Windows 2000 /SP4 -- Full Install

[salventura]

I just bought a copy of Win 2k on eBay and need some advice. Microsoft says the setup program allows the option of formatting the hard drive for NTFS or FAT32. Does the setup program do the formatting? I thought Win 2k required NTFS. I currently am using Windows Me. Please advise. Thanx -- Sal.

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: salventura
Does the setup program do the formatting?

Yes!

 

[Snapster]

I hope you got it cheap...like real cheap.

 

[timswim78]

I read that Windows 2000 can be installed on FAT16, FAT32, or NTFS. I've never tried it on FAT16, and I am clueless as to why someone would.

 

[salventura]

Originally posted by: Snapster
I hope you got it cheap...like real cheap.

Yes. Thank you.

 

[VinDSL]

Bah!

I (still) run W2K Pro on several of my machines - it's one of the best OSs MS ever turned out, IMHO!

The trick is to run it with STARDOCK WINDOWBLINDS so it has a modern appearance!

Otherwise (I concur) it *looks* no better than Win3.1...

Having said that, I guess that's the reason I never liked XP - looked too much like a cheesy WindowBlinds theme - which it was, if you know its history.

MS actually hired StarDock to skin XP, which was originally nothing more than W2K Pro with a StarDock WindowBlinds Teletubbies interface...

Anyway, water under the bridge. Vista is where it's at now - and there's nothing that can be done to W2K/XP Pro to make it look like Vista!

 

[spikespiegal]

I have numerous production Servers still on Win2k, and support a lot of Win2K stations. Compared to XP, biggest difference is Win2k workstation will run on a smaller footprint.

XP Pro obviously has built in (castrated) RDP, and it's better at handling USB devices like keyboards and mice in various power saving schemes.

Otherwise, I need to remind anybody badmouthing Win2K to show me their copy of XP Server.....oh wait, XP Server doesn't exist. Server 2003 is obviously an improvement over 200, but XP is not the same over 2000.

I find it entertaining how I can make an old workstation a fairly solid performing file/print server on Win2K that's not only faster than XP (Win2K always had a more efficient IP stack than XP), but often beats the pants of many Linux booters in the same category.

Not a bad little OS for being 8 yrs old.

 

[VinDSL]

Spikespiegal for President! :thumbsup:

 

[gba]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Spikespiegal for President! :thumbsup:

I never chose to "upgrade" from Win2000 to XP. I have just built myself a new state of the art machine and have installed Vista. I have worked extensively with XP, and have never once been tempted to go with it over 2K. Basically, I skipped right over XP.

Something that has really been teeing me off lately is that I am encountering new devices who's drivers are written to exclude Win2000, yet support WinXP... Microsoft LifeCam NX-6000 Webcam is one of these that I know of... Everything that ran on XP used to run on 2K, too. argh!

 

[nordloewelabs]

i have been running Win2000 for 7 years and have had no complaints. the OS doesnt have the XP-like "wizards" that make configuration of hardware simpler, but if you know what you're doing, you dont need that. Paint.NET (free image editor) is the only prog i ever tried to install on my Win2000 box and ended up not being compatible with the OS.... but even that prog, at any version prior to 2.7, runs fine on Win2000. from what i remember, Win2000 was the first time Microsoft got highly praised for an OS release. Win2K is both stable and well-supported.

i chose to skip WinXP because, im my opinion, its eye-candy didnt justify the investment.... and because of the rumours about the small footprint of the future Windows 7, i've decided to skip Vista too. nothing can beat stability, speed and compatibility.

 

[gba]

I mean, there are one or two features that XP has that I would like to have on my Win2000 machines... A couple come readily to mind: when you minimize multiple Explorer windows to the taskbar, you get the one tab instead of a tab for each window... that was a nice update.. one other that I am thinking of is the button for rolling back a driver in in Device Manager properties... A nice convenience, but not necessary, as long as you are well organized... I do not like any of the extra Wizards that XP has that are supposed to make various tasks easier... I do like the way XP handles USB devices but I HATE "Autoplay," that insidious pop-up dialog box you get while XP recognizes drives/disks I was quited pleased to discover that Vista gave the option to turn that annoyance off!

 

[VinDSL]

Every time I come to this OS forum, I'm reminded of W2K's best feature...

I've probably gone through a dozen drives and a half-dozen mobos, since running W2K Pro, and never once had to contact MS, seeking their permission to change my hardware!

Licensing is a moving target with XP and a PITA to keep current with MS's policy changes!

I installed XP on my bosses' PC in June 2007 - no big deal - unless he decides to switch hardware...

In December 2007, a co-worker wanted me to install XP on his PC - but now, I can't buy XP unless I buy 'qualifying hardware' from the vendor BEFORE they will sell me XP.

And... next month it will be something else!

I hope we won't have to jump through these 'XP hoops' with Vista...

 

[htne]

Originally posted by: VinDSL
Every time I come to this OS forum, I'm reminded of W2K's best feature...

I've probably gone through a dozen drives and a half-dozen mobos, since running W2K Pro, and never once had to contact MS, seeking their permission to change my hardware!

Licensing is a moving target with XP and a PITA to keep current with MS's policy changes!

I installed XP on my bosses' PC in June 2007 - no big deal - unless he decides to switch hardware...

In December 2007, a co-worker wanted me to install XP on his PC - but now, I can't buy XP unless I buy 'qualifying hardware' from the vendor BEFORE they will sell me XP.

And... next month it will be something else!

I hope we won't have to jump through these 'XP hoops' with Vista...

But the people who are running XP illegally do not have any of these problems.

 

[spikespiegal]

On one hand I can't blame Microsoft for product activation because it's all the pirates out there who are the real cause - not MS.

However, it is nice to mount Win2K Server on a PCI Sata controller and move it to any box you want just be reinstalling the required drivers. XP won't put up with that unless you have a corporate copy that doesn't trip product activation.

Can't tell you how many times I run into a small business using XP as a server. Even Win2K Workstation does a much better job as an ad-hoc server than XP.

When I use XP I turn off all the graphical candy, and on older machines this significantly improves performance. However, you do lose things like grouped start menu items and such.

I'm luke warm on Vista. I just wish the performance were better.

 

[gba]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

I'm luke warm on Vista. I just wish the performance were better.

I have installed Vista on machines that are so much more powerful than any of my Win2000 machines, that any performance comparisons I would be making between Win2000 and Vista would not be of the apples to apples variety. After having spend barely a week with my own copy, I have to admit to having been seduced by the "Vista Experience." The install to my LSI U160 SCSI Contoller/36GB 15,000 RPM HD went seemlessly. Vista x64 had the LSI drivers, and away I went. I like to hack the shell folders off the boot drive. I have successfully completed these hacks on all of the Vista machines I have built, finding them in the same places in the registry that they always have been, which pleases me. After having completed these hacks, disabling hibernation, moving the page file to a separate drive, installing all of the updates, including SP1 RC Refresh and installing nary a few programs, Vista x64 is occupying 22 of 33GB. So yea, Vista's footprint is a heafty one indeed! I generally make DOS Ghost backups to 8GB FAT 32 partitions with Win2000. Well, I am using a 40GB FAT 32 partition for my Vista Ghost images... It is a good thing humongous HDs have become so cheap, and RAM, too, for that matter.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: salventura
I thought Win 2k required NTFS. I currently am using Windows Me. Please advise. Thanx -- Sal.

nope, it doesnt require it. you can load it on fat32, but unless you have other machines that are 98SE/ ME that need to connect with it, you have no reason to not use the ntfs. i like w2k, i still have it on some of my office machines. sadly, they will soon be upgraded (to XPPro, not vista) due to our reqs at work. best part of w2k is it will run with 128mb of ram, which XP seems to choke on 256MB. of course, 128MB is barely enough if youre doing lots of things at once, but it will survive everyday data entry/ surfing needs just fine.

 

[DnetMHZ]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: salventura
I thought Win 2k required NTFS. I currently am using Windows Me. Please advise. Thanx -- Sal.

nope, it doesnt require it. you can load it on fat32, but unless you have other machines that are 98SE/ ME that need to connect with it, you have no reason to not use the ntfs.

File system on the server has no impact on the client. The server is doing the actual reading and writing, windows 98/ME clients work just fine with NTFS on the server.

 

[gba]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: salventura
I thought Win 2k required NTFS. I currently am using Windows Me. Please advise. Thanx -- Sal.

best part of w2k is it will run with 128mb of ram, which XP seems to choke on 256MB. of course, 128MB is barely enough if youre doing lots of things at once, but it will survive everyday data entry/ surfing needs just fine.

I remember when Win2000 was new and RAM was expensive, the consensus was that 256MB was its sweet spot. In this day and age of cheap RAM, I like to throw 512MB at Win2000 no matter what and will use up to 3GB depending on what tasks the system is being asked to perform.

 

[htne]

Originally posted by: gba

I remember when Win2000 was new and RAM was expensive, the consensus was that 256MB was its sweet spot. In this day and age of cheap RAM, I like to throw 512MB at Win2000 no matter what and will use up to 3GB depending on what tasks the system is being asked to perform.

I seem to remember that 128 megs was the sweet spot for Win2000. I can remember going up from 128 megs to 256 megs on my Win2K workstation desktop and not being able to tell the difference. One important difference, though, is the software that I was running on top of the OS. I was not running a firewall, I was not running any anti-spyware apps, I was not running Dot Net, I was not running JRE, etc., etc. My anti-virus application was much lighter than the one I use now. The web sites I visited were not all running Flash animations. You get the idea.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: htne

I seem to remember that 128 megs was the sweet spot for Win2000. I can remember going up from 128 megs to 256 megs on my Win2K workstation desktop and not being able to tell the difference. One important difference, though, is the software that I was running on top of the OS. I was not running a firewall, I was not running any anti-spyware apps, I was not running Dot Net, I was not running JRE, etc., etc. My anti-virus application was much lighter than the one I use now. The web sites I visited were not all running Flash animations. You get the idea.

I remember using a P 233 with 64MB EDO memory on Windows 2000 when it first came out and it was very usable with a config like above.

Today that would be like taking a dinghy in a hurricane. :laugh:

 

[Motorheader]

Still running Win2k on a 7 year old Compaq Armada m700 P3-500 laptop with 576mb memory and a 5400rpm 40gb drive. The thing runs like a champ. Wireless-G Netgear card, decent battery life (over 3 hours) and still going strong.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: VinDSL
Every time I come to this OS forum, I'm reminded of W2K's best feature...

I've probably gone through a dozen drives and a half-dozen mobos, since running W2K Pro, and never once had to contact MS, seeking their permission to change my hardware!

Licensing is a moving target with XP and a PITA to keep current with MS's policy changes!

I installed XP on my bosses' PC in June 2007 - no big deal - unless he decides to switch hardware...

In December 2007, a co-worker wanted me to install XP on his PC - but now, I can't buy XP unless I buy 'qualifying hardware' from the vendor BEFORE they will sell me XP.

If you buy retail Windows, you will nevar run out of activations. Might have to call if you reinstall a lot, but you'll always be approved. If you buy OEM Windows, you saved money up front but... you know the drill

As for your difficulty in licensing WinXP, you can get OEM Vista Business or Ultimate and then use downgrade rights to install WinXP Pro in its place, and that's even reversible down the line, but the same OEM deal applies: OEM licenses aren't intended as an all-you-can-eat buffet, just a single serving. At any rate, WinXP licenses will be available by that route for a fair while yet.