, most people LOVE these particular extensions because you don't have to go install more software just to open a zip file, or view the photos from your digital camera.

You mean, not any more, right? Because there were exploits for some of those features at one point, and if MS's patching of IE can be made an example, it certainly won't be the last.
As for the features, maybe I wouldn't mind them so much, if they were made an optional install item, kind of like some of the features from the Win98 "Plus" pack, like drive compression, and I think, Zip folder support back then too.

Originally posted by: kylefBut Shell support for random application plug-ins IS highly buggy and exploitable. This problem has existed on every Windows release since Win98 (it's less exploitable in XPSP2 but just as buggy). Shell plug-ins cause all kinds of problems. Have you ever had Explorer.exe crash on you? The chances are good that the culprit was a poorly-written 3rd-party plug-in Dll that caused explorer.exe to crash.

Hate to tell you, but the bundled ones in XP are nearly just as bad, especially when dealing with malformed data formats.

Originally posted by: kylefDivX installs shell extensions, for instance, and has caused my explorer.exe to hang when hovering over .avi files with the mouse (or right-clicking), or worse to fail to delete files because the plug-in is leaving file handles open. I cannot over-emphasize how evil these plug-ins truly are. Whenever I install an application, the first thing I look for are any Shell extensions that I can remove.

Again, hate to tell you, but WinXP's Explorer can do that even without DivX installed, and Explorer.exe has an open-file-handle leak itself, without any dodgy shell extensions loaded. (Yes, even in W2K SP2.)

Originally posted by: kylef

An end-user shouldn't have to go to those extremes, just to configure *their* computing environment in the way that they feel most comfortable about it.

Agreed, absolutely. Luckily Microsoft agrees too and is working on componentizing Windows so that minimal installs are truly possible. With a code base as large as Windows is now, it's a serious engineering feat. The component dependency graphs are amazingly complicated.

That's not a valid excuse here, unfortunately. Most of those user-mode components are already segregated in the installer .INFs. The simple fact is that MS doesn't give the user the choice, that's all. MS wants to make the choice for them, to force as much of their "crapware" onto the user as possible.
As for the compontization of system-level stuff, MS has been selling "Windows Embedded" based on the XP source code base for some time now. It's already componentized. So even if that were the reason for the above, that reason wouldn't be valid any longer.