Windows 2000 Pro Question

[LavrentiBeria]

When I've installed Windows 2000 Pro in the past, it went on well and was quite fast up until I installed SP2, at which point the performance hit was noticable. Adding SP3 literally destroyed its performance so I reinstalled and have been comfortable with the performance/security tradeoff with SP2; I've never added anything further in the way of updates beyond it. I'm running Windows 2000 Pro stand alone, not in a network, and since there's an NIC on the machine, there is some additional slowness that I'm sure can be attributed to that factor as well.

I've just gotten a new printer and feel the time is right for some decisions about what I'm running here. I can change things around to scrap Windows 98SE, the Microsoft OS I've presently got networked, and replace it with 2000 Pro but there'd be a whole lot of work involved to do that. That would remove any slowness owing to the non-networked NIC I'd mentioned earlier, but would it boost performance that significantly? Another thought I've had is leaving off the service packs altogether. How much risk might there be in doing that. I'd appreciate any thoughts you might offer me in this connection.

I might mention additionally that I have no intention of installing XP on this box. Thanks to Microsoft's authentication requirements, Windows 2000 Pro is as far as I'll go with them. I have Gentoo Linux networked here also and am quite happy with it, but I still have business clients that would never understand if I were to forward files to them using the reiserfs. 😀

Thanks.

Lavrenti Beria

 

[fredtam]

I might mention additionally that I have no intention of installing XP on this box. Thanks to Microsoft's authentication requirements,

Yes MS makes it very difficult with the 10 seconds it takes to activate XP and that whole "you can only change 4 components out of ten in a 120 day period without having to call" stuff.
After all who has ten seconds to spare and who doesn't upgrade every component in their system every six months? When will those bastards at MS learn that they should allow people to pirate their software so people won't have to deal with this major inconvenience?

XP would be the best for your needs.

 

[EeyoreX]

I might mention additionally that I have no intention of installing XP on this box. Thanks to Microsoft's authentication requirements,

Yes MS makes it very difficult with the 10 seconds it takes to activate XP and that whole "you can only change 4 components out of ten in a 120 day period without having to call" stuff.
After all who has ten seconds to spare and who doesn't upgrade every component in their system every six months? When will those bastards at MS learn that they should allow people to pirate their software so people won't have to deal with this major inconvenience?

XP would be the best for your needs.

Your PC must be a little slow 😉 It takes me about 3 seconds. 😉 Seriously, people who think activation is such a horrible evil thing are victims of FUD. It's too bad really. Windows XP is the best Microsoft OS to date.

Personally, running Windows 2000 without any service packs is asking for trouble, unless there is no internet access at all. If it is truely a standalone machine with zero access to the outside world except via floppy or CD media it's just irresponisble. Not only do the service packs offer security updates, they often fix other bugs. I admit I have heard some people have had problems in the past with serive packs, but I personally have had none. I've gone through all SP updates for Windows 2000 on my gf's computer. She has no performance loss or other issues. The computer runs great, and has the extra benefit of being fairly secure because it's kept updated (in addition to my other security requirements). Windows 98SE is just a poor choice for an OS these days IMO, unless you have some software that absolutely refuses to run on 2000/XP that you need. I haven't touched a 9x OS since NT4 and I haven't missed em one bit.

\Dan

 

[LavrentiBeria]

Hi Fredtam,

Keep in mind now, Fredtam, that it's just little old me that doesn't want XP, not Jesus Christ. Lavrenti's feelings about Microsoft and it's way of doing things are just that, his personal feelings, and, although shared by lots and lots of others, I can assure you they are not in any way cosmic pronouncements even though at this point in time you may think that they are. Come on now, you can tell us the truth, do you work for the company? 🙂

Some adult help with my question, anyone?

Lavrenti Beria

 

[LavrentiBeria]

Hi EeyoreX,

So you like phoning home? 🙂

Your comment about the danger involved with no SPs is interesting, although given its more than active history of security troubles one has to wonder whether having Windows 2000 Pro with SPs 1 & 2 is really much better than having it au naturel. Yes, I've experienced significant slowing with SPs 1 & 2. SP3 was the straw that broke the camel's back. And this is no slow box: Intel 850E board, P4 2.26 Ghz, PC 1066 RDRAM, Seagate 10,000 RPM SCSI Cheetahs, etc. Windows 2000 is quick as the wind when it first goes on, but it takes these service packs grugingly. Like you, I've heard others complain about the performance hit, yet others seem happy. But you'd recommend my killing off Windows 98SE I take it. Thanks for the opinon. Whatever I do it won't be buying and installing XP, though; my clients will just have to install Gentoo. I may help them. 🙂

Lavrenti Beria

 

[EeyoreX]

Hi EeyoreX,

So you like phoning home? 🙂

Your comment about the danger involved with no SPs is interesting, although given its more than active history of security troubles one has to wonder whether having Windows 2000 Pro with SPs 1 & 2 is really much better than having it au naturel. Yes, I've experienced significant slowing with SPs 1 & 2. SP3 was the straw that broke the camel's back. And this is no slow box: Intel 850E board, P4 2.26 Ghz, PC 1066 RDRAM, Seagate 10,000 RPM SCSI Cheetahs, etc. Windows 2000 is quick as the wind when it first goes on, but it takes these service packs grugingly. Like you, I've heard others complain about the performance hit, yet others seem happy. But you'd recommend my killing off Windows 98SE I take it. Thanks for the opinon. Whatever I do it won't be buying and installing XP; my clients will just have to install Gentoo. I may help them. 🙂

Lavrenti Beria

I don't consider it "phoning home". It's a legitamate way for Microsoft (and many other companies ) to protect their work (or at least try). Companies have used activation before Microsoft, MS was simply the first giant to do so. This isn't even a minor convenience. And even if Microsoft could some reverse engineer the hash and discover what brand hard drive I am using and what speed my CPU is and how much RAM, that wouldn't bother me in the least.

I'm sorry you seem to have troubles with the service packs. It is more dangerous to run Windows "au naturel". Regardless of the recent security woes (several of which, I might add would have been prevented had people been using properly updated systems) that's not really an excuse. A "new" security issue that effects a system with SP2 3 or 4 doesn't make you safe just because you don't use a service pack at all. it just makes you vulnerable to more problems. I personally would rather have a secure box. Or at least as secure as reasonabley possible. To each his own though. If you aren't going to apply service packs to your 2000 machines, I might recommend you actually stay with Windows 98, as it is not as vulerable to certain of the recent news-worthy attacks. If you are willing to sacrifice security of your 2000 boxes, I'd say go with 98. But then you lose stability, but increase security. A computer that crashes all the time can't do that much damage. 😉 Seriously, in general though I do recommend killing off 98. But then I prefer stability and security. My SP'd machines have not been "Blastered" "SoBigged" etc. Nor do they have slow down issues. As noted though, your results are obviously different. Whatever you chose, good luck.

\Dan

 

[Canterwood]

I wouldn't recommend using a system without a Service Pack, especially if its going onto the internet, its just not worth the risk.
Most (if not all) of the absolute critical patches for Windows 2000 can be applied to a system running just SP2, so you can install the neccessary patches to keep you secure.
That would probably be the best trade-off between perfomance and security on your machine.
Hope this helps.

 

[LavrentiBeria]

EeyoreX,

You say:

"I don't consider it "phoning home". It's a legitamate way for Microsoft (and many other companies ) to protect their work (or at least try). Companies have used activation before Microsoft, MS was simply the first giant to do so. This isn't even a minor convenience. And even if Microsoft could some reverse engineer the hash and discover what brand hard drive I am using and what speed my CPU is and how much RAM, that wouldn't bother me in the least."

I can recall clearly the events just after preparing the hard drive for the installation of the OSs on this machine. Windows 98SE for the first time in my experience was troublesome. I'd gotten a brand new 3COM NIC and 98SE just would not take the driver. There were shut down issues and a number of other things. It took four or five reinstallations to get the thing to behave in the way I wanted it. Let me tell you how I would have felt if it had been XP I'd been installing. Six or seven calls to whereever to get their permission to reuse something I'd just purchased from them? Oy. And if it were simply a matter of an annoyance it would be one thing, but the presumptuous and invasive aspects of the thing make it a matter of principle as well. Not to be argumentative - we have different perspectives on this question - but I would say that since I decided to pass up XP, there have been at least two very positive developments for me: it has forced me to learn Linux which has been one of the most satisfying experiences I've had with computers and I haven't paid dime one for software in a long time.

You mention further:

"I'm sorry you seem to have troubles with the service packs. It is more dangerous to run Windows "au naturel". Regardless of the recent security woes (several of which, I might add would have been prevented had people been using properly updated systems) that's not really an excuse. A "new" security issue that effects a system with SP2 3 or 4 doesn't make you safe just because you don't use a service pack at all. it just makes you vulnerable to more problems. I personally would rather have a secure box. Or at least as secure as reasonabley possible. To each his own though. If you aren't going to apply service packs to your 2000 machines, I might recommend you actually stay with Windows 98, as it is not as vulerable to certain of the recent news-worthy attacks. If you are willing to sacrifice security of your 2000 boxes, I'd say go with 98. But then you lose stability, but increase security. A computer that crashes all the time can't do that much damage. Seriously, in general though I do recommend killing off 98. But then I prefer stability and security. My SP'd machines have not been "Blastered" "SoBigged" etc. Nor do they have slow down issues. As noted though, your results are obviously different. Whatever you chose, good luck."

So in your view, then, it would seem to come down to this: Windows 2000 with SPs 1 & 2 as the best choice, Windows 98 to be preferred over 2000 without sevice packs. I very much appreciate the input. Many thanks to you for taking the time to write.

Lavrenti Beria

 

[LavrentiBeria]

Hi Canterwood!

You say:

"I wouldn't recommend using a system without a Service Pack, especially if its going onto the internet, its just not worth the risk.
Most (if not all) of the absolute critical patches for Windows 2000 can be applied to a system running just SP2, so you can install the neccessary patches to keep you secure.
That would probably be the best trade-off between perfomance and security on your machine.
Hope this helps. "

Thanks for the very helpful response. I've set aside the idea of running 2000 without the service packs and have decided just to continue with present arrangements: 98SE for personal, 2000 with SPs 1 & 2 for business. The temptation to change things and tinker comes frequently, but, then again, sometimes more works out as less, eh?

Again, thanks.

Lavrenti Beria

 

[magomago]

how about mandrake with some kinda of XP skin 😉 Have a shortcut to a word processing program plainly in view on the desktop and no one will be the wiser 😀