Windows 2000 Service Pack 4: stable or problems - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Software > Microsoft Windows and Software
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-20-2004, 04:31 AM   #1 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,470
Default Windows 2000 Service Pack 4: stable or problems

Hello, was wondering if anyone has has issues with the SP 4 for windows 2000 pro? I usually don't install when it first comes out and wondering if it is safe to install yet

Question:
if it was you own computer and you need it to work perfectly, would you:

a) install windows XP pro over windows 2000 pro
or
b) reformat, then install XP pro as new install

just trying to save time and not wanting to "reinstall" all my programs,etc.
BUT am afraid if I install XP on top of W2K... it will regret it!

any opinions
thanks
__________________

Larry is offline  
Old 05-20-2004, 12:33 PM   #2 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 807
Default Re: Windows 2000 Service Pack 4: stable or problems

Quote:
Originally posted by Larry
Hello, was wondering if anyone has has issues with the SP 4 for windows 2000 pro? I usually don't install when it first comes out and wondering if it is safe to install yet
SP 4 has been out for quite some time now - about a year. I've installed on my PC and it's fine. No problems.

If you have a copy of XP forget SP4 - I would opt to use XP over W2K.
__________________

Lone Wolf is offline  
Old 05-20-2004, 03:53 PM   #3 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 559
Default Re: Re: Windows 2000 Service Pack 4: stable or problems

Quote:
Originally posted by Lone Wolf
SP 4 has been out for quite some time now - about a year. I've installed on my PC and it's fine. No problems.

If you have a copy of XP forget SP4 - I would opt to use XP over W2K.
I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. Windows 2000 with SP4 is far more mature than Windows XP. If you are concerned about security or you would want to install windows 2000, as it has been out longer. Since it has been out longer it has been subject to many security tests and patches over the course of years. Windows XP is still a baby in many respects. As well in my experience you will have many more glitches with XP than you would 2000. I personally hate windows XP. It's like windows 2000 with a fancy GUI to take up extra clock cycles, as well as being bug ridden. Most techi's I know refuse to use this on their primary machine. I don't know about you but I would rather use an OS that has been debugged for a longer period of time.
ChaosBlizzard is offline  
Old 05-20-2004, 05:50 PM   #4 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 807
Default Re: Re: Re: Windows 2000 Service Pack 4: stable or problems

Quote:
Originally posted by ChaosBlizzard
I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. Windows 2000 with SP4 is far more mature than Windows XP. ...
Windows XP is still a baby in many respects.
I wasnt' very hip on XP when it came out. But i have used it on some different PCs and i can honestly say it's even more stable and faster than W2K. There's nothing "baby" about it... the NT platform has the same architecture as W2K/NT and the so-called bugs have been pretty much worked out already. There's nothing that i've heard of about XP that would alarm me as to being "skittish" or such... it's a rock solid system and the ugly GUI that some people don't like can be changed back to the classic look.
Lone Wolf is offline  
Old 05-20-2004, 10:25 PM   #5 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 559
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 2000 Service Pack 4: stable or problems

Quote:
Originally posted by Lone Wolf
I wasnt' very hip on XP when it came out. But i have used it on some different PCs and i can honestly say it's even more stable and faster than W2K. There's nothing "baby" about it... the NT platform has the same architecture as W2K/NT and the so-called bugs have been pretty much worked out already. There's nothing that i've heard of about XP that would alarm me as to being "skittish" or such... it's a rock solid system and the ugly GUI that some people don't like can be changed back to the classic look.

Hardly, I have had all kinds of problems with windows XP. It has gone as far as complete system corruption causing me to reinstall everything, which happened more than once. Windows XP also gets very sluggish with time compared to windows 2000, which prompts me to reboot it every week. I can run windows 2000 for months without that need. I have never had a BSOD with windows 2000, I can't say the same for windows XP. My windows 2000 machine also boots up faster than my grandparents windows XP machine, and this machine is suppose to be 4x's slower... Many users would agree with me when I say windows XP is nothing more than a home version of windows 2000 for people who can't handle windows 2000. For one thing, windows XP hates it when you touch something in the system files.. I know what I'm doing Microsoft, I don't need your garbage operating system telling me what I can and can not touch! Windows XP even has hidden files that are beyond the normal hidden files, which Microsoft doesn't feel your smart enough to deal with. Windows XP is a smack in the face. It was built for the average user, not the poweruser.
ChaosBlizzard is offline  
Old 05-21-2004, 12:33 AM   #6 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 193
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 2000 Service Pack 4: stable or problems

Quote:
Originally posted by ChaosBlizzard
Hardly, I have had all kinds of problems with windows XP. It has gone as far as complete system corruption causing me to reinstall everything, which happened more than once. Windows XP also gets very sluggish with time compared to windows 2000, which prompts me to reboot it every week. I can run windows 2000 for months without that need. I have never had a BSOD with windows 2000, I can't say the same for windows XP. My windows 2000 machine also boots up faster than my grandparents windows XP machine, and this machine is suppose to be 4x's slower... Many users would agree with me when I say windows XP is nothing more than a home version of windows 2000 for people who can't handle windows 2000. For one thing, windows XP hates it when you touch something in the system files.. I know what I'm doing Microsoft, I don't need your garbage operating system telling me what I can and can not touch! Windows XP even has hidden files that are beyond the normal hidden files, which Microsoft doesn't feel your smart enough to deal with. Windows XP is a smack in the face. It was built for the average user, not the poweruser.
I can't say I ever had a problem with xp, I install many many gb's of data, and store countless more. Btw, windows xp after stripping off all the pretty GUI meant for the newbies you will see it's very reminiscent of windows 2000. Also, how can you compare the boot time of your grand parents' xp machine to your 2k machine. I'm assuming you are the more knowledgable techie so you obviously maintain your windows install better, conciously or otherwise. I know that if you maintain xp or 2k properly they will treat you well. I have never had a blue screen in my 2 years experience with xp, nor have I had poor boot times. I definately must disagree with you about it being for the average user. The administrative tools have gone above and beyond that which 2k implemented. Finally, the problems being caused in xp (worms etc... ) have a tendancy to also affect the 2k machines as well, I'm not sure if you've noticed. They are sister operating systems, they tend to have the same flaws. Very few may be directed at just windows xp. If it is, it is taking advantage of some new feature. However, like I said, most have affected both os's.
I have no idea how anyone can say 2k is better.
__________________
Before posting ask your question here:
<form method=\"get\" action=\"http://www.google.com/search\">
<input type=\"text\" name=\"q\" size=\"5\" maxlength=\"255\" style=\"width:200px;\" /><input type=\"submit\" name=\"ask\" value=\"Ask\" style=\"width:40px\" />
</form>
modemide is offline  
Old 05-21-2004, 12:41 AM   #7 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 559
Default Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows 2000 Service Pack 4: stable or problems

Quote:
Originally posted by modemide
I can't say I ever had a problem with xp, I install many many gb's of data, and store countless more. Btw, windows xp after stripping off all the pretty GUI meant for the newbies you will see it's very reminiscent of windows 2000. Also, how can you compare the boot time of your grand parents' xp machine to your 2k machine. I'm assuming you are the more knowledgable techie so you obviously maintain your windows install better, conciously or otherwise. I know that if you maintain xp or 2k properly they will treat you well. I have never had a blue screen in my 2 years experience with xp, nor have I had poor boot times. I definately must disagree with you about it being for the average user. The administrative tools have gone above and beyond that which 2k implemented. Finally, the problems being caused in xp (worms etc... ) have a tendancy to also affect the 2k machines as well, I'm not sure if you've noticed. They are sister operating systems, they tend to have the same flaws. Very few may be directed at just windows xp. If it is, it is taking advantage of some new feature. However, like I said, most have affected both os's.
I have no idea how anyone can say 2k is better.
I have no idea how you can say windows XP has better admin tools? They have the same tools! I also maintain my grandparents system. This pc has a 533mhz Celeron II, theirs has a 2.0Ghz Celeron II. My system boots faster than theirs.. I have also had others tell me how their windows 2000 machines boot faster. Also if you took a system and added yet more code to it, your going to have new problems, such as modifying windows 2000 into windows XP. I also have never had a worm, I keep my system well protected. I can say its better because I fix computers, that's what I do, I have used just about every operating system their is, except OS2... I also involve myself in CISCO networking. I have never seen a server use windows XP. I asked my professor why, he said he would rather not have the server go down... And he has over 40 years experience with IBM and CISCO. Also all my techi friends perfer 2k over XP, they can't stand it either. I also have an uncle that works for the military, they refuse to use it. To me all that says something...

Also, if your a serious use and need real admin tools, than the ones that come with any windows distro aren't good enough. You will just end up buying third party programs. Such programs include Novel, Deepfreeze (Security reasons), and data management programs.
ChaosBlizzard is offline  
Old 05-21-2004, 12:46 AM   #8 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 193
Default

XP doesn't have a server line .. unless you are talking about windows 2003 server.
__________________
Before posting ask your question here:
<form method=\"get\" action=\"http://www.google.com/search\">
<input type=\"text\" name=\"q\" size=\"5\" maxlength=\"255\" style=\"width:200px;\" /><input type=\"submit\" name=\"ask\" value=\"Ask\" style=\"width:40px\" />
</form>
modemide is offline  
Old 05-21-2004, 12:49 AM   #9 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by modemide
XP doesn't have a server line .. unless you are talking about windows 2003 server.
You could use windows XP Pro. If its a real network it will have Novel installed anyway... That takes care of the user account needs. Eventually I will move over to linux anyway.. Lycoris is looking really good.

http://lycoris.com/
ChaosBlizzard is offline  
Old 05-21-2004, 03:16 AM   #10 (permalink)
HONK if you route packets
 
mikesgroovin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: MD
Posts: 4,715
Default

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
__________________

mikesgroovin is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.