Which OS 2000 or XP for older hardware?

[griz]

Hello everyone I have been testing and distro hopping for ever and I really would like to settle down on one. To start here is a list of the hardware in my pc which is 7 years old. I love linux and the applications available for it, but I have some old games I want to play and I need to run a version of autocad with survcadd. This rules out linux for me. I have used windows xp with sp2 slipstreamed and w2k with sp4 slipstreamed. Both will run my applications, but I want maximum performance from my older hardware expecially since I will be using it for some gaming(emulation, NFS series, and other open source games), Cadwork(autocad 2006 seems to run well with survcadd 2006 and toolpac), other everyday stuff like ripping and encoding dvd's, editing pics etc.

P3-733

384MB RAM

80 GB 7200RPM 2GB cache drive

NV GF4 MX 440

DVD+-RW

CD-RW

I love linux and the applications available for it, but I have some old games I want to play and I need to run a version of autocad with survcadd. This rules out linux for me. I have used windows xp with sp2 slipstreamed and w2k with sp4 slipstreamed. Both will run my applications, but I want maximum performance from my older hardware expecially since I will be using it for some gaming(emulation, NFS series, and other open source games), Cadwork(autocad 2006 seems to run well with survcadd 2006 and toolpac), other everyday stuff like ripping and encoding dvd's, editing pics etc.

I have googled and read forums, benchmarks, tests, and tweaks until I am sick. Right now I am running windows xp sp2. with bbclean for a shell, and windows classic theme. I want my puter to look good too. I have used the revolutions pack for 2k with success for 32bit icon support. Programs I usually keep running in the background include: Privoxy, samurize, kerio personal firewall 2.1.5, volumouse, and jtk(joy to key). What do you guys suggest for my os? 2ksp4 or xp sp2? I want the best performance, but I also want my os and apps to look good.

I can't understand why programs seem to use more memory in xp than in 2k. For examply bbclean(blackbox) uses around 18mb in xp. I am certain task manager wont show nearly as much for that app in 2k. I understand that xp manages memory differently and I have heard that unused ram is wasted ram. I am thinking that xp probably allocates more for performance until something else needs it

Any suggestions on anything will be much appreciated.

griz

[DL.]

Stay with XP, there is no use in running 2k anymore.

You could probably upgrade your current computer very cheaply with used parts; check out eBay or any other similar site.

It's understandable if you don't want to shell out lots of cash for that old comp, but a slight (and cheap) upgrade will be worth it.

Adding some more RAM will do that machine good, adding just one stick of 512 MB (PC133) is enough.

You could also replace that P3 with a 933 or 1-1.13 GHz.

These two should cost you less than 50$.

The graphics card may also be replaced, but that is not as important. At my parents place we've got an old P3 1.26 GHz/896 MB RAM/GeForce6200, running XP and any normal program (haven't tried games on it) very well (it's really quick and responsive).

Removing unnecessary startup progs, cleaning out malware and tweaking the services will also help your performance.

Edited September 10, 2007 by DL.

[puntoMX]

I am certain task manager wont show nearly as much for that app in 2k. I understand that xp manages memory differently and I have heard that unused ram is wasted ram. I am thinking that xp probably allocates more for performance until something else needs it...

This is exactly what Vista does...

Take a look at the nLite forum here on MSFN, you could make your OS lighter by kick out unused drivers and parts of 2K/XP. For your GeForce 440MX I would use drivers from Omega by the way, check them out on www.guru3D.com...

Welcome to MSFN by the way .

[TravisO]

XP is faster, and actually uses less ram than 2000 after you configure it & disable the extra services. I've tested this under an extreme situation; I took a machine with 96mb of ram, booted 2000 and booted XP, XP was visibly faster.

Yes XP does some pre-fetch stuff and makes use of un-used ram, but who cares, once you need the ram it's given up and that doesn't slow you down at all. Why do you think XP is faster than 2000 in the first place?

Plus there are tons of security improvements to XP, it's the first MS OS where you can fully run as a non admin, and use RunAs to run admin functions or use some of their un-official tools like MakeMeAdmin, DropMyRights, PrivBar and such to make your non-admin life easier. These things don't work with 2000.

Keep in mind most MS OSs are in 2 steps: revolutionary and evolutionary. The first is an overhaul (big ram & computing increase) the 2nd is improvements & tweaks (faster, sometimes even leaner). So Win95->98, Win2000->XP, Vista->Win 2009 (WinME didn't get a sequel because, well it sucked). So generally speaking you'll always want to run the 2nd OS when you can choose as it contains huge improvements over the one before it.

PS: Task Manager does a HORRIBLE job reporting ram usage, for example it puts shared memory under every program. So if you have two 5mb programs that can share a 10mb block of memory (ex: .Net apps or a common DLL), Task Manager will report each program uses 15mb of ram (30mb total), when technically it's 10mb (20mb total). A better program to use (but much more complicated) is Process Monitor as it will list the shared amount of memory.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysintern...essmonitor.mspx

Edited September 10, 2007 by TravisO

[Fungus]

windows2000 imo, the boot time is a bit longer becuase it checks file integrity at startup. As for running faster, I disagree, they run about the same.

windows2000 is also a lot more secure than windows XP, but it doesn't have all the fancy schmancy gui stuff that XP does. IMO it's just for looks and nothing else. Both operating systems are based on Windows NT, as is windows2003 server and Vista. It all depends on what your going to be using the system for.

[jaclaz]

I am personally a 2K user, never needed the fancy stuff of XP, and in my experience, if you remove the unneeded stuff from 2K as well, it will be (slightly) faster (meaning a bit more responsive) than XP on lower end hardware.

Just two notes:

1) Using XP or 2003 NTLDR+NTDETECT.COM to boot Win2K provides a faster booting when compared to original Win2K files

2) USB Mass Storage access (pendrives or sticks) appear to be WAY faster in 2K

Though not a "mathematically exact" method, a good idea is to always check the minimum requirements Microsoft gives:

http://www.dewassoc.com/support/win2000/require.htm

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865

and at least double amount of RAM and speed of processor to get a "working-in-real-life" system.

As you can see, memory requirements betrween the two are pretty similar, while a higher speed CPU is required for XP.

And of course you can experiment with LESS hardware power:

http://winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm

jaclaz

[Kelsenellenelvian]

WFLP anyone?

Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PC's would definatly be worth it on that PC. (If you could find a copy of course)

[griz]

Hello People, Thanks for all your replies. I had never heard of what jaclaz said replacing the 2k boot files with the ones from xp. I will check out the link from travis0 to check the shared memory deal. I am still a bit unsure as to which OS I will use. I know I can tweak, trim, and nlite xp to death to make it faster and use less memory. But as someone mentioned I can do the same to 2k. I seemed to me that xp seemed to be more responsive in opening explorer windows and browsing directories with lots of files. Again, I say it seemed that way, it could just be me. I definately want to keep the 32bit icon support and even though the revolution pack for 2k works pretty good, there are a few glitches. I would like to get my hands on a copy of the windows fundamentals version of xp just to try it out. As someone may have mentioned, its probably just regular xp with stuff took out kinda like it's been nlited.

Thanks again for all the replies. I'll let you guys know what happens. Right now, working in xp with the apps mentioned running in the background Autocad 2006 with Survcadd works pretty good as long as I'm working with relatively small files. I would like to try the same in 2k and when I get time I might do that. I just hate going through all the riga-ma-rore of re-installing all my apps.

griz

[puntoMX]

I would like to get my hands on a copy of the windows fundamentals version of xp just to try it out. As someone may have mentioned, its probably just regular xp with stuff took out kinda like it's been nlited.

A copy, that would be illegal... and they are not sold in every country too...

Any way, it’s better to make your own W2K or XP with nLite, just kick out the thing you are sure about that don’t break any thing, on the other hand people are very helpful in the nLite forums .

[Fungus]

Thanks for the ntdetect and ntldr trick, this works very nice.

[Ninho]

Hey TravisO, why dare you write :

Plus there are tons of security improvements to XP, it's the first MS OS where you can fully run as a non admin, and use RunAs to run admin functions or use some of their un-official tools like MakeMeAdmin, DropMyRights, PrivBar and such to make your non-admin life easier. These things don't work with 2000.

MakeMeAdmin (cf. Aaron Margosis's at MSDN blogs) and similar work fully in Win2k, indeed they were developped on it. I run as a restricted user all the time & use MakeMEAdmin and never have to logon as Admin in 2k, not even for running and installing Windows Updates. Please do not sow FUD.

Cheers

--

Ninho

[888]

2) USB Mass Storage access (pendrives or sticks) appear to be WAY faster in 2K

not only 'appear' but they ARE faster.

There is no DRMs built-in into the code of W2K (as opposed to XP).

Thats the sole reason why.

[Kurt_Aust]

Completely unscientific I know, but I've run both 2000 and XP in a virtual machine on the same box with the same settings. 2000 is (just) passable while XP is truly painful.

I also have to somewhat disagree with TravisO on the evolutionary front:

Keep in mind most MS OSs are in 2 steps: revolutionary and evolutionary. The first is an overhaul (big ram & computing increase) the 2nd is improvements & tweaks (faster, sometimes even leaner). So Win95->98, Win2000->XP, Vista->Win 2009 (WinME didn't get a sequel because, well it sucked). So generally speaking you'll always want to run the 2nd OS when you can choose as it contains huge improvements over the one before it.

Except the actual sequence is NT4 -> 2000 -> XP, the bit about wanting the 2nd OS is dead on though.

With the notable exception of DEP (which won't work with older hardware anyway), Win2000 can be made just as secure as XP by the use of free 3rd party Anti-Virus, Anti-Spyware and FireWall.

[jaclaz]

2) USB Mass Storage access (pendrives or sticks) appear to be WAY faster in 2K

not only 'appear' but they ARE faster.

There is no DRMs built-in into the code of W2K (as opposed to XP).

Thats the sole reason why.

Interesting , do you have any link with some details and data?

(I used "appears" as I have no exact comparison/test data to show the amount of lag you have under XP.)

jaclaz

[888]

2) USB Mass Storage access (pendrives or sticks) appear to be WAY faster in 2K

not only 'appear' but they ARE faster.

There is no DRMs built-in into the code of W2K (as opposed to XP).

Thats the sole reason why.

Interesting , do you have any link with some details and data?

(I used "appears" as I have no exact comparison/test data to show the amount of lag you have under XP.)

jaclaz

no link will ever exist until Windows code is publicly known (apparently never).

Some smarter than me people came to this conclusion in the past, and I believe this explanation to be correct, because testing i.e. exactly same computer with same pendrives but different OSes always is faster on W2K (test it for yourself, dont take my word for it). What other possible reason in WinXP OS could slow it down when compared to 2K - we do know the major difference between NT5.0 (W2K) and NT5.1 (XP) are basically built-in DRMs into the WinXP OS code (and few other things like GUI, which won't matter in this case).

edit: Pls. don't say the XP drivers are 'slower'

Edited September 16, 2007 by 888