Parallels and Windows 2000

Discussion in 'Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac' started by lugesm, Sep 7, 2007.

  1. lugesm macrumors 6502a

    lugesm

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    #1
    Anyone running Parallels with Windows 2000?

    I have ordered a copy of Parallels ($59 with free shipping from Amazon.com) and I own a legit copy of Windows 2000. I have a new 24" iMac running 2.4G and 1GB of memory. I plan to upgrade to 2GB.

    It is my impression that Win2000 is trimmer, more efficient, and faster than WinXP or Vista. Since I only need to run a few simple Windows programs, and not frequently at that, I thought that perhaps Win2000 would be the better choice.

    Would like to hear from anyone else running this combination.

    Thanks for your comments.

    Regards
     
  2. SDAVE macrumors 68040

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
    #2
    Just find a used copy of XP Pro on ebay. Win2k is too old and not worth it. It runs great on older 500Mhz PC's though.
     
  3. lugesm thread starter macrumors 6502a

    lugesm

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    #3
    SDAVE,

    Thanks for commenting. Actually, I was not concerned about the relative prices of Win2000 and WinXP. I also have a legit copy of XP.

    My thought is that 2000 requires fewer resources and that operation in Parallels might be faster and more efficient. I only need to run 3 simple Windows programs, so my needs are minimal.

    Am I not correct in assuming that 2000 should run faster under Parallels?

    Regards,
     
  4. theman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    #4
    are you planning on gaming? because games made withing the last 18 months or so (mostly) do not support win2k
     
  5. lugesm thread starter macrumors 6502a

    lugesm

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    #5
    No gaming. My applications are simple, basic Windows type. I have them running on my ""junk" computer that I use for testing. The computer is an old 266Mhz Intel type with 256M of memory and Windows 2000. Works great!

    Given the above, I thought Win2000 might be the best bet for installation with Parallels on this new iMac. Like I said, the applications are simple.

    By the way, I don't see Parallels as a long-term thing in my environment; but it looks like a wonderful tool for the transition period until I am "all Mac."
     
  6. SDAVE macrumors 68040

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
    #6
    Windows XP is like an upgraded version of Win2k. Win2k is discontinued.

    Just go with XP Pro and disable all the visual styles if you want it to be like Win2k :)

    Either way you have all that processing power under the hood, so going to Win2k will not actually make it faster.
     
  7. geoffshep macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    I have installed Win2000 on a friend's machine cos that's all he had. Xp is an easier install and more well supported, but 2000 installed ok. The bundled Kapersky internet security suite won't run on 2000 and you need to manually install the correct version of tools - we installed Antivir free virus scanner as well and it all works fine.
     
  8. Ariez macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    #8
    The iMac is fast enough to run any form of windows, just to let you know. No reason to bog down on the goodies Vista offers unless you want to save some money.
     

Share This Page