i have never had a similarly nice microstuff os on my computer except maybe server 2k3

also the file copy issue says "hardware"

I should also add that 98, ME, XP and 7 have all worked perfectly on this setup.

My take is that you should give it a go and see for yourself. Every build is different, you can have smooth everything with one build, but the next one fights you at every turn.

I found on my most recent project that ME doesn't like my IDE to SATA adapter with SSD for example, but works flawless with the IDE to SD card adapter. XP on the other hand has no issues with the IDE to SATA adapter and the SSD.

Oldskoolmaniac wrote:

I should also add that 98, ME, XP and 7 have all worked perfectly on this setup.

ok, in that case i would say 2k comes with a driver that fscks things up; slipstream newer drivers into the installation media?

We have had several threads now on Windows 2000.
Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build
Windows 2000 & Gaming: A question
Windows 98 SE Vs. Windows 2000

Oldskoolmaniac wrote:

*Audio driver installs perfect, but in control panel under sounds and multimedia it shows no playback devices and i cant place the audio icon in the task bar. Under device manger it show its installed. Tried several different audio cards and still cant wrap my head around it.

Yes, you started a thread about that already.
Re: SB Live 5.1 & Win2000 problems

I have never heard of this "snappy driver installer" before and it could very well be the cause of your problems.

* cannot copy files larger then 50MB otherwise they become corrupt. small files are fine.

From one spot on a hard drive to another, or from one disk to another, or over the network, or what?

*Installing office 2007 make for unbootable os and yes office 07 runs fine on 2000 ive done it in VM.

Well if it works in a VM, it can't possibly be a software problem, now can it..?

Yep did the driver slipstream

Yes i know i started a thread about the audio, but that wasn't the only problem i encountered and Snappy driver installation was my last resort so its not because of that.

Ive copied files from network drives, websites, secondary internal drive and from flash drive fat32 and ntfs.

Dont know, but only thing i can think of is its via chipset and maybe 2000 doesn't play well with via? Hey Phil was you're chipset via?

i had an mvp3 back then and it was problematic until i chose one version of the via driver that worked; do you get corruption when copying in rescue mode?

Now that I think about it, it has got to be a via problem i did install it on a intel board a long time ago and it worked fine.

I may be a minority here but I hate both ME and 2000 🤣. Annoyed the piss out of me that more than half of my games no longer worked when I tried them on a Win2k computer. Plus it was less stable than 98.

I didn't actually use either ME or 2000 for any extended period of time. The reason they got their reputation is strictly in comparison to what existed before them.

Win2000 was the first time you had NT stability* with the ability to run most mainstream software in a reasonable way. So it was loved.

WinME was essentially the same as Win98SE (and all the inherent instability*) minus the much loved pure DOS mode. And it came out half a year after Win2000. No wonder it was hated.

At that point - first impressions stuck and shaped the image of these OSes in minds of people for years to come.

* I mean stability of the kernel model itself. Obviously bad drivers or faulty hardware can crash any OS.

Back in the day, though win 2000 upset me a bit because of issues with dos games [kinda why i ended up here ofc] i loved it because to me it was clean and uncluttered, and stable - far fewer bsods than i got with 98 or 95, and a lot better for gaming that nt4 had been.

I ran 2000 on my Athlon XP rig back when it was new... it was a good OS, I liked it. Much less bloat and shiny plastic trim than XP. I feel like it ran a little bit snappier. However, the big issue I had at the time, was that I was dual booting Mandrake Linux 9, and Win2k would hang on boot for about 3/4 minutes, presumably trying to mount the ext3 partition.

Eventually I got the shits and moved to XP, which solved that problem. I ran that for years but I still feel like 2K was a bit faster, especially after installing all the service packs.

In 2002 I used Windows 2000 Advanced Server for email server, development server, and office works at workplace. I even installed Turtle Beach Montego II Quadzilla to test how games would run on 2000 (my boss turned a blind eye), and certain games did run flawlessly --provided they ran on the first place.

Yes, game support is quite limited. But Windows 2000 feels fast and responsive even with all those loads. Then came 2003, and everything became less responsive.

so let me ask, would You also say that windows server has a better storage performance than workstation? this definitely holds for xp/2003 imho

I have fond memories of Win2k, but I have not run it at all since 2007. I upgraded from 98SE to Win2k in 2000, and it was my primary OS until 2007. I don't remember having any compatibility issues with it until 2007 when browsers, drivers, and games started to phase out support. When the hardware and programs I wanted/needed either stopped working or became a pain to workaround, I switched to Ubuntu 7.04. I still run linux primarily at home, but got back into Windows out of necessity (I work in IT). Typing this now on XP. 😀

I'd say that it was even better than claimed. The bad news are that it was a really great OS for business and for that time.

At that time, Microsoft had two OS types: the home ones (Windows 95/98) and the business ones (Windows NT).

Compared with Windows NT, anyone that had to deploy /configure / use Windows NT 4.0 knows that Windows 2000 was more human oriented than NT. Windows 2000 was (almost) as friendly as Windws 98, but retaining the stability and security (when used in a domain) that NT products offered. Also, a Windows 2000 domain had more features (and Windows 2000 server had more services to offer) than NT domains, and Windows 2000 workstations were naturally suited to go with Windows 2000 servers / domains because both OSs were synced.

Compared with Windows 98, Windows 2000 has more stability and security (even when not used in domains) provided that drivers were as stable as in Windows 98. Windows 98 is better suited for games because that NT kernel is not compatible with some games. There is no DOS under Windows 2000, so DOS games won't be able to access hardware directly (=there are sound issues and some games won't work at all).

Compared to both Windows NT and Windows 98, Windows 2000 needs more CPU and RAM to work, but being launched after those OS it doesn't means anything.

Windows XP was the point where home and business OS met. It's not surprise that is more game compatible than 2000, and more stable than Windows 98 (and eats up more CPU and RAM than both). Windows XP still lacks a real DOS, so it have the same "features" as Windows 2000 when used for DOS gaming. Windows XP workstations (=Windows XP Professional) were launched between Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 server, supporting more features than Windows 2000 servers but less than 2003 servers... they didn't gave problems but made a strange mixup.

So, Windows 2000 was one of the best business OSs that Microsoft launched. Comparing it to their "home" OSs is not fair (different targets), but even at home can be a good OS (not as good as XP, but...).

I just happened to randomly stumble upon this ancient thread discussing problems with Via and Windows 2000. You might find disk errors in Event Viewer.
https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=929128

Zup wrote:

Windows 98 is better suited for games because that NT kernel is not compatible with some games.

With all the updates and latest DirectX (DX9?) it's similar to XP.
Some older games detect 2K and XP as NT and simply refuse to run even if they would run without problems.
Mechwarrior 2 is an example.

Windows 2000 is a direct predecessor to XP so it has more in common with XP (without the eye candy) than with 98.

Windows 2000 surely was impressive for its time. it was the first NT with Plug'n'Prey, a large pool of usable drivers
(NT3/4 weren't that well supported by consumer-grade hardware) and a modern network stack
- and it was also the last one without product activation (except for Me, which was based on an older OS line).

I think 2K was also beloved for beeing a serious, stable and unpretentious system.
(The majority of *nix users share this opinion, I guess. I have never heard a Linux guy saying something negative about 2K.
The few I talked to were more like "Windows is crap, except maybe Windows 2000. That was ok.")
Not only were the hardware requirements quite low (+32MB of RAM for an NT OS is low, OS/2 also was hungry for RAM),
but also the GUI wasn't so -uhm- "pushy".

The good NT (or NT4) compatibility also made it a first choice for say, accounting or scientific use.
Or for upgrading old NT4 boxes. It also was still somewhat OS/2 compatible. Text mode programs were supported out-of-box,
the HPFS filesystem was still usable and even PM 1.x applications could still be run (via "OS/2 Presentation Manager for NT" add-on).

It also supported the IPX/SPX network protocol, which was removed in XP (but could be re-installed by using 2K files).
Another difference is that, unlike XP, Windows 2000 still relied on normal GDI (XP used GDI+ for the GUI).
This perhaps made it a bit more responsive than XP, as the GDI+ portion is always software-assisted.