Windows 2000

[stash]

In 99% of the situations, there is no reason a business needs anything more.

Ugh, 2000 domain controllers suck. Slow intrasite replication, lack of a strict replication feature, no 64-bit DCs, no application partitions, no multi-value attributes, no universal group caching, shitty tools, no GPMC (you could use an XP box for that, oh wait, XP sucks right?), etc, etc.

Also, IIS5 anyone? Smartcard support? Firewall?

2000 was a great OS, but to ignore the improvements in Server 2003 and XP (I'll take 256-bit AES EFS over 3DES thanks) is really shortsighted. To the point of blindness.

 

[postmortemIA]

Doesn't work on my P35 mobo, it locks up during installation of devices.

 

[Tommyguns]

Only OS on my system for the last 5 years has been 2k. Love it! Never had a problem until a week ago with this os and compatibility issues. First real hitch was halo2..., and then Nero ghost 12. when i was redoing a friends drive. No big deal, just used nero10. Err nother issue was red alert 2 not running in dual core mode for some reason. But a simple replacing of the hals works. Last issue was ati does not support 2k anymore. Replaced a older system with a 2600hd and it seems driver support was not available for his copy of 2k.
Other then that, Awesome! Easy freaking networking compared to xp, and none of the random crap i don't want.

Got vista on my new laptop and am very happy with it. Seems like a great laptop os. Simple, fast, and very responsive.

 

[Parasitic]

Quick two questions:

1. How well does Windows 2000 manage dual core processors? I know multiprocessor support is built-in, but does it require a patch just like XP?
2. I'm assuming Windows 2000 is still up par in graphical performance to XP?

Haven't run Windows 2000 on my desktop a while, might jump back in and play around with it (maybe dual boot Vista and 2k)?

 

[stash]

1. How well does Windows 2000 manage dual core processors? I know multiprocessor support is built-in, but does it require a patch just like XP?

There isn't really any support for HT or multiple cores in 2000. It will treat multiple cores as different CPU sockets, which will get you on licensing as explained in another thread. For example, 2000 Pro can only be licensed for 2 CPUs. If you have a single dual core CPU or two single core CPUs, you're ok. But if you have a quad core CPU, only two cores will be used. You would need to run a server SKU of 2000 to use all four cores.

XP Pro can also only be licensed for 2 CPUs, but it can tell the difference between a core and a socket. Licensing is based on sockets. So XP can utilize all four cores in a quad core system. You could also have two quad core CPUs on XP and all eight cores would be utilized.

 

[lxskllr]

I have 2000 on my bedroom computer. I like it well enough, but not as much as XP or Vista. Every so often an irritating driver issue will pop up, and I have to put more attention into it than I'd like to. I like it well enough for a secondary computer, but I'd never use it on my main box. Vista ftw!!

 

[Bradtechonline]

I love Windows 2000 Pro, I did my MCSE starting with 2000 pro and Server. I loved how Windows 2000 Pro was barebones, and was all about reliability instead of flash. I didn't go over to XP until SP2 came out. I even reverted back a couple times up till I started running into problems where they wouldn't allow 2000 to run certain games, and applications. I knew it could, just another gimmik to make you upgrade. I still have a couple machines on my work network that are 2000 Pro, and I have no problems with them.

 

[Madwand1]

I'm still running my main computer on Windows 2000, and frankly, it's given me a lot less trouble than XP and Vista and met my needs. I'm tempted to think that if something doesn't run on 2000, then it's probably not worth the trouble.

But its day has almost gone, with the effective stoppage of support and shift of attention, so when I do the next HW upgrade, I'll probably dual boot XP and Vista until Vista's good enough to fully replace XP.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

But its day has almost gone, with the effective stoppage of support and shift of attention, so when I do the next HW upgrade, I'll probably dual boot XP and Vista until Vista's good enough to fully replace XP.

In point of fact, Win2000 will be supported into the second half of 2010. Not that I'd discourage people from moving on, especially considering the security improvements with Vista.

 

[MovingTarget]

I still run it on my mac via VirtualPC. I have an older copy of matlab that is Windows-only lying around, so that was the best choice. Running it on a ppc chip takes a nice chunk of resources.

 

[pcslookout]

Windows 2000 was the best and most stable Microsoft OS ever. I wish Microsoft would create another os with such a small footprint because a os doesn't need to be over 1 GB. I know you can slim down xp and vista but it seems to cause more problems than its worth. I rather it just be something Microsoft does.

 

[beaver]

My favorite OS Win2K (PRO SP4), I have been using it years. I am thinking to upgrade to XP SP2 this year. It's a hard decision. So far, my main PC still runs win2k PRO SP4.
I have some old applications and scanner working well under win2k. They might have issues under new XP SP2.
But I have to use new sata hdd, which is better supported under XP SP2.
As said, it's a hard decision.

 

[Rubycon]

I have a few 2000 pc's doing control (sound) tasks due to the "lightness" of the OS. Heck I'd run NT 4.0 on them if it supported 1394 and USB 2.0. :Q

 

[apoppin]

my favorite OS ... i went from Win2K directly to Vista32 ... but i don't use it anymore because you need 'workarounds' for games and drivers

 

[jeece]

Win2k Pro is a favorite of mine. I love it and I'm used to it. Kinda like old, worn but comfortable slippers you just can't resolve to throw away. Had it installed on my first serious machine (Duron 850, dual boot 98SE for gaming) a while back. Still using it on my 3 PCs (main, server, HTPC). Always been reliable for me, all in all I get like 3-4 BSOD per year (combined), and those PCs are working 24/24 (weekly reboot).

Main computer (Athlon XP) died recently, so I decided to go with Vista 64 for its replacement. Haven't installed it yet, I hope the transition will be smooth. I'm also considering XP for the HTPC (P4 Shuttle), just to be a little bit more future proof *shrugs*.

I'm upgrading mostly to be able to use the more and more common apps that needs XP or higher (latest Flight Sim, Adobe Lightroom). Heck, we bought a MS webcam last week, drivers for Win2K don't even exist, couldn't get the damn thing to work.

 

[Trey22]

W2K on my main work PC. There are certain window behaviors I prefer in XP, but overall it's solid and doesn't crash.

 

[Blayze]

I still have 3 Windows 2000 machines here at home. All still work great. As others have said Windows 2000 has been my favorite Microsoft OS so far.

 

[networkman]

I have a couple Win2k boxes at home because they're stable, and most importantly, legal.

 

[acole1]

I am setting one up at work right now.

It's for testing an application that seems to only have problems with XP, but we do still have several W2K boxes around for every-day use.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: stash

In 99% of the situations, there is no reason a business needs anything more.

Ugh, 2000 domain controllers suck. Slow intrasite replication, lack of a strict replication feature, no 64-bit DCs, no application partitions, no multi-value attributes, no universal group caching, shitty tools, no GPMC (you could use an XP box for that, oh wait, XP sucks right?), etc, etc.

Also, IIS5 anyone? Smartcard support? Firewall?

2000 was a great OS, but to ignore the improvements in Server 2003 and XP (I'll take 256-bit AES EFS over 3DES thanks) is really shortsighted. To the point of blindness.

Add the CA and how it plugs into the W2K3 AD to that list. Much better.

Still have, but retiring the hardware for all of them, and so goes the OS. Plus, easier to support 1 MS server OS at a time, especially when you have multiple flavors of *nix to support in a corp.

 

[Mavtech]

About 7-10% of our users here at my company are still on Win2K. I can't stand supporting it anymore. I don't like it.

Funny how people mention how Win2K is "barebones" considering when it was released, it was considered to be a resource intensive OS. That's why it was never released as a consumer OS.

 

[bruceb]

My brother is using it on a Dell which is about 6 years old or so.

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: Mavtech

Funny how people mention how Win2K is "barebones" considering when it was released, it was considered to be a resource intensive OS. That's why it was never released as a consumer OS.

Not really. The primary reason for XP was to split Windows 5 into different market segments, including consumer. XP is actually more demanding by default.

 

[Mavtech]

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: Mavtech

Funny how people mention how Win2K is "barebones" considering when it was released, it was considered to be a resource intensive OS. That's why it was never released as a consumer OS.

Not really. The primary reason for XP was to split Windows 5 into different market segments, including consumer. XP is actually more demanding by default.

Of course it is. But, they came out about 2 years apart from each other. Windows 2000 was never intended to be "the other version" of XP or vice versa. When 2000 came out, it needed higher hardware than what consumers typically had in the computers and marketing was reserved for businesses.

 

[orangat]

Are there going to be a security issues (if they are plugged to the net) since there aren't going to be any patches anymore from Microsoft?