BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Database Screenshots Gallery Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 46d, 6h, 37m | CPU: 37% | MEM: 5548MB of 11659MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: The Ultimate Win2K Rig        Posted: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:46 pm 
Reply with quote
Offline

Joined
Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:59 pm

Posts
42

Favourite OS
2296
I've been thinking and I'm wondering what the ULTIMATE Windows 2000 rig would be, the most powerful hardware that could run it. I'd imagine it would run Windows 2000 Datacenter Server to access the most memory, but I'm curious about other things. Of course our memory ceiling is 64GB, but I'm not sure what the fastest CPU & GPU would be.

I'm thinking the fastest CPU would be a Pentium 4 or Core 2 Duo-based hyperthreaded Xeon in a dual CPU config to make for four virtual processors. If the C2D-based Xeon was dual core, that would make for eight. With Win2K's HT issues (recognizing one hyperthreaded physical CPU as two CPUs), a Core 2 Quad or simply dual dual-core Xeons with HT disabled could be pretty fast.

From what I've read the fastest GPU for Windows 2000 would be a GeForce 9800 GTX+, but with some hacking, running newer GPUs with Windows XP support may be possible. One issue is I'm not sure how well the GeForce 9800 GTX+ works with PAE as it was probably intended for client Windows 2000/XP/Vista systems running 32-bit with 4GB RAM or less (though it did support 64-bit Windows XP and Vista so I'm not completely sure).

This seems like a system that COULD run Windows XP, 2K3, or even Vista/7 well, but I'm sure it would make Windows 2000 fly! Most C2D-era motherboards have PCIe, and many even have built-in SATA, so that gives great SSD options, as well as fast (gigabit) NICs.

I am genuinely curious if such a system would be usable as a main system these days.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: The Ultimate Win2K Rig        Posted: Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:17 pm 
Reply with quote
Offline

Joined
Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:40 am

Posts
40

Location
Northern Territories

Favourite OS
950C, 2195 USP5.1, 3790, 7600
The Windows 2000 extended core can eliminate the hardware limitations of Professional and the lesser servers. I'm using win2k pro on an HP Z600 Workstation with 12 GB DDR3-1333 and a Xeon X5670 (12 threads).

Official NVIDIA drivers support up to the GeForce 400 series or Quadro 2000/4000/6000. For the former, use 258.96 (listed as XP-only but the installer recognizes win2k and the driver works great), and the latter has a different version number but it's listed as for win2k. And they work with PAE unlike Intel graphics drivers.

BWC's unofficial NVIDIA drivers support up to the GTX 980TI. His SATA drivers support up to Kaby Lake! Realtek and Broadcom audio/NIC drivers officially supported win2k until about 2013/14 so they're good in that department.

If you wanna see the ultimate win2k rig, check this X99 beast out: https://msfn.org/board/topic/175368-win ... nt=1162142

There are some caveats though: any Intel boards newer than X58/55xx will require you to install with PS/2 input devices then install the USB drivers manually.

And due to the way win2k loads drivers at startup (consecutively instead of concurrently like XP and up), boot time will increase with the amount of threads. With my 12 threads, my boot time is extended by over a minute (the boot screen freezes until all of the processor drivers are loaded).

But it does pay off. I can load Photoshop CS5 in 1.6 seconds when cached on a 5400 rpm HDD :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: The Ultimate Win2K Rig        Posted: Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:50 pm 
Reply with quote
Offline

Joined
Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:59 pm

Posts
42

Favourite OS
2296
win32 wrote:
The Windows 2000 extended core can eliminate the hardware limitations of Professional and the lesser servers. I'm using win2k pro on an HP Z600 Workstation with 12 GB DDR3-1333 and a Xeon X5670 (12 threads).

Official NVIDIA drivers support up to the GeForce 400 series or Quadro 2000/4000/6000. For the former, use 258.96 (listed as XP-only but the installer recognizes win2k and the driver works great), and the latter has a different version number but it's listed as for win2k. And they work with PAE unlike Intel graphics drivers.

BWC's unofficial NVIDIA drivers support up to the GTX 980TI. His SATA drivers support up to Kaby Lake! Realtek and Broadcom audio/NIC drivers officially supported win2k until about 2013/14 so they're good in that department.

If you wanna see the ultimate win2k rig, check this X99 beast out: https://msfn.org/board/topic/175368-win ... nt=1162142

There are some caveats though: any Intel boards newer than X58/55xx will require you to install with PS/2 input devices then install the USB drivers manually.

And due to the way win2k loads drivers at startup (consecutively instead of concurrently like XP and up), boot time will increase with the amount of threads. With my 12 threads, my boot time is extended by over a minute (the boot screen freezes until all of the processor drivers are loaded).

But it does pay off. I can load Photoshop CS5 in 1.6 seconds when cached on a 5400 rpm HDD :)

Dang! This rig is awesome! In my experience, Nvidia's Windows XP 32-bit driver (at least for their Quadro NVS 110M) runs on Windows 2000 just fine, and Dell's version even advertises that fact. And when I run it on Vista, it complains about only working on 2000/XP. Strange that "winxp" is in the filename and not "win2k", "win2000", or "winnt" anywhere in the name, and it only says it works with XP on their website.

Awesome you can run Windows 2000 on a system like that. Keep it alive!


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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 © 2006-2019

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS


Affiliate