Inherent Dangers in Installing Win 2000 Server?

Bruce Bates

Folks -

Anyone with experience, please feel free to reply, including those from Parallax. I just don't want to inadvertantly fall into a deep PIT, with no way to extricate myself <yikes>!

My present operating system is Win 98SE with all know fixes applied. Very capable, quite fast, and extremely solid, but lacking in some finesse is the best way I can describe it. Presently running a 500 MHz AMD chip, soon to be upgraded to a 1.8 GHz (or faster) Pentium or AMD CPU. Reliability is far more important to me than speed. Sadly, part of my present problem is that Parallax (along with everyone else) is dropping support of the older Windows Operating Systems, even before Microsoft is·doing so (much to my own personal chagrin) <sigh>.

I've never dealt with any of the Microsoft Operating Systems which could act as a server (Win NT, Win 2K, Win XP, etc), thus·the following·question. Are there any inherent or unseen dangers in installing a Win 2000 Operating System and then not using it as intended - as a server system, but rather using it (at least on an interim basis, albeit 6-12 months) as a unary, unattached, single-user platform, such as Win 98, or Win Me would be? I have the software available to me, is one of the reasons I ask. Additionally, I may well need the services of a (personal) server system in the not too distant future.

I·may also look into the DUAL CPU area, but that will be even later yet. This should not require software dual CPU support (I don't think), if I play my cards right. This will not be for shared (unary) operating system support, but rather two separate, non-competing·operating systems. This may end up being a hybrid system, I'm not quite sure yet.

Any known or unseen problems in doing this, as regards the Stamp Editor/IDE or any of the other Parallax software products, SX/B inclusive?

As always, thanks for your sage·insight and thoughts.

Regards,

Bruce Bates

inaki

Windows 2000 and Windows XP are not servers, although there are specific version that are servers called precisely Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2003 Server and so on. The standalone versions are 'workstation' versions that is what you want.

The current version of choice would be Windows XP I think.

My advice is to update your machine before upgrading your OS because 500Mhz may be a little tight for Windows XP.

I have large experience with dual machines and I would not recommend dual CPU machines for common use.

If you are happy now with your Win98 you will be pleased with a Windows XP system. And yes, all Parallax stuff works fine.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔

Tom Walker

Bruce,
In a parallel life, I do network support "for fun" (and just a little bit of profit). Using 2000 or XP should prove an enjoyable (relative term) experience. As has been mentioned, neither of these OSs is inherently a "server", but there are server versions of both. I have run Parallax's products on both (currently have laptops with each, as a matter of fact, and my primary development platform for microcontrollers is a 500 mHz P3 laptop running 2000 with a wireless connection to my home network) without any problems. Just be sure to take care of any security issues if they are connected to the outside world.

As far as your dual-CPU question, I am not certain if you are trying to say that you intend to run a different operating system on each processor. If that is your meaning, I'm afraid that it doesn't work that way.

HTH

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Truly Understand the Fundamentals and the Path will be so much easier...

Kevin Wood

Once you get into the Windows NT code base, there is really very little difference between the versions of Windows, mostly which features are available to the user. From a reliability and performance standpoint, Windows 2000 Professional or Server will be a major leap past Win 98. If you are only looking for short time usage, an eval edition of Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition is downloadable from Microsoft. I have been using it for several months, after 5+ years of Win2k Pro, and it is much nicer overall than Win2K.

On multiprocessor systems there is a certain amount of tuning that you can do for processor affinity, but it's not equal to multiple standalone PCs. As for the software, unless it is written to use multiple processors, you won't see a real advantage. So if you get a multiple processor system, and reload Win98, you're wasting a CPU. If you load Win2K Server, and decide to run Oracle, you will be glad you have the CPUs. If you want actual dual processors, you will need to purchase a board with 2 sockets. An alternative is to use a dual core CPU. FWIW, if you are going to buy a new system, I suggest looking at dual core CPUs, as well as 64 bit technology.

If you want to run multiple OSes, there are a couple of options.

One is to use a virtualization product like VmWare, or VirtualPC. I've used VmWare, and once you get the hang of setting it up, you can run several seperate OSes at once. There will be a performance hit, so the more computing power the better.

The other option is a dual boot system, loading seperate OSes which can't be run simultaneously. If you decide to try this, I suggest seperate hard drives for each OS, not seperate partitions on one drive. This allows for the cleanest install, with no worry about partition sizes/compatibility/boot loaders/etc. I have learned through much trial and error to disconnect any hard drives not dedicated to the OS when installing the OS. This prevents drive mapping problems, and possible loss of data.

Also, one last suggestion. If you decide to make the break with Win98, and move to the NT core OSes (NT/2K/XP/Everything to come...), then check out the SysInternals website at www.sysinternals.com. You will find a ton of info on NT. You can also download some very nice tools.

Rsadeika

It has not been mentioned yet, but W2K was set to be non supported by Microsoft, just a few months ago. But, on my W2K system I am still getting updates, I think W2K is on thin ice, in terms of support. The situation will become much clearer once the intro date for Windows Vista is announced.

As mentioned if you are interested in running different OS's on one machine, multiboot may be the way to go. But, in my experience with this, is that MS is always trying to gain control of the bootsector, in a lot of situations MS will not allow a multi boot situation. That used to drive me nuts, I gave up on that idea, just to much maintainace. I do remember I had installed a Linux system with multi boot capabilities, that system allowed me to boot an MS product with no problems.

I am looking into updating to a 64 bit processor, and·running Windows XP x64. Getting the x64 system at a reasonable price is going to be the problem, so far $161 is the best price that I could find. So far the AMD is the best solution, it has the capability to run 32 bit programs, including a 32 bit OS,·with no problems, I do not think that Intel is there just yet. Actually, it is still not clear if MS Vista is going to need a 64 bit solution, in that case maybe Intel has a solution for that.

In my opinion, I would probably be looking into·Win XP, even though the OS is aging, it will still be supported for the next few years.

RDL2004

Hi,

I've been running Windows 2000 Server on a Celeron 300 (overclocked to 550) with 256 MB of ram and a 3GB HDD for over 4 years now. For the last 2 years it has only been used as a work station, but for the first 2 years it was an actual server.

It sits on my little workbench, I·do all my Stamp and SX programming on it and use it to surf the web. Performance seems pretty snappy even after all these years, nearly as good as my Windows XP/Athlon 2100 machine. I'm not really sure what the video card is, probably some kind of Riva TNT.



·- Rick

Clock Loop

Whenever I look at upgrading a microsoft product, I look at what they are ready to stop supporting. Seriously... The ones they decide to stop supporting seem to be the ones that have most of the bugs worked out of.

I have used XP and windows 2000, and XP is bloaded Smile. Not to mention the annoying firewall they force upon you.

I stick with the perfected OS's(if that exists in microsofts world) And XP is MOST DEFINETLY not nearly as stable as win2k.

I have gone from 2k to XP and then back to 2k many times, and every time I went to XP i figured microcrap figured out all the bugs, and then some major corruption or some dumb thing happens that makes me reinstall xp..

But I don't reinstall xp, I revert back to 2k, and wait another year.

And my last attempt at the 2k to XP switch was about 2 months ago.

I am still using 2k if that tells you anything. (and it was about 20 days after installing xp, that i was forced to switch)

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Meh. Nothing here, move along.

n1iic

I also agree with BPM that XP is bloated and runs slower. The only advantage I have seen with XP is the machine that my wife is using was designed for XP, and I would have battled to get Win2K on it.

Any known or unseen problems/benefits in doing a FRESH INSTALL of Win2K and formatting with NTFS, is that you will have more time to spend with your family or doing other projects since you won't be battling with 98SE anymore.
I have used Win2K since it came out and I have modified, installed countless programs and then uninstalled most of those, and thoroughly abused this OS and it keeps on trucking. I used to re-install 98SE about every six months, and I have only screwed up Win2K once where I had to re-install it- and that's on multiple Win2K machines.

DO NOT upgrade from 98 to Win2K, it will only cause problems and do wierd things. Save your old data to another machine, and put it back after the new install.

This is some of the things I do for performance/integrity:
Have the first partition for boot and swap file, approx 1GB.
A second partition for the operating system. For a workstation that you don't do much on, 4-5GB should be enough. For a primary machine that is abused like mine, 15-20GB in size.
A final partition for data. Place things here that if the OS crashes, you don't have to worry about plugging this drive into another machine to suck the brains from it. Optinal for this step is a linux bootable CD such as PHLAK or KNOPPIX and transfer the data to another machine.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Sick and tired of our media and the cheesy radio DJ's in the US? http://www.opieandanthony.com

Post Edited (n1iic) : 2/1/2006 3:46:30 PM GMT