Is W2000 rational on a new build now?

[JBNimble]

I still like Windows 2000 best. I am currently using XP, but must use Microsoft Virtual PC to run W2000 for one of my old, irreplaceable programs.

My chief concern is with security. Microsoft no longer supports W2000 (I guess). Will Zone Alarm Security Suite (or something similar) plus a AdAware and Spybot make surfing safe with W2000?

[traveler]

I run win2000. It's on 24/7. So is my win98se box. It also runs 24/7.

My first ever installation of XP will be on my new X48 system to be built next month. XP will be needed to run Crysis, BioShock, Flight Simulator 10, etc. Up until about the third or fourth quarter of 2007, games would run fine on win2000 even though the box would say XP Only. But not now.

[k0NG0]

Why not disable as much of the network connections in the virtual PC session as possible? (Does the irreplaceable program require a network connection? If not, disable networking completely.)

Run the application windowed and surf on the XP host, where you have all the current XP security software protecting you.

[Perry County]

I've never understood XP aversion for Win2K users. Disable a few unneeded services and WHAM, it's the same thing.

[wallijonn]

Originally Posted by Perry County

I've never understood XP aversion for Win2K users. Disable a few unneeded services and WHAM, it's the same thing.

Actually, W2K is more robust than XP. With W2K you have Restricted (Limited in XP), Power User and User. You can lock down the Restricted account so that it cannot even read anything but its own area. It's a little harder in XP to do the same thing.

What I find is that W2K is basically made for single procs and XP is made for dual procs (I used to have to turn the hyper threading off in W2K (BIOS)). IIRC. Look at Control Panel _> Admin Tools -> Local Security Settings -> User Rights Assignments. IIRC, W2K has more options.

[S.SubZero]

Originally Posted by wallijonn

Actually, W2K is more robust than XP. With W2K you have Restricted (Limited in XP), Power User and User. You can lock down the Restricted account so that it cannot even read anything but its own area. It's a little harder in XP to do the same thing.

The Power User was a total waste of code, as a Power User could simply promote themselves to Administrator. It was an account level based solely on faith that the user wouldn't do this.

I don't understand how Win2K could be "more robust" than XP in any way. All this user access level stuff you talk about was completely useless in Win2K's day, because apps didn't understand it. Home users were still on Win9x, and apps assumed full privilege. Try installing a game in Win2K without admin rights and it had a high probability of not working. From NT4 through XP's early days I did desktop support and it was always a rule to make the user an Administrator. It was too much of a support headache to do otherwise. Lots of companies did this.

This is why Vista is so paranoid. It purposely makes sure that the user isn't really an administrator, they can only request privilege escalation on a case-by-case basis. Vista boxes technically have no administrator at all, everyone runs as a sort of Power User. It's a good thing, and it's how UNIX OS's have been (supposed to be) run for years.

Outside of that, Win2K is considerably LESS robust, and definitely much older and outdated than XP is. Win2K is end-of-life, and I don't know anyone that will miss it. It was good, but XP improved on it in every possible way, and is better to the point that even Vista can't top it.

[JBNimble]

Originally Posted by Perry County

I've never understood XP aversion for Win2K users. Disable a few unneeded services and WHAM, it's the same thing.

My aversion is, as stated, that XP will not run my old program. It lacks expanded memory.

[S.SubZero]

What specific application do you have (and really need) that runs on Win2K but won't run on XP?

[Rickwell]

Win2K was good in it's day.I guess there wouldn't be to much wrong running it now.But it isn't better than WinXP.You might try to run the compatability mode to Win2k on old software to see if that works.It's one of those things that you need to decide what's best though.It also depends what you want to do with it.

[JBNimble]

I am using Roots3, a DOS genealogy program last updates around 1991.

I have purchased half a dozen of the "best" Windows genealogy programs since, and hate them all.

Roots3 requires expanded memory. W2000 has it and XP does not.

Thus I must go through the nuisance of Virtual PC to run W2000 under XP.

[S.SubZero]

DOSBox, a x86 emulator with DOS

Not suitable?

[JBNimble]

I tried DOSBox. No go.

It's been a while, but I as I recall, expanded memory was the problem there also.

[traveler]

I love having my Pentium II up and running with win98se and a VooDoo 3 card.

[BPW]

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

The Power User was a total waste of code, as a Power User could simply promote themselves to Administrator. It was an account level based solely on faith that the user wouldn't do this.

I don't understand how Win2K could be "more robust" than XP in any way. All this user access level stuff you talk about was completely useless in Win2K's day, because apps didn't understand it. Home users were still on Win9x, and apps assumed full privilege. Try installing a game in Win2K without admin rights and it had a high probability of not working. From NT4 through XP's early days I did desktop support and it was always a rule to make the user an Administrator. It was too much of a support headache to do otherwise. Lots of companies did this.

This is why Vista is so paranoid. It purposely makes sure that the user isn't really an administrator, they can only request privilege escalation on a case-by-case basis. Vista boxes technically have no administrator at all, everyone runs as a sort of Power User. It's a good thing, and it's how UNIX OS's have been (supposed to be) run for years.

Outside of that, Win2K is considerably LESS robust, and definitely much older and outdated than XP is. Win2K is end-of-life, and I don't know anyone that will miss it. It was good, but XP improved on it in every possible way, and is better to the point that even Vista can't top it.

Well said.