How Close are Win2k and WinXP Related?

[oldefoxx]

Win2k came before XP, and was technically Windows 5.0 XP came along, incorporated some of the features of Win95, and was Windows 5.1. If I look at the first two fingers of either hand, standing next to each other, the first finger represents Win2k and the middle or second finger represents WinXP. That's how close I think they are.

Now here is the thing. Neither Win2K or WinXP will install on a number of modern PCs.
It may look like it does (with XP anyway), but it won't run. Whether it is the huge hard
drives or whatever, I've tried this repeatedly, on different PCs, and it is a no-go.

But there is a way around this. I install and use a recent version of Ubuntu (a Linux
distro), and then add VirtualBox on top of that. Then I have no problem installing or
loading Win2k or WinXP as a VirtualBox client. Runs just fine, and I don't need to add
a ton of protection software to keep it safe, either. I made up my mind that I was not
going past XP, and in fact was sticking to Windows 2000 as long as possible, because
I do not like the authentication and verification processes that began with XP.

So what's my story then? Well, Microsoft has dropped support for Windows 2000, and
a number of applications that I run under it, such as FireFox, advise me to upgrade to
a later OS. That is not my intent. FlashPlayer tries to upgrade, but there is a process
in the XP kernel that is missing in 2k, so it fails. I imagine the number of separations
will increase over time. And I don't want to mess with trying to install and get XP
registered on a virtual machine. Too many related factors that might be changed in
the future that could cause it to refuse to run.

I'm not going to Vista, Win7, Win8, or Win9. Microsoft has soaked enough cash out of
me over the years, and I am not going to keep feeding it more and more money. When
Win2k gives out, it will be Linux for me from then on.

To help keep Win2k going, I was contemplating putting XP's kernel.dll in place of the one that goes with 2k. I may try that yet. But I thought it would be worth asking in case anyone else has tried it, and see what results they got. The problem with messing
with Windows in such a case, is that system files and some others can't be read or
written to while Windows is running. That can be gotten around with three images of
Windows installed, one to run, one to read from, and one to copy to. Unfortunately,
Linux and VirtualBox do not provide ways to read and write directly to VDI folders and files of the clients that get installed using tools that they provide. The read and writes
are by having a suitable child of VirtualBox running, with the other images chained in
as shared folders.

I tried a google search to see anybody had tried something like this, and the closest I
got was a post to these forums about could an XP kernel be copied over itself, likely from another source. Like I said, it takes three images to make this happen, but the
answer to his problem was something else entirely. Now let's see what sort of
answers my question inspires.

Saying Thanks in advance is considered poor taste, so let's just say I appreciate your
possible efforts to answer my question.

Oh, about 95% of WinXP applications run on Windows 2000. Most of the patches and
such for XP came out for Win2k as well. Win2k takes no registration beyond the code
needed when installing it, and I have found that it is still for sale at different prices
from different sources. One source was $36, and another had it at about $160. Might
be worth looking into. The big challenge might be getting SP1 to SP4, but a way
around this is to go for USP5.1, which was an inclusive set of patches, not all of which
came from Mocrosoft.


a

[Tinto Tech]

If I've got this right: In summary, you want to continue running Win2k while making it compatible with modern apps.

That's not an easy task and one that is likely to be fraught with pain. Even though the kernels of Win2k and XP are both NT based, there will be many differences between them. Simply copying system files from XP to Win2k is almost certainly not going to work. Quite apart from the likely breach of EULA conditions, I suspect the best you could hope for in those circumstances are multiple BSOD's. Worse case, you may break some hardware if you are running on bare metal.

However......you may be able to spoof the OS version, solely for the purposes of tricking the Firefox installer. The system remains Win2k and there are no system changes, but reports that it is XP or higher to the installer. That may be enough to get it installed. Since you are working with VM's, you can try this with relative impunity as long as you have a snapshot to switch back to. Take a look in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion and adjust the CurrentVersion key to 5.1 or above. Other keys include descriptive BuildLab, CSDVersion and CurrentBuildNumber. No guarantees that any would work, but tweaking the registry might just fool the installer into thinking it is an XP platform.

If those registry entries fail to do the trick, then perhaps its time to make your jump to Linux. If you are already running Ubuntu and VirtualBox, the time might be right.

An important note to the casual reader: I do not recommend editing the registry unless you a prepared to hose your system.

[Just Plain Fred]

I'm not going to Vista, Win7, Win8, or Win9. Microsoft has soaked enough cash out of
me over the years, and I am not going to keep feeding it more and more money. When
Win2k gives out, it will be Linux for me from then on.

oldefoxx,
Just want to give my 2¢ ... You can still get XP Pro SP-3 OEM. XP-Pro SP-3 It's not worth the time fooling with.... I have and run XP-Pro, Vista , "7" and Linux. ( 32 and 64 mix One PC) XP- Pro works just as well as the rest... I like it, it's small and fast ... suggest that you reconsider ...With a little more searching you can even find better deals...Don't really care for Linux .... Regards Fred

PS: And XP-Pro SP-3 does run ( like a scalded cat) on newer PC's

[catilley1092]

Windows 2000 & XP are very close, as XP was built on the foundation of Windows 2000. That being said, there are still a world of differences between the two, one of which the lifeline of Win 2K is running out.

I have a Win 2K install myself, secured with ESET Smart Security 5 & MBAM Pro. Recently, when I upgraded Firefox to version 12, I got a warning that Mozilla would no longer provide updates to FF12 on Win 2K, to either downgrade to a lower version of FF, switch to Opera (which still fully supports 2K), or better yet, upgrade to a newer OS (Windows 7 was suggested).

My suggestion, if one still wants to run 2K, fine. But don't expect support for much longer. I was surprised that ESET still supports it. I was also surprised that Mozilla dumped support for it, because one of the driving forces behind them & always has been, is choice. Freedom to choose your browser, your OS, Mozilla's action goes against the history of the corporation (a non-profit one at that).

It's no big deal to me, as Just Plain Fred mentioned above, XP Pro SP3 (or XP x64 SP2) runs just as he described, like a scalded cat. I run both, as well as XP MCE on the same desktop that I'm on now, which shipped with Windows 7 & I'm also running Windows 8 CP (will be RP tomorrow) on it. And no special drivers were needed, the F6 thing & the ancient floppies. Simply enable IDE Mode in the BIOS, XP will install perfectly fine. I have 4 HDD's containing 12 OS's (& several VM's) that I can plug, one at a time, to boot from.

Tried my best to install 2K on here, I had it going, but I never could get the graphics right, despite the fact that the driver was a 2K & XP 32 bit one. 2K refused to open it, while XP did.

Yes, they are close in some ways, but I can say this, there's a world of difference between Windows 2000 SP4 & XP SP3. It really is.

Cat

[DrWho]

How close? Probably not as close as some would like to think.

Win 2000 was made to be a commercial OS, for businesses and not home PC's.
It must run on an NTFS formatted drive.

However XP is a lot more like '98 and runs just GREAT on a FAT-32 formatted drive.
Mine has been, for 12 years.

Many of the shortcuts I use every day on XP will not work at all on Win 2K, because the core is different.

Alike? Not so much!

The Doctor

[catilley1092]

Win 2000 will install in the FAT format, as the choice is there during the install process. But I've not installed any Windows OS as FAT because most says that NTFS is a more secure format.

You're right, they're not alike, but during the XP install process, it shows where XP was built on the foundation of Windows 2000. At one time, although the numbers are declining, many of the programs that runs on XP would also run on Win 2000. However, since Win 2000 lost all MS support options in the summer of 2010, there's more & more that won't.

However, ESET Smart Security 5 & MBAM Pro works on Win 2000, as well as the latest version of Opera. However, the latest versions of Adobe Reader, Java & Flash won't. It runs 2 versions of Java behind (6.31), 3 versions of Flash, and Adobe Reader 9.4.

As much as I now have on my hands to do, I haven't booted into Windows 2000 for at least 2 months, possibly 3 (the physical install). I learned that the latest FF wouldn't run on it through a virtual install. Honestly, I doubt that I'll keep it much longer, as Win 8 RP is keeping me busy, & with 13 other Windows installs to tend to, plus Ubuntu 12.04 & Mint 13, as well as a few VM's, I don't really have the time to fool with it.

I do have at least one of all of XP OS's installed, except the tablet edition & keep them maintained. The XP MCE & 64 bit Pro are my favorites.

Being that you brought up "commercial" editions, XP Pro is the most popular of all of XP's offerings, possibly one of MS's all time best sellers. Until 2009, I'd never bought any computer with a "home" version, as they are scaled down versions of the real thing. Even the last 2 that I bought, I bought Windows Anytime Upgrade keys to Pro (Windows 7). And beginning with Windows 8, the "Pro" version is being pushed, as that $14.99 upgrade is for Windows 8 Pro, not Home.

Anyone with any serious work to do should have the Pro version of whatever version of Windows installed. The great thing about Win 7 Pro, is that the user gets a virtual copy of XP Pro SP3, the XP Mode app.

Too, we'll see more & more hopping to the Pro versions, beginning with Windows 8, because w/o it, there's going to be no Windows Media Center. "Home" versions will be computers that's primarily bought for kids to do schoolwork with, which is basically all they were to begin with. Back in 2000, I was required to get a notebook for my job, with Windows 2000 as the OS installed. Once the user gets used to the features of a higher version, it's hard to look backwards.

Cat

[oldefoxx]

Good reading. I stumbled onto something else a couple of weeks back, in that there
is a tool that copies the DLLs from the \System32\ folder into a different folder and
allows you to strip the copied DLLs down to the functions you want. It occurred to me
that if you were running Windows 2000 Pro, as I am, then maybe you could get away
with copying the XP versions of those DLLs there and giving that a try.

I dunno. Yesterday I updated from Ubuntu 9.10 to 12.04, because 9.10 did not
recognize the extra 1GB I added to RAM. I could maybe have gotten away with just
reinstalling 9.10 to see if that would take care of it. but I decided before doing that
I would just give 12.04 a shot. Got it in with some problems, got it updated, got a
new version of VirtualBox, then had to set about bringing back the classical look and
feel of Ubuntu. Don't like it as much as I did 9.10, but I will try it for awhile.

[DrWho]

As I sit here, I'm running Windows XP-Pro-SP3 and it's tweaked and tuned to run as fast as any other OS, including Win-8.
I run several OLD programs including one 16bit game that won't run on the later OS's.
And....oh yes, I'm running XP on a FAT-32 formatted 1TB hard drive. That allows me full access to any file on my HD, from a DOS boot disk, for maximum control.

[oldefoxx]

For years I avoided moving on to the NTFS file system, and for what I felt was good
reason: The FAT format was compatible with both DOS and Windows, and could even
be accessed by Linux. Not so with NTFS, at least at that time. But DOS became less
essential, and they came up with good drivers for Linux for accessing NTFS, so there
was less reason for sticking with the old format.

But the real deal changer was that FAT proved to be less reliable than NTFS, and as the
drives got bigger, the risk of drive errors grew as well. So I finally switched over and
have not gone back.