Why no W2K support with newer vid cards?

[MichaelD]

OK, so let's get right down to the point. Where's my "Windows7 64-bit" so I can run 8GB of memory, no page file, no file indexing, no bloatware-floaty-desktop-aero-schiznitz-whateverz, with NO performance hits at all?

I'm dead serious, folks. I came to the 64-bit desktop table late...too late. Vista is a failure. Everyone knows it, even MS, though they will never publically admit it for obvious reasons. Though IMO the fact that they've publically announced that they're working on Vista's successor when Vista's only been out for about a year is an OBVIOUS admittance.

Sure; XP64 is available for about $150. But do I want to invest in a completely dead OS? Nope.

I want to take advantage of my hardware! 8GB of RAM for $300? That's the world we live in today. If Ubuntu 8.04 could run Crysis, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

 

[hooflung]

I have mixed opinions for Vista 64. Let me preface that with I have MSDN. I don't pay for my Windows. I also work in a coop department at a major university so I have access 'nearly free' copies of vista and office 2k7. I have 2000 PRO, 2k3 Server R1 and R2. 2000 Advanced Server as well as XP64 and Vista Ultimate 64.

I find Vista 64 to be as stable as a Microsoft Operating system can get in 2008. XP SP 3 is as quirky with me. My only thought on that the DEVs tend to use techniques used to patch Vista is now being used, inadvertantly in XP patches. Sort of like how Graphics Drivers in XP have gone to fucking shit in XP since more attention was being place on Vista.

Vista 64 is not a failure. It is pretty pleasant the more I use it. There are quirks but no more than there was moving from 98 to 2000 way back when.

As for XP64 you must understand that it is nothing more than Windows Server 2003 64bit without the server management bits. Period. They share the same exact codebase and use the same Service Packs. Driver support is there for the most part barring some cheap and/or exotic USB devices.

Vista 32 is the OS I'd not bother with if I was buying new today, 64 bit is fine. I use it for work and play. Typing from it now. I like Ubuntu 8.04 much better but hey, we have to play games right? The only failure Vista has is the fact that it exists in a time where noone who matters gives a shit about upgrades because XP is a good OS overall and runs well on 5 year old hardware.

To whoever said 2000 and XP are identical minus the LUNA... its not. NTFS in XP is not NTFS in 2000. The kernel is not the same, its recompiled with support for a host of things that 2000 wasn't in the market to support. Its that simple. 2000 is a great OS if you can live without the niceties just like XP64 is a nice OS if you have supported hardware and can live without DX10.

 

[perdomot]

I disagree with the idea that XP without Luna is like W2K. First of all, compare the size of the c drive after clean installs with the latest SPs and you see 2K is much smaller. Next, check out memory usage and again, 2K comes out on top. I also think all the extra code that was added to make XP out of 2K opened up all sorts of possible issues and MS has been trying to fix them since day one.

 

[perdomot]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
OK, so let's get right down to the point. Where's my "Windows7 64-bit" so I can run 8GB of memory, no page file, no file indexing, no bloatware-floaty-desktop-aero-schiznitz-whateverz, with NO performance hits at all?

I'm dead serious, folks. I came to the 64-bit desktop table late...too late. Vista is a failure. Everyone knows it, even MS, though they will never publically admit it for obvious reasons. Though IMO the fact that they've publically announced that they're working on Vista's successor when Vista's only been out for about a year is an OBVIOUS admittance.

Sure; XP64 is available for about $150. But do I want to invest in a completely dead OS? Nope.

I want to take advantage of my hardware! 8GB of RAM for $300? That's the world we live in today. If Ubuntu 8.04 could run Crysis, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

I think all the talk of Windows 7 also points to the failure of Vista. A more streamlined OS ala W2K with the potential to add components as needed is the way to go. Its been said before but MS efforts to be all things to all people keeps tripping it up.

 

[taltamir]

vista fails so bad it is selling like hotcakes... /sarcasm.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
I'll agree that W2K is more efficient than XP, for the same reasons XP is more efficient than Vista: fewer services and OS-spawned processes running, less eye candy, less hand-holding. 512 MB worked as well for 2K as 1 GB for XP and 2 GB for Vista.

That doesn't change the fact that the world has moved on from Win95, NT4, and W2K, and that the paying customers almost all have XP or Vista now.

I might want to install a partition with Win98SE on a modern PC, but "retro gamers willing to multiboot" is such a tiny niche there is no money in writing hardware drivers to appeal to it. Life's like that and there is always VMWare.

Actually, Vista is more efficient, but also more modern and therefore more demanding.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
OK, so let's get right down to the point. Where's my "Windows7 64-bit" so I can run 8GB of memory, no page file, no file indexing, no bloatware-floaty-desktop-aero-schiznitz-whateverz, with NO performance hits at all?

I'm dead serious, folks. I came to the 64-bit desktop table late...too late. Vista is a failure. Everyone knows it, even MS, though they will never publically admit it for obvious reasons. Though IMO the fact that they've publically announced that they're working on Vista's successor when Vista's only been out for about a year is an OBVIOUS admittance.

Sure; XP64 is available for about $150. But do I want to invest in a completely dead OS? Nope.

I want to take advantage of my hardware! 8GB of RAM for $300? That's the world we live in today. If Ubuntu 8.04 could run Crysis, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

One can buy 8GB of ram for $160, easy.

 

[hemmy]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: spittledip
Yeah like they said 2000 isn't as bloated so it runs more efficiently. I prefer XP though

back in the day i did not want to TOUCH XP because it was a bloated and buggy piece of crap... stayed with 2k until SP2 came about and made XP tolerable (and ram prices went down enough for it to be a non issue).

Vista SP1 is fine. Just use 4GB of ram, 4GB of DDR2 cost an insignificant amount right now.
People are parroting what us techies said a long time ago, here is a hint.. IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO. things have changed.

SP1 made XP good, initial release of SP2 screwed a lot of things up.

 

[taltamir]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820231122
79.99 + free shipping. G-skill, DDR2-1000, 2x2GB of ram..

I don't know where you got 300$ from.

 

[Khato]

Back on the original subject... ATI's drivers will not install in win2k, a fact made humorous by the fact that they still have winXP/2k in some of the file names used. My guess is that Microsoft paid them to disable functionality. The NVIDIA drivers, meanwhile, may not officially support, but still install/run with no issues.