Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Win2000 Still Performs on 8-year-old Hardware

Posted by timothy on from the probably-on-some-8-year-olds'-hardware-too dept.

Daniel Iversen writes "Still 95% compatible with Windows XP, The Windows 2000 OS still runs very well on very old hardware - hardware with low specs it was never even meant to run on (tech setup guide - not a review). The broad question is, does the fact that you can remain compatible with today's applications and data on hardware that is almost a decade old, impede PC sales?"

3 of 688 comments (clear)

  1. Hardware, no. OS? Absolutely. by _Hiro_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No, but it does impede XP sales.

    At work we just bought a rather sizable chunk of Win2K licenses so that we could upgrade older systems from Win98 without taking the performance hit that we were expecting from XP. Plus since I'm more familiar with Win2K than XP, managing the network is easier for me without having to re-learn where they hid all the settings AGAIN.

    --
    -Pope Peter Porker, S.O.W., K.M.K.R., U.G.O.A., F.S.G.S.D.
  2. Old does not mean useless by rueger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Until the hard drive crashed last month I was running Win 2K on this old Fujitsu Lifebook D765X Pentium Laptop. My sig other took the "good" laptop to Nova Scotia, so I travelled to San Francisco with this one.

    Although slow, the machine actually ran quite OK, even logging into wireless networks and surfing the 'net. Office '97 ran just dandy, as did everything else that I usually have installed.

    Pentium 166, 48 megs RAM. Stable as a rock.

    I doubt very much that XP would even install on this machine, but 2K was happy as a clam.

    --
    Three Squirrels
  3. Re:Duh by epiphani · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Uhh.. yes?

    My fastest machine is an AMD Athlon 800Mhz. I dont do the gaming thing very often, and I honestly feel like the machine performs quite sufficiently for me. I have the money to upgrade, but its simply not a priority for me.

    The fact that I can do everything I need to (I dont do video editing or photoshop type stuff) without excessive latency makes that 800Mhz quite sufficient.

    That being said, I've also avoided going to heavier OS's. I ran W2k for many years, and recently went to XP. Turn off all that eye candy and it performs just as fast.

    Hate to say it, but if I were running linux, I'd probably want something with a little more beef, because the eye candy with some of the X.org window managers is accually functional eye candy, and I would make use of it. As it stands, I dont need it.

    I'd like to point to Gates Law - which I think Longhorn is specifically designed to achieve: The speed of software halves every 18 months. We've got machines now quite capable of running most everyday purposes. The only way to get people to buy the newest and greatest is to introduce overhead in the OS. Under the guise of "perty!" and "search!" M$ is throwing massive amounts of unnessecary crap into OS overhead. Relational database for filesystem? Completely unnessecary.

    --
    .