• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Core2Duo vs. Pentium D?

hunterjwizzard said:
How's that koolade taste, Mr. Orange?
Click to expand...
Hi Hunter, how goes it? Don't know about the Kool-Aid, but the Captain & Coke here on the sand at Ft. Meyers Beach is pretty good. Thanks for asking.

Little more about W11. Right before I left home on vacation, my 14 month old Asus gamer took a dump, just out of warranty, I suspect it's the chip, so it's a goner. Anyway, I bought a Lenovo Legend Pro 5, about a middle of the road gaming lap top; I7-13700, RTX 4070, 32GB RAM, and W11. Right out of the box it was ready to go. No crappola from Lenovo or MS, however I did have to kill that preinstalled Norton 360 nonsense. Cut to the point: This laptop runs W11 with no gotchas or glitches. Some of the installed latest high-end games are -
a) Far Cry 6
b) Red Dead 2
c) Starfield
d) CyberPunk 77
. . . and a few old timers like Crysis, Call of Duty WW2, and Quake 4.

So, everything seem to be in order and so far, no complaints. Maybe you can save yourself some angst by dropping by one those adult computer classes at you local HS and possibly get up to speed on the latest OS offerings.

Tip: Park the Kool-Aid and get acquainted with the Captain. Arg!
 
hunterjwizzard said:
Windows 11 does not run well. Its windows 11.

Microsoft has been STAGGERINGLY consistent over the years with every other windows operating system being trash. Let's look at it:

Windows 3.1? Wonderful.
Windows 95? Terrible.
Win98? Awesome!
WinME: Horrible.
Windows XP? Possibly the finest operating system ever created.
Windows Vista? Well, you were there.
Windows 7? No XP, but infinitely better than Vista.
Windows 8? Try Vista 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Windows 10? Was pretty great until the feature-creep got out of control a couple years ago, still serviceable.

The pattern here does not bode well for Windows 11. But, hey, 12 should be pretty deece!
Click to expand...
Missed replying to this earlier...you skipped the whole Windows NT line; Windows XP and subsequent are descended from that line....Windows ME was the last gasp of the thunkomatic, aka VMM386.VXD, kernel.

Windows 2000 was highly regarded at the introduction of Windows XP, and many people stuck with 2000 since XP wasn't as good.
 
lowen said:
Missed replying to this earlier...you skipped the whole Windows NT line; Windows XP and subsequent are descended from that line....Windows ME was the last gasp of the thunkomatic, aka VMM386.VXD, kernel.

Windows 2000 was highly regarded at the introduction of Windows XP, and many people stuck with 2000 since XP wasn't as good.
Click to expand...

We're going by consumer operating systems, things get muddy when you try to factor in the separate but parallels business lines. Obviously that creates some additional problems post-XP where they stopped having separate business/consumer products and we all got the same windows just with bits turned of.

Arguably the same logic still applies to the split, with the different NT releases varying wildly in quality, though with less consistency in terms of bad/good cycles.
 
2000 holds some world-records for stability and reliability among windows versions. Its actually still being used in certain niche roles for that reason. In the early days of XP I can understand workstation and business users not wanting to upgrade the OS, but that happens with every generation. Very rarely do businesses role out a new OS on existing hardware, generally they keep what's working until its time for a hardware refresh. Typical home power workstation is going to be the same way.
 
Agent Orange said:
How so? One of the best and most stable OS's of all time for my buck.
Click to expand...
While XP SP2 and SP3 are close, Windows 2000 was the all time desktop Windows stability king. (I would personally rate Windows 7 32-bit second, and Win7 64-bit third. And don't get me started on XP 64-bit. And yes, I have systems that ran or are running all of the above). And since I've never run Windows Server to speak of I can't and shouldn't comment on that stability.

hunterjwizzard said:
We're going by consumer operating systems,
Click to expand...
We are not; you might be, but I'm certainly not. If it's in XP's ancestry it's fair game AFAIC. I remember being able to buy PC's at consumer retail with Windows 2000 preloaded. The Dell Dimension 8100 I mentioned in another thread the had 98SE loaded was shipped by default with 2000.
 
lowen said:
While XP SP2 and SP3 are close, Windows 2000 was the all time desktop Windows stability king.
Click to expand...
2k was stable enough to be flight-rated - as in trusted to run avionics on widebody passenger lines. Nothing that would make the thing fall out of the sky if it crashed, but still. It says quite a lot that 98 or XP were never trusted enough to go into that role. I know 2k was actively being used for this as late as 2009(Boeing either had some kind of deal with M$ or simply bought up enough licenses back in the day to continue using it), and as far as I know its still serving in that role.

2k was also trusted enough to run warships for the United States Navy and is probably still doing that as well. It would be ironic if it turned out the navy had resorted to pirating copies to keep the aging systems afloat.
 
lowen said:
While XP SP2 and SP3 are close, Windows 2000 was the all time desktop Windows stability king. (I would personally rate Windows 7 32-bit second, and Win7 64-bit third. And don't get me started on XP 64-bit. And yes, I have systems that ran or are running all of the above). And since I've never run Windows Server to speak of I can't and shouldn't comment on that stability.


We are not; you might be, but I'm certainly not. If it's in XP's ancestry it's fair game AFAIC. I remember being able to buy PC's at consumer retail with Windows 2000 preloaded. The Dell Dimension 8100 I mentioned in another thread the had 98SE loaded was shipped by default with 2000.
Click to expand...
Windows 2000 was merely a NT 4 upgrade with a kernel based on MSDOS and earlier Windows iterations. It was initially going to be released as NT 5. No one is questioning its stability with but its future usefulness, as being DOS based, ensured its downfall. XP was/is a resounding worldwide success, Comparing W2K to XP is apples & oranges.
 
NT 3.5 Workstation was used as late as 2009 for controllers for broadcast digital TV transmitters.

The Rohde and Schwarz 26GHz FSU spectrum analyzer at $dayjob runs Windows XP embedded. Several other items of test equipment run various versions of DOS, and one protocol analyzer we had ran CP/M out of ROM, with another T1 test set running two Z80's in parallel. A DWDM fiber chassis (Cisco Metro 1500) ran a Linux 2.0.x system for monitoring and laser control on a 486 industrial SBC out of Disk-on-chip.

So there's a lot out there. But if I had to trust a Windows version in a truly mission critical role it would be Windows 2000 first and Windows 7 32-bit second (as I actually have mission critical systems running Win 7 32-bit in production, with appropriate network precautions and isolations for each, with one completely air-gapped).
 
Agent Orange said:
Windows 2000 was merely a NT 4 upgrade with a kernel based on MSDOS and earlier Windows iterations. It was initially going to be released as NT 5. No one is questioning its stability with but its future usefulness, as being DOS based, ensured its downfall. XP was/is a resounding worldwide success, Comparing W2K to XP is apples & oranges.
Click to expand...
Hmm, care to share your source for the claim that there is MSDOS in Windows 2000?

Windows 2000 is built on the NT kernel through and through. No thunkomatic there, unless thunkomatic was already there from Windows 9x during an upgrade; you will only have the 'hidden' DOS in an upgrade scenario as far as I recall.

XP is the direct successor of Windows 2000, and is based on the same NT kernel.

Windows 2000 enjoyed a full ten years of support, until 2005 for mainstream and 2010 for extended (reference: https://web.archive.org/web/2013040...h/?sort=PN&alpha=Windows+2000&Filter=FilterNO )

Are you sure you're not confusing 2000 with Millennium Edition?
 
Last edited:
VERAULT said:
You know what.... Im seconding this 👍
Click to expand...
Yes, but you're comparing a DOS based OS to a ground up Windows system. W7 is exceptionally stable and that's why I preserved and upgraded my W7 gamer to run with a Ryzen CPU. My W7 gamer can run CyberPunk 77 very nicely. Note: For the nit pickers, the GOG version of CP77 was backported to DX11 as that is tops for W7.
 
VERAULT said:
NT 3.1 ... Well i dont remmeber it much. But I do remember NT 3.51. It was a good networking OS.
Click to expand...
So was NT 4. Ran it for years on a server and desktop at work, as well as my government issued laptop. What hasten the departure from NT to XP was no or very limited USB support. The only USB device I ever encountered on NT4 was for a mouse from some hardware vendor .
 
Agent Orange said:
You had better do some research on that one.
Click to expand...

No. You are flat wrong, full stop.

2000 is the first version of NT that “feels” like a descent of the 9x line because it was the first serious attempt by Microsoft to incorporate “plug and play” hardware detection, full DirectX support, and other “Mainstream Desktop” features, but the kernel is *entirely* NT.

… Kinda feel like you’re getting wires crossed in your head with Windows ME.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top