I'd say download an iso that includes SP4, and you're good to go 😀

mmx_91 wrote on 2024-08-13, 13:56:

I'd say download an iso that includes SP4, and you're good to go 😀

It's for retro computer purposes and for connect cameras by USB and see camera photos... so It must be compatible with that.

I already have 5.00.2195.6717 version in my language.

Is that the last version?

SP's are service packs and they can install over any base version of Windows 2000. You don't need any other slipstreamed versions. You could download the service packs from Microsoft (assuming their DLs are still up)

Cameras are effectively USB mass storage devices to Windows so I can't see why it wouldn't work with Win2000....

Win2k had service packs, but there was different versions in another way: different products.

There is the desktop/workstation version, Professional. And then 3 different server versions.

I ran 2kPro back in the day on my desktop and gaming machine, and at some point put 2k server on my desktop PC. 2k server has terminal services, and if you change a few settings, disable some stuff, 2k server is a fine desktop OS. IMHO the best version of Windows for desktop MS released.

I recently put 2k Advanced Server on an Core2 laptop, it now dual boots the current Slackware64 version 15.0, and the 25 year old Win2kAS, which is kinda hilarious.

That laptop only has two cores, so 2k Server would have been sufficient for the hardware. But if you have something with 4 cores then for 2k you will need Advanced Server or Data Centre Server. I do not recommend DCS, I used it back in the day for the home domain controller. Normal service packs don't install on it, and SP3 was the highest I ever got: then all the rest of the patches manually. I mean dabble with DCS, but don't take it too seriously.

If 2k could run on the i5 I'm using now, I think I would have to use DCS or it would not be able to see all 12 CPUS (6 core, HT).

On NT4 I did the hack to make workstation into server, showing to me how there wasn't loads of difference (Personal Web Server would "change" into IIS, too). Same goes for the versions of 2000, they are all the same kernel and as such basically all support the same hardware. It sounds silly plugging a USB camera into a server, but it isn't really a server.... or the workstation isn't really a workstation.

To answer the topic, 2000 Server.

psaez wrote on 2024-08-13, 13:57:

I already have 5.00.2195.6717 version in my language.
Is that the last version?

Yes that is SP4 and would be the version I'd go with as well

There are 4 versions of Windows 2000 server.
Server, Advanced Server, Datacentre Server and Powered.

progman.exe wrote on 2024-08-13, 16:17:

I ran 2kPro back in the day on my desktop and gaming machine, and at some point put 2k server on my desktop PC. 2k server has terminal services, and if you change a few settings, disable some stuff, 2k server is a fine desktop OS. IMHO the best version of Windows for desktop MS released.

I tried Windows Server 2008 on my laptop and experienced horrible GUI performance – Web browsers chugged. Is Windows 2000 Server any better in this regard?

GemCookie wrote on 2024-08-14, 07:58:

[...]
I tried Windows Server 2008 on my laptop and experienced horrible GUI performance – Web browsers chugged. Is Windows 2000 Server any better in this regard?

Windows Server 2008 was the server version of Vista, and it was also panned for horrible responsiveness. So yes, just about any other Windows Server version will be more of a pleasure to use.

Win2k Server shares with Win2k Workstation that it has a very clean (though unaccelerated) UI which should be more responsive than later versions, I've never really noticed any difference in responsiveness between Server and Workstation unless the system is RAM-limited (Server has a bigger footprint). Its biggest drawback is relatively long boot time.

dionb wrote on 2024-08-14, 10:24:

Windows Server 2008 was the server version of Vista, and it was also panned for horrible responsiveness. So yes, just about any other Windows Server version will be more of a pleasure to use.

Vista's bad reputation is a bit unwarranted. I've used almost every Windows release on my main desktop; Vista wasn't any less responsive than 7, 8, 10 or 11. It took longer to boot, but that's about it.

Win2k Server shares with Win2k Workstation that it has a very clean (though unaccelerated) UI which should be more responsive than later versions, I've never really noticed any difference in responsiveness between Server and Workstation unless the system is RAM-limited (Server has a bigger footprint). Its biggest drawback is relatively long boot time.

Alright.

There is also an x64 version of Windows 2000.
If you google Windows 2000 Advanced Server Limited Edition you should come up with something.

GemCookie wrote on 2024-08-14, 10:31:

Vista's bad reputation is a bit unwarranted. I've used almost every Windows release on my main desktop; Vista wasn't any less re […]
Show full quote

dionb wrote on 2024-08-14, 10:24:

Windows Server 2008 was the server version of Vista, and it was also panned for horrible responsiveness. So yes, just about any other Windows Server version will be more of a pleasure to use.

Vista's bad reputation is a bit unwarranted. I've used almost every Windows release on my main desktop; Vista wasn't any less responsive than 7, 8, 10 or 11. It took longer to boot, but that's about it.

Win2k Server shares with Win2k Workstation that it has a very clean (though unaccelerated) UI which should be more responsive than later versions, I've never really noticed any difference in responsiveness between Server and Workstation unless the system is RAM-limited (Server has a bigger footprint). Its biggest drawback is relatively long boot time.

Alright.

IMO Vista really wakes up at 2GB installed RAM. Whereas 7 you can be as productive on 1.5GB or 1GB on XP, so if you go from 1GB XP to 1GB Vista, ewww. Early versions of 10 ran bearably well on 1GB but I wouldn't like to try it on less than 2 now.

First and only time I had Vista was on a dual X5365 with 16Gb RAM and RAID0 SAS hard disks.
Never had a single problem with it, it was a good OS.

Windows 2000 runs on the same system and while it only runs x32 it also runs like a dream.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-08-14, 18:45:

There is also an x64 version of Windows 2000.

Wasn't that just for Itanium?

I don't think that version would run on standard x64 CPUs.

It's indeed IA-64 only. Standard x64 didn't come until Server 2003 SP1.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-08-14, 19:50:

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-08-14, 18:45:

There is also an x64 version of Windows 2000.

Wasn't that just for Itanium?

I don't think that version would run on standard x64 CPUs.

Yes it is IA64. So for Itanium processors only.

It is an 64 bit OS but not x86-64 as Windows 7 can be for instance.

x64 is a catch all.

PcBytes wrote on 2024-08-14, 22:16:

It's indeed IA-64 only. Standard x64 didn't come until Server 2003 SP1.

"On April 25, 2005, Microsoft released Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003, x64 Editions in Standard, Enterprise and Datacenter"

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-08-14, 22:42:

PcBytes wrote on 2024-08-14, 22:16:

It's indeed IA-64 only. Standard x64 didn't come until Server 2003 SP1.

"On April 25, 2005, Microsoft released Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003, x64 Editions in Standard, Enterprise and Datacenter"

XP x64 doesn't count. It's basically Server 2003, modified to run as the Professional Client SKU.
Even the build string of XP x64 RTM returns to server 2003. - 5.2.3790.1830.srv03_sp1_rtm.050324-1447.

Server 2003 SP1 was also the earliest to get a proper x64 compile (even if it's not RTM):
https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_Server_2003 … build_3790.1069

RTM is also noted to have x64 and IA-64 however they're in source code format only. (during the Server 2003 source code leak in 2020).

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-08-14, 19:40:

First and only time I had Vista was on a dual X5365 with 16Gb RAM and RAID0 SAS hard disks.
Never had a single problem with it, it was a good OS.

Yes. Now if you were running it on a Celeron with i915 graphics that has a 'Windows Vista Ready' or whatever it was (the deceptive one for systems with lousy graphics that couldn't do Aero Glass) sticker with a gig of RAM or less, ouch, superouch.

I really liked Vista, personally, because it was probably the version of Windows that most rewarded you for having invested in good, quality hardware. I ran the betas on my aging P4 1.9GHz with a gig of RDRAM and an ATI 9800 Pro and it was great, had full Aero Glass and everything. My main system at the time it was released was an E6600 with 2 gigs of RAM; 2 gigs of RAM was a little tight for daily use in Vista. It ran good once a defective 7900GT was replaced. It got better with 3GB of RAM, then when I bit the bullet and switched to 64-bit and upped RAM to 8 gigs of RAM, it just purred. I had a laptop with the discrete graphics option, I forget how much RAM, it ran fine there too. (But if you had elcheapo hardware, didn't have proper graphics with Aero Glass support, or didn't feed it copious quantities of RAM, it would be much worse than XP.)

Compare with Windows 11 where they told people with i7-7700s with 64 gigs of RAM to go take a hike and be unsupported while low end one-generation newer Celerons with 4 gigs of RAM and eMMC storage meet their "performance and reliability expectations." You can probably tell. happen to have an i7-7700 which is why I view that as a spectacular betrayal.

The other tragedy of Vista, looking back since this is a retro PC forum after all, is that it marked the end of a ~12 year superboom in desktop x86 PCs. Vista and the C2D represent the end of that era where a good computer would last 4 years at most and there would be dramatic innovation in both hardware and software in those 4 years. If you bought yourself a Win7 upgrade, you could be running that C2D with Win10 today and it's still a very, very functional computer for most productivity applications.

PcBytes wrote on 2024-08-14, 23:51:

XP x64 doesn't count. It's basically Server 2003, modified to run as the Professional Client SKU. Even the build string of XP x […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-08-14, 22:42:

PcBytes wrote on 2024-08-14, 22:16:

It's indeed IA-64 only. Standard x64 didn't come until Server 2003 SP1.

"On April 25, 2005, Microsoft released Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003, x64 Editions in Standard, Enterprise and Datacenter"

XP x64 doesn't count. It's basically Server 2003, modified to run as the Professional Client SKU.
Even the build string of XP x64 RTM returns to server 2003. - 5.2.3790.1830.srv03_sp1_rtm.050324-1447.

Server 2003 SP1 was also the earliest to get a proper x64 compile (even if it's not RTM):
https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_Server_2003 … build_3790.1069

RTM is also noted to have x64 and IA-64 however they're in source code format only. (during the Server 2003 source code leak in 2020).

They were different versions of the same thing so it does count.

VivienM wrote on 2024-08-14, 23:54:

Yes. Now if you were running it on a Celeron with i915 graphics that has a 'Windows Vista Ready' or whatever it was (the decepti […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-08-14, 19:40:

First and only time I had Vista was on a dual X5365 with 16Gb RAM and RAID0 SAS hard disks.
Never had a single problem with it, it was a good OS.

Yes. Now if you were running it on a Celeron with i915 graphics that has a 'Windows Vista Ready' or whatever it was (the deceptive one for systems with lousy graphics that couldn't do Aero Glass) sticker with a gig of RAM or less, ouch, superouch.

I really liked Vista, personally, because it was probably the version of Windows that most rewarded you for having invested in good, quality hardware. I ran the betas on my aging P4 1.9GHz with a gig of RDRAM and an ATI 9800 Pro and it was great, had full Aero Glass and everything. My main system at the time it was released was an E6600 with 2 gigs of RAM; 2 gigs of RAM was a little tight for daily use in Vista. It ran good once a defective 7900GT was replaced. It got better with 3GB of RAM, then when I bit the bullet and switched to 64-bit and upped RAM to 8 gigs of RAM, it just purred. I had a laptop with the discrete graphics option, I forget how much RAM, it ran fine there too. (But if you had elcheapo hardware, didn't have proper graphics with Aero Glass support, or didn't feed it copious quantities of RAM, it would be much worse than XP.)

Compare with Windows 11 where they told people with i7-7700s with 64 gigs of RAM to go take a hike and be unsupported while low end one-generation newer Celerons with 4 gigs of RAM and eMMC storage meet their "performance and reliability expectations." You can probably tell. happen to have an i7-7700 which is why I view that as a spectacular betrayal.

The other tragedy of Vista, looking back since this is a retro PC forum after all, is that it marked the end of a ~12 year superboom in desktop x86 PCs. Vista and the C2D represent the end of that era where a good computer would last 4 years at most and there would be dramatic innovation in both hardware and software in those 4 years. If you bought yourself a Win7 upgrade, you could be running that C2D with Win10 today and it's still a very, very functional computer for most productivity applications.

Yes people tried to run it on systems that were not powerful enough for it and had a bad experience with it.
If you were to listen to the word on the street most people say it wasnt very good, which means to me most people had it on computers that werent powerful enough for it.
Just because a company sells you a computer with a sticker saying its Vista ready that doesnt mean it is, and when you find it isnt it isnt the fault of the OS.
The OS was what it was, which the hardware can change.

I also ran the beta builds of Windows Longhorn. I still have the ISOs in my archive with the date stamp on the files of when I downloaded them.
I was looking forward to the new version of Windows and the only thing I didnt like about it was that it didnt have the slate theme, the sidebar wasnt as useful as some of the addin ones we were using on XP. the Ultimate Extras were nice, I remember having a Dreamscene that was the Matrix code running down the screen which was cool at the time.