I'm looking to reformat my laptop and I need to decide between windows 2003 server, windows XP and windows 2000. The laptop is a bit older and I want the best performance I can get from one of these three operating systems. Thanks for your help and opinions 4chan.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-04 20:40
My $.02:
Go with 2K or XP. Don't use server unless you have a compelling reason to.
As for choosing between 2K and XP, I'm sure other people have much better input than I do. I've heard either or is more performant.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-05 0:15
If you've got 512MB RAM or more, go with XP. If you've got between 64 and 256, go with 2k. If you have less than 64, upgrade.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-05 2:11
>>3
Please. Only go with XP if you have more than 1gb of ram.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-05 5:58
>>4
U=FAIL. XP runs perfectly well in 512Mb, especially if you turn off the shiny shiny interface effects - I quite happily run Photoshop, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice and Media Player Classic simultaneously in 512Mb (on my laptop, which already eats 32Mb of that for video memory) without slowdown.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-05 8:12
My computer with 640Mb used to do very well running XP. My wife's laptop with 256Mb chugs along painfully, all the while proudly displaying its "designed for Windows XP lol" sticker.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-05 9:14
Nobody cares how well xp runs. They're saying that 2k isn't designed to handle more than a gig of ram, and don't use xp unless necessary.
I just wanna know whats gonna make my lappy experience the most pleasurable. The laptop is a 2400 Celeron, with 640 MB Ram and 128 MB video ram (total of 768). I'm going to dual boot the laptop with a build of linux but im not comfortable enough with linux to use jsut that (plus i hear its got poor wireless support) since I use this laptop for schoolwork and play I need it to be able to play some emulators (=3) and run the normal applications, openoffice and play my anime and DVDs. The problem I have is i like to run alot of things at once and I need the best choice in OS to allow me to run multiple things at once to the best of my lappy's abilitiy.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-05 10:42
>> (plus i hear its got poor wireless support)
ndiswrapper works with just about all wireless cards afaik.
>>7
2000 is quite capable of working with more than 1Gb of RAM. Windows has been able to address a maximum of 4Gb since NT4.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-05 15:38
>>12
It's a common misconception that 2000 has the same memory limitations as 98. I don't know why, but there you go
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-05 18:05
I remember learning that 4Gb thing in college and thinking "nobody will ever need 4Gb of RAM"...
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-05 22:58
Win2000 is quite stable but the problem is that MS is dropping official support for it. No more security updates doesn't matter much unless you plan on connecting to the internet on your laptop.
I bit the bullet and went with Win2003 server earlier this year on my Athlon 1.4 with 768 RAM. Works great even with all my four year old hardware. Plus you can turn off all the extra services and more or less reduce it to Win2K like.
But to be honest, I would've stayed with Win2K if it weren't for MS dropping it's support.
yeah because those updates that open up your computer even more are so needed
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-07 10:15
>>15
Wrong. MS are still supplying free security updates for 2000 until 2010. They retire consumer software after five years (theoretically, anyway - they're still supplying new security fixes for 98), but Windows 2000 Pro falls under their business and developer software category, which has a further five years of "Extended Support".
>>17 what do you mean "open up your computer even more"? I think running around with unpatched/vulnerable software is as open as it gets, as far as I know. What do you know that's different?
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-10 16:46
Go for Windows 2000, unless you really can't get it to work with your hardware for some strange reason. Why? Because out of the good Windowses, it's the least bloated, thus the least resource wasting and the better performer. Besides, simpler systems are better. KISS.
As for security, get a firewall, block all but what you use, get an antivirus - not resident, just run it on every new file you download and every CD/DVD/Flash disk, never ever use MSIE or Outlook Express, have the latest version of Firefox/Mozilla and all you use ready, and don't be a moron and open that kewl Heinecken screensaver Bill Clinton sent you by email to your Hotmail spam account. That way you'll hardly bother even for OS security updates, as you're not doing anything that could expose your system provided TCP/IP is ok.
Go for Windows 2000, unless you really can't get it to work with your hardware for some strange reason. Why? Because out of the good Windowses, it's the least bloated, thus the least resource wasting and the better performer. Besides, simpler systems are better. KISS.
Although, that's what people said about Win98SE when Win2k was the latest. If you have a decent amount of memory (256+MB), any of these will be fine so long as you don't install a crapload of idiotware on it.
256MB is not a very comfortable amount with XP, even with the irrelevant services turned off. I didn't like using XP until I finally added another 512MB.
Frankly, 2K is a better system for those of us who like less bloat. Other than ClearType and better language handling, I can't think of anything which I'd want that XP has and 2K doesn't.
Of course, someone is going to then say, "Well, strip down XP until it's like 2K!" First off, I did, and it still uses quite a bit more RAM. Second, if you're going to do that, why not use 2K in the first place?
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-12 5:45
from the very first moment i connected my win2k to the internets, viruses got in my computer.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-12 9:47
>>25
Which is why you install a firewall first (or do it from behind a NAT router), then go to Windows Update. Basic safety, dolt.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-12 10:09
>>26
How do I download firewall without connecting to internet.
Why do I require firewall at all - should my OS be running unsecure services out of the box?
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-12 10:28
>>27
Same shit happened to me when I first connected my (then new) laptop to the internet to run WindowsUpdate. It was infected in less than three minutes. Thing is, the OS was XP.
After finally patching the thing, I've never had a virus, even with no firewall. Basic safety: keep patches up to date, don't use IE, don't use Outlook, run a virus scanner on any downloaded files. This applies both to 2K and XP.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-12 12:37
>>27
Duh, download it on another machine (friend, college, library, internet cafe, etc), get one off a magazine coverdisc, use Knoppix or some other live CD. Christ, use a bit of imagination. And don't kid yourself that it's only Windows that is vulnerable if you don't run a firewall - ALL networks need protecting, it's just that Windows, being so widespread, having widely-known vulnerabilities and countless zombified virus-infected machines run by other idiots out there, is more at risk than anything else.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-12 13:05
If you have a router, why do you need a software firewall? Doesn't a router serve the same purpose?
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-12 14:03
>>30
A NAT router stops unrequested incoming traffic (except where you forward ports to a particular LAN address, etc), but most won't protect against malicious outgoing traffic, warn you of application changes, or various other things that software firewalls can help with. You are safer behind a NAT router than not if you're not running a software firewall, but you're not bulletproof.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-12 14:09
>>22
>Although, that's what people said about Win98SE when Win2k was the latest.
Not rly. Even if they said it, it's not true. Win98 and Win2K are completely different (they're only similar in appearance), while Win2K, WinXP and Win2003 share the same kernel. Win98 has a shitty MS-DOS-based kernel and drivers that you want to avoid, while the difference between Win2K and XP is the bloat and a couple of gadgets.
>>24
>Other than ClearType and better language handling, I can't think of anything which I'd want that XP has and 2K doesn't.
Exactly - these are the two things from XP you might want, but I don't know they are worth the hassle.
>>27
>How do I download firewall without connecting to internet.
You mean eMule? Use a friend's eMule. (Original software comes in a box ^_^.)
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-12 16:02
>>29
Too much trouble, I'll use a secure OS kthxbye
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-12 16:24
>>18
My bad. I didn't realise MS was actually continuing security updates for Win2K. Too late now, though I'm pretty happy with Win2K3. The better Unicode support is a plus and the translucent icons is pure eye candy, otherwise it feels just llike Win2K.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-14 18:50
>>25 >>28
How the hell do you people manage this? I've had Windows 2000 boxes running for months on cable connections with no firewalls, no anti-virus, nothing, and they're completely clean.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-14 20:27
Ah, but if you have no anti-virus, how do you know you're clean? Or an external firewall to check for no errant connections?
I agree it can be done (I did it), but least I still check with an external AV run every now and then.
>>36
Because after months of use I finally decided to install AVG and Ad-Aware just for shits. Installed, updated, and did complete system scans with both. Nothing, just some cookies in Ad-Aware.
Now I just let AVG sit in the background, and I manually scan things when I download.
I should also note my mom's computer has been running Windows 2000 for about a year, also with no virus protection or anything. Just firefox. And hers is running fine, too
>>38
Note how I said "external". While your system is probably clean, if you've been infected by anything particularly nasty running a local AV scanner won't help much. This is why you should always run a local scanner before executing an untrusted binary, because afterwards it may be too late.
If you've been running with no AV at all, you need something like a bootable CD with the latest ClamAV updates or similar to check that there isn't anything there. Only afterwards can you trust a local scanner.
That said, my XP box was infected within three minutes, before I had a chance to finish downloading a patch. This was back when there was that RPC vulerability that Blaster was actively exploiting, and OEMs hadn't started shipping systems with updated software yet. So yes, it can happen.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-15 5:41
>>35 >>38
It's idiots like you who make the internets suck for the rest of us.