Sony Viao FW140E -> Win2k?

So I finally really got tired of Vista Home with it's limitations and quirks, and want to go back to Win2k. Anybody tried to load win2k on a FW series VIAO machine like this or similar? I found most w2k drivers inc. the LAN and WL card, so far so good. I've not tried the install yet, waiting for a new Seagate SATA 7200 320G HD, don't want to mess with this one (SATA 250G 5400) until I have the 2K system up and running on the new HD.

Guess I'll need to slipstream a boot CD with the SATA drivers, SP4, etc. Never done it, but have seen plenty of guides out there. Maybe... MAYBE, I'll try for a w2k/vista dual boot system, buy only after w2k is humming along nicely. I'm guessing this machine must fly with a relatively lightweight O/S like w2k (compared to a hog like vista).

Anyone have any experiences, advise, comments, etc? But PLEASE spare me the "why don't you like Vista" remarks.

Thanks.

 

Bump up. Can't believe nobody has anything to say. Or is it because I dared to call vista a "pig" ?

Because after wrestling with it for 6 months, Vista IS really a HOG O/S, in my opinion. Most common issues: half-open network connection limit causes crashes all the time in uTorrent, and then Firefox has also to be restarted, if not the whole system by forcing a shutdown with the power button because shutdown won't work either. About 3-4 out of 10 shutdowns have to be forced this way. This same limit also slows down or even restricts network connections for apps that need them. Task manager is bull when it comes to stop certain tasks when an app is hung (example the aforementioned uTorrent client), it just can't stop them, no matter how many times and how long one waits and retries, and the system has to be force restarted. This would NOT happen on a earlier NT based OS like w2k or w2k3. BTW, these problems are NOT related to uTorrent, do a google search and anybody will see that the rest of the world is also experiencing the same problems. Vista system performance is only average, in comparison to a Win2k system, even tough it is set for max performance (no graphical gimmicks and "visual effects". This on a P8400 2.26GHz P4 Core Duo with 3G of Ram. A win2k system on this hardware would literally take-off to the moon! Many other issues, too long a list to write up here, but my time is worth more then that.

If that is not a description of a HOG O/S, then what is??? After this experience I'm even starting to look favorable at XP, which is not my favorite OS either, but if it comes to choose between the bad and the worst, it's an easier choice. Should my W2K attempt fail, and in the end it has to be XP, so be it, but NO F... way I'll keep feeding this MS-HOG.

 

try windows 7,you will be happy.

 

Windows 2000. Come on, wake up.

 

What do you mean? It won't run? Drivers?

Vista keeps me awake, so need to get rid of that hog.

 

Vista runs like a cake in my FZ.
And your FW doesn't support Win2k. Good luck in searching for the drivers.

 

Certainly not if anybody just looks for them at the Sony support site, because they simply don't want geeks to use anything but Vista on their machines. But anyone smart enough to know that the FW chipset and most other hardware is made by Intel can certainly find all the drivers at their site, no problem at all. The manufactures of other brands of hardware used also provide drivers for earlier (slash better!) OS's on their respective sites too. Don't see what the big fuss is about locating w2k drivers. Been there, done that.

BTW, in case you did not read my initial post carefully, I specifically asked to PLEASE spare me the "my vista runs great" and the like comments. I respect everyones OS preference, but when I ask for positive comments, suggestions or feedback on the specific topic I posted, I get tired of instead getting pro-vista crap in return from people like you. Not really the intention of my post. Thank you.

 

refer to sig lol

listen w2k is dead, nobody supports it anymore, nobody seriously uses it. You can try installing it, but I doubt w2k would even have the driver support for some of the low-level(or is it high-level) components

 

I think I'll join the fry - installing windows 2000 is pretty close to nonsense.

The odest you can try is XP - and that may be difficult too.

 

If you know how to get drivers, then why do you waste everyone's time here. No one here wants to talk about an ancient OS and the crappy nonsense you tell about Vista.

Vista is a great OS for a computer literate, not you, I guess.

 

Dead? that is what MS would like it to be, so they can sell more vista licenses. Ooops, sorry, no vista anymore, now it's just another new one: windows 7 (maybe and "improved" vista?).

I can't speak for other w2k (also known as NT 5.0) very happy users out there, and we are quite a few, to say the least. It is the most stable and has the best tech savvy interface of any OS because it was build for tech savvy persons, not house wives and 5 year olds that need a wizard just to rename a file (no offense intended). Then came along XP, also known as NT 5.2, basically it is just an "improved" (bloated) Win2K with a geeky face lift (to capture a bigger share of the housewife/kids market). It can be "ungeeked" tuned and slimmed down somewhat, but only up to a certain point. Makes much more sense just staying with the original w2k. So a newer OS is not necessarily always better, specially if it is a recent release and comes from the house of MS. And yes, vista IS a hog, it requires 10 times (maybe more) system hardware then w2k (makes sellers and manufactures of new hardware very happy), and that just to be able to get average performance on a average system. And all that to do WHAT better then w2K????? Please tell me just ONE *essential and basic task* that a tech savvy person would need and vista does better then w2k, and is NOT related to having a better hardware config on your machine. I'm taking about a side-by-side OS comparison on exactly the same hardware. I'm not interested at all in gaming, so that doesn't count from my point of view. I'm taking about productivity here, not having to cope with OS hangs and slowness, forced reboots, less time waiting for your computer when it should be the other way around, or at least it was that way the last time I checked. Looks don't count either, leaner is meaner.

I assume that you really meant to say "it just means YOUR computer is too crappy" right? So basically you're (see here it's correct to use that word) admitting that the hog needs to be fed big time, otherwise it will just stumble along. Anyway, this FW-140E VIAO laptop (purchased new oct 2008) came with a P8400 P4 2.26G Core Duo, 3G Ram, 250G Sata HD. Very crappy indeed. In comparison my w2k workstation (circa 2003) flies on just an old P4 2.0G 400MHz FSB with 768MB 800MHz Rambus (remember those?) and 80GB IDE HD on a Intel M850 MB. I suspect w2k would be extremely happy in my laptop too. Happy OS = Happy owner.

Anyway... like I said before, anybody is entitled to use the OS they think best suits them, but please don't give me crap about MY choice just because it's not the latest or maybe it was released before you even touched your first computer. I know for a fact that w2k is far from being dead, and has been for me the best OS for my needs. Who cares if MS doesn't support it anymore, who needs then anyway. I like my machine to be snappy, not to behave like a fat stumbling hog. Given my requirements, a well tuned w2k will beat vista side by side anytime, that is all that counts. Period.

 

You know, I never thought I'd say that... but you are just trolling now...

 

Trolling? sorry I'm not familiar with that term in the context of a forum. But when I go blue-water fishing on my boat, then we're talking the same language. Caught some very nice Dolphin (aka Mahi-mahi) just this past weekend.

I'd say you're afraid of facing real arguments, are we? Not interested in any further contact with you, you've been a waist of everyone's productive time. Please go away now. Thank you.

 

of course w2k runs great on your P4, look at its minimum requirements

your cpu is 15 times more powerful
you have 12 times more RAM

that would be comparable to running Vista with a 15Ghz CPU and 120GB of RAM machine

 

Well, you're telling me that you honestly believe Win2k will run great with just 64Mb of RAM??? YEAH RIGHT!!! only if you like to frequently pull out your own hair in despair. Please, come on.... We all know what those "minimum system req's" that MS specified mean = absolutely BARE basics to just limp along, so they could dupe more people into thinking that their machines are ready for the upgrade without having to buy additional hardware, or let alone, buy a new machine altogether, what it really turned out to be with the later O/S's in order to being able to check emails and surf the web without having to exercise lots of patience while tasks are being performed.

But anyway your comment makes precisely my point! Vista requires much more hardware to run at a comparable speed then w2k, and again... for WHAT???!!! At least for my needs I don't want to deal with all the new "features" (more like bugs/shortcomings) of Vista. I just want my system to be snappy without having to come up with a not-yet-available and non-existing super PC that might be available maybe ~2015 (?). I do everything from web/email, Ms-office, Webpage/script programming, graphic edit, MP3 ripping, DVD/Avi conversions, and EVERYTHING works perfectly with my Win2k system as-is. So please tell me WHY do I need Vista. It's the basic question of "why fix it if it isn't broken". If everything I need runs GREAT on Win2k, WHY would I want to deal with Vista and all it's newly added problems/headaches. WHY??? Please, tell me.

Vista = Bloatware O/S = makes for happy hardware sellers.
XP = Win2K + the heavy circus/carnival/wizard/housewife/child user interface.
XP = NT v5.2
Win2K = NT v5.0

Taken from another post.... (couldn't agree more!)

"Windows XP was built on the proven security and stability of Windows 2000. Starting with windows xp, microsoft integrated new software in their operating system, but not much improvement has been made in the operating system itself. It's a long discussion..., but in short: XP for gamers (get one with SP3), and 2000 for the rest. Forget about Vista... the interface is revolutionary and a lot more ergonomic, but essentially it has too many backward-compatibility issues and way too resource-consuming for the few improvements it brings."

 

We would like to ask you spare us "your W2K runs great" too. You obviously don't respect anyone OS preferences and we get tired of instead getting pro-W2K crap in return from people like you.

Windows 2000 is released on 17th of February 2000 - it's over nine year old.

I can repeat coolguy's words: "Come on, wake up." It's not too late for it.

 

You don't need Vista. Who asked you to use it?

 

pff, who needs Windows 2000....Windows 95 was so much better, and it runs Godly on my PII machine. None of that extra bloat of w2000. Plus, the whole OS is like 200mb. It's so much more efficient in ever way.

I'm not going to upgrade until they release Windows 711.

 

Jokes aside now, why not just run it in a VMWare window if you must have it?

 

Win2000, Win98, Win 95 ... forget all that rot. Windows for Workgroups FTW!

Gary

 

Windows 1.01 > *