BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 27d, 21h, 0m | CPU: 51% | MEM: 6142MB of 11026MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Windows 2000        Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:10 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:09 am

Posts
520

Location
Glendale KY USA
Which OS is more stable and better to mod. Windows 2000 pro or server?
I have heard server has upgraded kernel and better dll's.


Top  Profile  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:11 pm 
Reply with quote
no, the kernel for SMP just allows more cpus to be used, nothing more.

the benefit you notice is the settings for cpu and cache prioritization, apps or system services, running programs or system binaries. the dlls and kernel are all the same build, same size, diffrent checksum due to the diffrent setting for detected cpus.

now, from my experience, Pro has been easier, as there are fewer installed services, it's preconfigured to run apps fast vs hosting services fast, there are simpler settings for security and best of all, you don't need to NT switch to install "workstation only" programs on your "server" class OS.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:17 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:09 am

Posts
520

Location
Glendale KY USA
The Warrior Crixus wrote:

the benefit you notice is the settings for cpu and cache prioritization, apps or system services, running programs or system binaries.

now, from my experience, Pro has been easier, as there are fewer installed services, it's preconfigured to run apps fast vs hosting services fast, there are simpler settings for security.


Can you tell me the settings to tweak and are they worth tweaking in pro?


Top  Profile  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:49 am 
Reply with quote
right click "my computer", goto properties.

click the "advanced" tab.

under "performance" click "settings".

click the "advanced" tab on the popup.

the settings you choose there will determine the overall performance of your system's cpu and memory. finer tweaks can be done with many fun programs, but in honesty, the stettings you see there are really the only major performance diffrences between server and pro on 2000. everything else is more or less the same, minus the default installed services. the services for server are unnnecesary for a workstation.

i used to use adv server and pro, pro was faster to install and confgure, adv server had all the networking stuff up and running and ran on my quad processor server.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:32 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:09 am

Posts
520

Location
Glendale KY USA
I used windows 2000 datacenter as my base and ran hfslip on it. Incorporated dx9 into it. Changed the boot logo and other things cygnus had made. Put in the memory controler from 2k3(better memory usage). It has the xp icons in it. Approx 110 mb iso. I havnt tested it yet but I know it works. It should install in about 200 mb and be very fast.
Anyone interested?


Top  Profile  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:39 am 
Reply with quote
i'll give it a try, my quad pentium pro could use an upgrade ^_^


ummm, which FTP will it go on, or are you planning on torrenting it?


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:59 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:53 am

Posts
38
I prefer Server. I myself am running Server 2003, a stripped-down server-iffied version of 2003. To be honest, modding Server 2003 is the best option, simply because its newer, but doesnt have the bloat of XP :wink:


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:37 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:09 am

Posts
520

Location
Glendale KY USA
dirtwarrior wrote:
I used windows 2000 datacenter as my base and ran hfslip on it. Incorporated dx9 into it. Changed the boot logo and other things cygnus had made. Put in the memory controler from 2k3(better memory usage). It has the xp icons in it. Approx 110 mb iso. I havnt tested it yet but I know it works. It should install in about 200 mb and be very fast.
Anyone interested?


I mixed explorers and install crapped out.
But I do have a stable 83 mb iso of pro that works like a champ


Top  Profile  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:35 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
under 2000 there is no difference. Win2003 is better than XP because it was released a bit later


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:14 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Quote:
under 2000 there is no difference. Win2003 is better than XP because it was released a bit later

I agree to the Win2k bit-. When it comes to XP and 2003, there are more differences. 2003's kernel is optimized for performance, not for the greatest possible compatibility. That's one of the reasons why it performs better. :) XP Pro x64 has the 2003 kernel and shou perform similarly.


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS