Windows 2000 Service Pack 4: stable or problems

[modemide]

To be perfectly honest, XP runs better in certain fashions than 2000. But for the opposite, 2000 is sometimes better. All are built from the 2000 level.....so if Miocrosoft didn't believe in Windows 2000......XP would be TOTALLY different! I personally believe in 2000 over XP. I not only feel......but I KNOW that 2000 is a more mature OS than XP.
XP, is NOT a baby, but it doesn't handle certain ops better than 2000 does. I'm not going to leave you in the dark either....I'm actually going to TELL you the ops and services that 2000 runs more efficiently! RPC, IIS Client, QoS (for abvious reasons), Print Spooler and the Indexing Service. ESPECIALLY THE INDEXING SERVICE! Ever time a file search in W2K and XP? Time them and tell me the outcme. 2k will win every time....

Anyway, I thought that I'd shed my 2 cents.

-Mike

hehe ... To be honest .. I'd rather just use linux for server(ing?)
and you are right ... windows xp indexing sux probably why most guys who know about it disable it ...
Anyway to make my last and final point (since we have gone so far off topic and are on the brink of a flame war [hopefully my messages weren't takin as an attack but rather an opionion])
I'd just like to say that yes while 2000 may be the more mature operating system, I'd much rather strip xp of it's shiny interface and get rid of un needed services and I find it performs admirably. However, from a server perspective, I wouldn't choose either 2000 workstation or xp, I'd much rather choose then 2000 server line or linux for that. Linux especially for web servers ^^

 

[Lone Wolf]

Excellent post Mikesgroovin.

Some of that i already knew but i'm surprised to hear that W2K runs the print spooler and INdexing service better than XP. But then again, i don't work as a techie in a network environment either. That indexing service IMO was never a huge success anyway - even in the corporate world i've heard from several techies that they've seldom, if ever, used it.

On a different note, i think i've read that M$ is focusing on OLE much more intently in their current build of Longhorn.

 

[Inaris]

Larry,
As to SP4, I have seen several problems with it. Most had to do with systems that were not all that stable to begin with, but I would have hoped that would not have been the show stopper. But for the most part SP4 is fine. Make sure you have a fairly clean running machine, and I would suspect nothing to go wrong.

As to upgrading or fresh installs, fresh is always better. It takes more time to get back to where you were, but the end out come is much better. One of the Comapnies that are in the building we are, upgraded from Win2k to XP on machines that in my opinion should have been scrapped, and then spent 3 months rebuilding them all with just XP. Not a pretty site.

Good Luck.

 

[ChaosBlizzard]

I feel like i'm in the middle of a large river with two large boats on either side of me firing cannonballs back and forth....lol

So......what about Larry's original question? LOL....oh.....did you all forget about that? Kidding
Larry, I haven't had any problems with 2000 SP4 either. As for upgrading....if you can help it, don't do it. Install XP fresh.

Now, I see some flaws in your statements, but I'd rather not attack you both and have you BOTH on my tail......lol
Instead, I will just state my opinion, and some fact. Windows XP was a dream before 2000 was invented. The concepts behind XP was to maintain a simple user balance, integrate a huge multimedia interface and add some administration options. The thought/dream behind this mix was Windows ME. Microsoft wished to have three OS types arrive on the market at the same time. Windows ME, Windows 2000 Pro and Windows 2000 Server. 2000 Pro and Server were for your obvious work envirnments and ME was for the (now XP) home user. ME obviously failed.....they wanted to integrate a Windows 98 OS and a Windows NT OS. They started from the 98 end and intensified the operating system on up.....and it failed miserably. But with XP.....since they waited a little while for ME to fail they realized that 2000 was a big success, so the went from the 2000 level and scaled it down. Since then XP has been a huge success. With only 2 products (Home and Pro) that are able to capture the Windows 98 world and the Windows 2000 world. This was the original intention. The XP OS wasn't meant for the workplace. It's original intention was for the home. But since scaling down 2000 to a XP Home OS, building an XP Pro just made sense.

XP didn't have a server line for obvious reasons. It was meant for release before Windows 2K. 2k server was already in the planning. By the time XP was released, W2k3 was well under development.

To be perfectly honest, XP runs better in certain fashions than 2000. But for the opposite, 2000 is sometimes better. All are built from the 2000 level.....so if Miocrosoft didn't believe in Windows 2000......XP would be TOTALLY different! I personally believe in 2000 over XP. I not only feel......but I KNOW that 2000 is a more mature OS than XP.
XP, is NOT a baby, but it doesn't handle certain ops better than 2000 does. I'm not going to leave you in the dark either....I'm actually going to TELL you the ops and services that 2000 runs more efficiently! RPC, IIS Client, QoS (for abvious reasons), Print Spooler and the Indexing Service. ESPECIALLY THE INDEXING SERVICE! Ever try a file search in W2K and XP? Time them and tell me the outcme. 2k will win every time....

Anyway, I thought that I'd shed my 2 cents.

-Mike

Sooo, what your saying is XP isn't meant for a work productive enviroment. Well I think they need to put a little sticker on it, lol.

"WARNING: Do not use in production environments."
LOL

 

[modemide]

Sooo, what your saying is XP isn't meant for a work productive enviroment. Well I think they need to put a little sticker on it, lol.

"WARNING: Do not use in production environments."
LOL

I think that's a bit unfair. Granted xp wasn't made to work as a server, however, it is a perfectly functional workstation. Like I said, leave the servers to things like windows 2000/2003 server series, and linux.

 

[mikesgroovin]

Sooo, what your saying is XP isn't meant for a work productive enviroment. Well I think they need to put a little sticker on it, lol.

"WARNING: Do not use in production environments."
LOL

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I'll state it again:

Initially, No, it wasn't. Like I posted before, the original conceptual design for XP (which was ME) was for home use....they weren't going to create a "Pro" edition due to 2000 coming out around the same time. But since ME failed and 2000 was a success, the "true XP" was built from 2000 on down, the Home editition was the initial proposal for ME and since it was scaled down from 2000, the XP Pro just made sense to develop.
Now, The "now" XP Pro is perfect for the work environment.
BTW....if you are going to quote me......then actually quote me and please don't twist the words. My original posts states, "The XP OS wasn't meant for the workplace. It's original intention was for the home. But since scaling down 2000 to a XP Home OS, building an XP Pro just made sense."

There is a big difference between "wasn't" and "original intention" then "isn't".

-Mike

 

[ChaosBlizzard]

I think that's a bit unfair. Granted xp wasn't made to work as a server, however, it is a perfectly functional workstation. Like I said, leave the servers to things like windows 2000/2003 server series, and linux.

As we speak I'm on my grandparents machine, and you guessed it. I got another, "The system has recovered from a SERIOUS error". No thanks, you can keep it! I have NEVER received an error like that while using windows 2000.

 

[ChaosBlizzard]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I'll state it again:

Initially, No, it wasn't. Like I posted before, the original conceptual design for XP (which was ME) was for home use....they weren't going to create a "Pro" edition due to 2000 coming out around the same time. But since ME failed and 2000 was a success, the "true XP" was built from 2000 on down, the Home editition was the initial proposal for ME and since it was scaled down from 2000, the XP Pro just made sense to develop.
Now, The "now" XP Pro is perfect for the work environment.
BTW....if you are going to quote me......then actually quote me and please don't twist the words. My original posts states, "The XP OS wasn't meant for the workplace. It's original intention was for the home. But since scaling down 2000 to a XP Home OS, building an XP Pro just made sense."

There is a big difference between "wasn't" and "original intention" then "isn't".

-Mike

Then if you are going to take reference to the past do it correctly. Windows ME is based off the windows 9x family, it has no correlation to NT. Windows XP was a "revised" version of windows 2000. And windows 2000 was a revised version to windows NT 4.0. I don't know where your getting this information about windows XP having anything to do with windows ME. Windows ME was micro$ofts last attempt to get money from its end users. They just made it worse.. I warned people too, no one listened. The first week that OS was out I had people calling me with statements such as "I upgraded now I have a black screen". Lets face it, people wouldn't use windows 2000 because it wasn't game friendly, or so someone told them..... I personally have been able to play every pc game I have on my windows 2000 machine.

 

[mikesgroovin]

*sigh*
I don't want to argue here, but I am saying the exact thing above. The original dream for "XP" was what is now "ME" and YES, as I stated above, they started from the 9x structure and worked on up. Then ME failed and then the revised "XP dream" or what is now known as the "true XP" was built from the 2000 structure on down to intigrate some of the Windows 98 features.
I am not making any of the above information up. I do a lot of reading, I used to communicate with reps from microsoft everyday as part of my job, I have some friends that work at Microsoft's technical writing department and support.

I think that we are agreeing here as far as the birth of both OS types, but perhaps I'm not wording it in the same way.

I also hear from other people that 2000 isn't good for gaming, but just like you, I haven't found a problem with a single game yet either.

 

[HoLoCroN]

Larry,

I have a mixed environment on my network now, I am running mostly W2k SP3 and SP4, and XP Pro SP1 as workstations and NT4, W2k Servers.

Generally, I don't see any problems with the SP4 boxes, as usual, if you plan on upgrading set aside a few PC's and use them test the before you roll out the update on all of your PC's.