Windows 2000 vs Vista

[izanbardprince]

A side by side comparison of what's happened in the last 7 years.

Windows 2000: Will run on a 133 Mhz Pentium.
Windows Vista: Will just barely load on a 1 Ghz Pentium 3.

Windows 2000: Boots up and uses 57 megabytes of RAM for itself.
Windows Vista: On a machine with a gig of RAM, you're lucky if you have 57 megabytes left.

Windows 2000: Will work with any video card, from the latest Nvidia 8800, all the way down to motherboard video with 2 MB of RAM.

Windows Vista: Practically requires that you have a Geforce 6 or faster with no less than 128 megs on the card.

Windows 2000: Asks me for my serial number then leaves me the hell alone.

Windows Vista: Asks for my serial number, forces me to "activate" it with Microsoft, uploads my personal information to them, then keeps checking up with Microsoft, if activation screws up, I'm just locked out of my computer.

Windows 2000: Will install in a little over a gig and a half.

Windows Vista: The C:/Windows folder alone is over 4 gigs.

Windows 2000: Smoking fast.

Windows Vista: Runs your processor like Fat B*stard on a treadmill

[smoker]

probably win2000pro sp4 is the best microsoft os i've used. i would still use it if i wanted windows for anything.

i tried vista to see what all the fuss was about. found it had nothing i wanted in an os, and removed it, to never darken my HD again. vista is probably the best advert linux and apple could want.

[darksong]

A side by side comparison of what's happened in the last 7 years.

Windows 2000: Will run on a 133 Mhz Pentium.
Windows Vista: Will just barely load on a 1 Ghz Pentium 3.

Windows 2000: Boots up and uses 57 megabytes of RAM for itself.
Windows Vista: On a machine with a gig of RAM, you're lucky if you have 57 megabytes left.

Windows 2000: Will work with any video card, from the latest Nvidia 8800, all the way down to motherboard video with 2 MB of RAM.

Windows Vista: Practically requires that you have a Geforce 6 or faster with no less than 128 megs on the card.

Windows 2000: Asks me for my serial number then leaves me the hell alone.

Windows Vista: Asks for my serial number, forces me to "activate" it with Microsoft, uploads my personal information to them, then keeps checking up with Microsoft, if activation screws up, I'm just locked out of my computer.

Windows 2000: Will install in a little over a gig and a half.

Windows Vista: The C:/Windows folder alone is over 4 gigs.

Windows 2000: Smoking fast.

Windows Vista: Runs your processor like Fat B*stard on a treadmill

Firstly i can explain why many of your points made is wrong. I firstly respect you opion why 2000 is better and yes your general point is correct, windows 2000 will run on much lower hardware. But this is where you are getting confused - windows vista is NOT designed to run on old hardware as it is designed to run on newer hardware. Many of the things you have said about hardware requirements are wrong.

I have had Vista going smoothly, with aero running on a PC with an AMD Xp2400+ , 512mb of ram, nvidia fx5200 and a 80gb h/d with 8mb cache. Now this technology is about 4-5 years old and it would run vista even better if i chucked another 512 stick in it, which i can pick up for around £18. A PC like that i specified is what most people will have and vista is designed for that, not things with early p3's, 128mb of ram and old 8mb graphics.

If MS did then they would have to built an OS which doesn't fit the needs of most people. Vista has featues which take advantage of 5 years or younger hardware.

Vista will take 35-45% of my ram idle. The reason its high like this as it indexes and record the application i most commonly use and at boot it loads parts of it into the ram so quickening the loading time of my application. The reason it does this, is beacause for the every day user who is going to use thier PC for word processing, watching DVD's, listening to Music and browsing the internet - most of their ram will go to waste, it wont be used. So vista uses it - it doesn't fill the ram up, it takes into account what you are using and makes it quicker. Firefox for me boots up on click, no waiting - in linux or XP i would wait for 3-5 second for firefox to show. This is an example of Vista learning and using the ram in an efficent way in order to benifit me.

And no, it doens't run on my processor like a fat ******* 1-10% idle, 35-50% when running a game, but its no worse than the XP machine sitting 5 foot away from me.

If you want a Windows OS for your old hardware go for either XP or lower, they were designed for Yesterdays hardware, Vista is designed for todays hardware.

[darksong]

probably win2000pro sp4 is the best microsoft os i've used. i would still use it if i wanted windows for anything.

i tried vista to see what all the fuss was about. found it had nothing i wanted in an os, and removed it, to never darken my HD again. vista is probably the best advert linux and apple could want.

I do not see how it is an advert to linux when a windows user will (9 time out of 10) will either go back to XP if they don't like it. The average windows user will probably no know about linux and if they did would propably not have a clue or could be assed to learn the linux command line.

Linux is not at the stage, unlike windows, where the user can never touch the command line, some distros are getting there (PclinuxOS, opensuse if they sorted their packagemangement and repo's out) but most are not at this stage yet. More graphical tools need to be built, then alot of work into a distro's interface needs to be put in. The interface is where i feel most distro's skip and in a sence try to save time by not making it unique to set it apart from windows or any other distro. Once a distro does this and then i feel it has a chance against windows or Mac.

[Lster]

Fat ******* on a treadmill? Are you an Austin Powers fan?

[insane_alien]

Fat ******* on a treadmill? Are you an Austin Powers fan?

is there anyone who isn't?

[dca]

probably win2000pro sp4 is the best microsoft os i've used. i would still use it if i wanted windows for anything.

i tried vista to see what all the fuss was about. found it had nothing i wanted in an os, and removed it, to never darken my HD again. vista is probably the best advert linux and apple could want.

I'll drink to that!

[LaRoza]

DOS 6.22 is the best.

[izanbardprince]

DOS 6.22 is the best.

Drvspace FTW!

[jgrabham]

is there anyone who isn't?

No



But anyway, win2k was the only windows that i ever liked (excluding 3.1x)

[jgrabham]

DOS 6.22 is the best.

With 3.11 for workgroups :]

(first computer i used - grew up with that 486)

[izanbardprince]

I remember Windows 3.11, it's actually possible to surf the web on it, I'm sure you can still find Trumpet Winsock and Internet Explorer 5 floating around somewhere. :guitar:

[goumples]

I still miss win95... even tho I dont use windows at all anymore if I could find a copy of it somewhere I'd install that **** on something ;p

[insane_alien]

I still miss win95... even tho I dont use windows at all anymore if I could find a copy of it somewhere I'd install that **** on something ;p

there are numerous dodgy bitorrent sites that will provide a torrent of it. its out there if you look.

[Zannax]

I remember Windows 3.11, it's actually possible to surf the web on it ...

I remember using it with netscape 1.0 and 14.4 modem, and then one day searching for a win 3.1 version of Opera or something like that, I found a link and a note asking: "Win3.1 version? Please, will you join the nineties?" and I realized that I was becoming a little obsolete... :-)

[LaRoza]

Windows 3x, 9x and ME are not actual operating systems, they are still DOS, just with a GUI on top. NT, XP and Vista are different though.

In fact, when MS first made the GUI for DOS, they marketed "Windows" as only a DE, so they wouldn't be liable for being suing from the company they where working with on a GUI OS (it might be IBM, but I really don't remember)

[King_Critter]

Vista will take 35-45% of my ram idle. The reason its high like this as it indexes and record the application i most commonly use and at boot it loads parts of it into the ram so quickening the loading time of my application. The reason it does this, is beacause for the every day user who is going to use thier PC for word processing, watching DVD's, listening to Music and browsing the internet - most of their ram will go to waste, it wont be used. So vista uses it - it doesn't fill the ram up, it takes into account what you are using and makes it quicker. Firefox for me boots up on click, no waiting - in linux or XP i would wait for 3-5 second for firefox to show. This is an example of Vista learning and using the ram in an efficent way in order to benifit me.

Actually, that's what Linux does too. For example, this computer (running Ubuntu) is using 1976 MB of my two gigs.

[izanbardprince]

Actually, that's what Linux does too. For example, this computer (running Ubuntu) is using 1976 MB of my two gigs.

Please tell me you're joking.

64-bit Ubuntu Feisty takes up just a tad over 130 megs on boot up, which isn't awful by any means for a modern OS, Mac OS X uses a minimum of 300 megs on boot, and Vista will have already exhausted my entire gigabyte of RAM and moved on to the swap file.

Seriously, Vista is the beast that cannot be fed.