Jump to content

hey windows 2000 good ?


 Share

Recommended Posts

because 2000 is a better OS.

Honestly, Win98 was a FAR better OS for most people (if not just for driver availability alone), until XP was released. At which point XP became a FAR better option. BTW, things like "But XP Dont clean up memory as good as Windows2000" don't make sense. RAM doesn't have to be "cleaned" or anything. I had no such issues as you describe on my old Duron 800 back when XP was released (circa 2001). Great uptimes too. As for BSODs, I've had more BSODs in a single day using Win2k (again, thanks Creative & VIA!) than I've ever had using XP.

then i'm perfectly willing to adapt to any new changes/trends if they however fits my way of thinking

So you're willing to adapt, so long as it doesn't require you to adapt?

*All* new OS'es will require you to adapt to new changes, and there will always be some that will need you to learn to do things differently. Like the new start menu in XP, the seach in Vista, or the taskbar in Win 7. It takes some time, but in almost all cases most people wouldn't go back to the old ways. (Not that XP really needed you to adapt in any way if you're using classic everything, it's like Win2k but without the suck)

why should i go out and by another box, just to be able to run an OS that i don't like?

No one said that. Besides, XP runs great on a P4 so you wouldn't even have to.

Of course if I actually where into big bloated OS's then I would go buy another box right away...

Win2k totally is a bloated monstrosity compared to NT4 and Win98, so one could say you are into bloated OS'es (I would also bet you did in fact buy this machine you're running this bloated OS onto). Min reqs:

NT4: 486 33MHz, 12MB RAM, 110MB HD

Win98: 486 66 MHz, 16MB RAM, 500MB HD

Win2k: Pentium 133MHz, 32MB RAM, 650MB HD

Win2k uses 4x more CPU and nearly 3x the RAM and 5x the HD space than its predecessor! Wow! Such horrible, unbelievable monster bloat!!! 2x the CPU of Win98, 2x the RAM and more HD space too! Where will the bloat end???

That's EXACTLY how Win2k'ers sound when talking about XP (min specs are double of win2k's basically). Win9x fans are no better. Same exact scenario:

Win98 had horrible bloat beyond comprehension (BTW, it *did* run like molasses, extremely slow on my P133 at the time), and Win95 is no exception, what a pig!!!

Win98: 486 66 MHz, 16MB RAM, 500MB HD

Win95: 386DX, 4MB RAM, 50-55MB space

Win3.1: 286, 640K Conventional + 256K extended memory (under 1MB), 6MB free HD space

Wow. How ridiculously bad! Win98 needs like 4x the CPU, 4X the RAM and 10x the disk space of Win95! Win95 needs about 4x the CPU and 4x the RAM too, and neary 10x the disk space as well compared to Win 3.1! Nobody should have ever upgraded to that absolute extreme bloat nonsense! Win 3.1 had a GUI and could start apps -- what else does one need? </I-don't-need-or-use-any-of-this-new-stuff> BTW, who needs MS Office 2007? MS Office 4.3 (that runs on my Win 3.1) has bold/italic/fonts and can save and print stuff -- everything I need right there, new apps are useless </I-don't-need-new-software-either>

For the record, Win 3.1 was extreme bloat, compared to just using MS-DOS. and MS-DOS itself was extremely bloated compared to many OS'es of the time than ran straight from within the onboard EPROM.

See how silly it sounds? Sticking with Win2k or WinXP doesn't make any more sense than those. New OS'es always have, and always will always need more resources, but most people don't get stuck in the past over it.

Using Win2k today is exactly like using Win 3.1 in 2003 (8 years or so after being replaced).

Also marketshare-meassures has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the OS

I disagree. It clearly shows that most people and businesses are dumping older OSes they clearly don't want of as they found something better to replace it. People are moving on for a reason.

Here gimme your paypal and I will DONATE the $3 for the extra hardrive space you need....

$3? That almost buys 40GB worth of space these days. It's not like you need anywhere near that much extra to run XP instead. Mind you I've given away 120GB'ers...

LOL a quick check at newegg shows that drives are about 11.5 cents a gig now ohmy.gif

Not even. 1TB'ers are like $80 -- that's 8 pennies a GB.

My 4 gigs of ram I have in my system only cost me $66 bucks. "Resource Hog" is a null excuse nowadays...

And I got a 2x2GB kit of "Buffalo Firestix Heat FSH800D2B-K4G 4GB 2X2GB PC2-6400 DDR2-800 CL4" for $37.99 CAD ($33.45 USD by today's rate).

Those never ending "bloat" claims always seem to be over a few pennies worth of hardware. I saw barebones (case, power supply, 3GHz CPU, mobo, 1 or 2GB RAM and all -- just re-use your HD & DVD drives) several times for like $100 last year (at places like tigerdirect). You can get entire P4 setups (including the whole tower, monitor, mouse, keyboard, legit XP license and all -- with warranty too) for that much anytime (in fact, a co-worker was just given exactly that last week).

Yes, I like to quote posts following mine instead of posting a hundred times to confuse others! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Here gimme your paypal and I will DONATE the $3 for the extra hardrive space you need....

LOL a quick check at newegg shows that drives are about 11.5 cents a gig now :o

Plus I have a Drawer FULL of sdram pc100 + pc133. And some ddr200 plus a little bit of random ddr2 laying around.

My 4 gigs of ram I have in my system only cost me $66 bucks. "Resource Hog" is a null excuse nowadays...

Edited by Kelsenellenelvian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also marketshare-meassures has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the OS

I disagree. It clearly shows that most people and businesses are dumping older OSes they clearly don't want of as they found something better to replace it. People are moving on for a reason.

lol better i dont think so

they upgrade so they can run newer software not becasue their better

if they were better then they would be beable to run on older hard ware and they would be faster then their predecessor

so they are not better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they upgrade so they can run newer software

If that was the case, people would move on from older OS'es only when the support for them starts to disappear, and it's just not the case (just like they've started replacing XP now, despite it supporting all the new stuff still). People in general actually love the new features it brings (tons of them -- even for the average end-user e.g. cleartype or sleep that works), the eye candy, the stability, the newer faster more reliable hardware, the new things they can do with their computers (like watching HD content), there's about a billion different reasons for IT departments too (better GPO, better deployment stuff, etc). Yep, people are moving away from older OS'es because they found something genuinely better.

if they were better then they would be beable to run on older hard ware and they would be faster then their predecessor so they are not better

Yes, again because running on a grossly outdated POS computer with specs worse than those found in dumpsters is the only thing that matters. You should "upgrade" to MS-DOS 1.0 then.

Since it's your only criteria, the only versions of any OS you're ever going to like are those older than what you're using now. You're certainly never going to upgrade to anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gamehead200

the hard ware was 256mb or 386mb of sd ram pc-133 i think

cpu was 500mhz

yer not powerful but above the system specs and their for should run just but that will never happan

and why have xp when you can have 98 which is much faster and stable

you dont seem to understan some people cant afford the ram and the hard drive space and then the posting fees

and some people cant buy things because their dad wont let them lol

and some people just cant be borthered with it

also people that upgrade to win xp only do it so they can run their newer software and hard ware drivers and the eye candy

if win 9x could do that then their still be a heap of people still running 9x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol better i dont think so

they upgrade so they can run newer software not becasue their better

if they were better then they would be beable to run on older hard ware and they would be faster then their predecessor

so they are not better

Better is a tricky word. Assuming I'm a (regular) home user and I don't live on MSFN and am not technically knowledgeable, what is "better"? The ability to get newer peripherals and hardware with drivers that support my OS natively? The ability to get newer software versions and perhaps newer software in general for the OS because it's still supported by the vendor? Better security from the kind of stuff they'll come across on a regular basis than the previous version(s)? The ability to call the vendor for free if the product breaks for the first 5 years of it's life? Since most people only upgrade their OS when they buy another machine, it's really a moot point anyway, and most people will just learn the new Windows because they got it with their new computer, so they'll have relegated themselves to the fact that it'll be a bit different than their "old" computer - people managed (easily) to switch from the 3.1-style program manager to Windows 95, which I would argue was the largest ever UI shift in Windows to date, so I don't think people will have too much trouble with 2000, XP, or Vista to Win7 as some people predict. Most folks aren't technically savvy, but they're not generally stupid either. If people can go from 3.1 and DOS to Win95 without totally giving up Windows, they'll go just as easily to Win7 without any problems either.

For a business, what is "better"? Power savings due to much better power management than previous versions of the software, which can be a 10+% portion of a company's operating budget, depending on size (the larger the company, the more $$$ it costs to run their hardware)? Having one version of a software package (including the OS) to support across all machines, with lots and lots of management options to increase security or make the software easier to control, cutting support costs? Reduced management overhead for deployment, having one master image that can be rolled out in all languages to all hardware platforms versus having a separate image for each machine type difference, and another for different languages, etc? The ability to patch and keep an image updated *offline* without having to install each and every image in the org, update the packages, and re-sysprep it (which can only be done once or twice anyway safely)? Staying within the 5 year support window for bugfixes, keeping support costs down when a vendor issue *does* start costing you money?

Those are just a few reasons. I can think of a few in favor of staying with an older OS for each too, but most of those come back to being able to run hardware you already have (although Win7 mitigates that a bit by running on older hardware much, much better than Vista did, sometimes as well as XP does) or you plan on not upgrading software, don't need vendor support, and in general might not like the newer versions from an aesthetic perspective (bloat is genrally only complained about by folks who want the newest and latest to run on older, smaller hardware - smaller HDDs, RAM sizes, slower CPUs, etc). Windows never has been, and likely never will be, smaller with each successive version - because the vast majority of consumers and businesses who buy a new product from Microsoft want more features, more security, or both. Both of these generally require more code, although Windows has always been the "feature" OS, and in general that's what drives sales. People don't get all warm and fuzzy about security, but they do about shiny new eye candy and things like the taskbar dock - so, Windows grows. It's always been that way, and it's likely never to change - it makes money for Microsoft, and they're a for-profit business. As long as it continues to be profitable, and shareholders will approve, it'll continue to be modus operandi. And honestly, I'm ok with that.

It's also important to remember that the whole of Microsoft Windows is not just the NT kernel, just like Linux is not just the kernel in most people's eyes. Both are very small, and the "bloat" comes from all the software (including the windowing engine - the windows shell in Windows and Gnome/KDE/xfce/etc for a Linux box) layered on top. In fact, I just installed desktop ubuntu 9.04 with all the defaults, and it took up just a shade over 6GB on my HDD. For reference, Win7 took just under 8GB.

and why have xp when you can have 98 which is much faster and stable

Three words - flat memory model. Faster? On relatively modern hardware, most definitely, as it's doing less with less code to run. Stable? Depends - 98SE was very stable for me and I'm guessing most others, but 95 wasn't stable as soon as you introduced newer USB devices, and 98FE was about as stable as WinME for most people, and it took an "SE" to fix it. But, and this is the problem I have - flat memory model. Any running app, anywhere on the system, can write to any other app (or even the kernel)'s process space. There's zero security, at all, in the system. The second problem I consider major is dual and multi-core CPU support (none), and memory limits (2GB at best). I do lots of code work (dev and test) and not being able to test code to see if it's threadsafe, or waiting for things to compile on one core with limited RAM at this point is a dealbreaker in and of itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because 2000 is a better OS.

Honestly, Win98 was a FAR better OS for most people (if not just for driver availability alone), until XP was released. At which point XP became a FAR better option. BTW, things like "But XP Dont clean up memory as good as Windows2000" don't make sense. RAM doesn't have to be "cleaned" or anything. I had no such issues as you describe on my old Duron 800 back when XP was released (circa 2001). Great uptimes too. As for BSODs, I've had more BSODs in a single day using Win2k (again, thanks Creative & VIA!) than I've ever had using XP.

if win98 had better support for NTFS and some good file system for big files.

I should have use it now instead of windows 2000.

Windows98 is a fantastic OS.

and with RP9 and kernelex it is really good.

But there is no good way for NTFS.

Yes there are a few NTFS for win98 but for me they have not worked very well.

And if NT4 has better driver support I should have use it to.

But there is no NT4 drivers for my computer.

So I´m not an Win2K or win9x man.

I only realistic whats good and whats not for me.

But on you it sounds like XP is the sended by God.

and nothing else is good enough.

It sounds like that.

I only reference to my experience.

and for me Windows 2000 Works and always works.

And XP does not work good enough for me.

Sometime BSOD it gets slow faster than any other OS.

and you did say Ram does not be cleaned.

Why does XP being slow after a week or so.

and after a reboot it is fast as before.

And I have heard of many that XP does that.

More than 100people has told me the same that XP getting slow after a week power on.

And it does that for me to.

But not my 2K i did have XP on the same machine as I have 2K on also.

and XP did the same for me.

it do that on all computer I have test XP on.

but Maybe I only got bad luck with XP.

But thats my opinion and whats work for me.

Edited by Tripo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

they upgrade so they can run newer software

If that was the case, people would move on from older OS'es only when the support for them starts to disappear, and it's just not the case (just like they've started replacing XP now, despite it supporting all the new stuff still). People in general actually love the new features it brings (tons of them -- even for the average end-user e.g. cleartype or sleep that works), the eye candy, the stability, the newer faster more reliable hardware, the new things they can do with their computers (like watching HD content), there's about a billion different reasons for IT departments too (better GPO, better deployment stuff, etc). Yep, people are moving away from older OS'es because they found something genuinely better.

if they were better then they would be beable to run on older hard ware and they would be faster then their predecessor so they are not better

Yes, again because running on a grossly outdated POS computer with specs worse than those found in dumpsters is the only thing that matters. You should "upgrade" to MS-DOS 1.0 then.

Since it's your only criteria, the only versions of any OS you're ever going to like are those older than what you're using now. You're certainly never going to upgrade to anything else.

"upgrade to ms dos 1.0"

dont be a smart a**

just becasue i got a old computer dosent mean you gotta be a little dip s*** to me

i got a vista laptop

so dont tell me am never going to upgrade

but i seen how the eye candy and slow downs and all the other crap of xp and vista can get really annoying

and dont say its a s*** computer

2 gb of ram

1.5 centrino dual core

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF SLOW DOWN FFS!!!

I do however have a question...

You say your dad won't let you buy anything right? How did you get a copy of Windows 2000 then? They sell for @ $60 bucks.

You can goto your used PC store and upgrade the heck out of your current PC.

Besides if you have a Vista laptop then just toss the old junker and quit whining.

Besides Aero doesn't use much RAM it's the video card it's harder on.

From reading all of your other posts asking why you can't run this game and that game on your legacy PC why the HELL didn't you just run them on your laptop in compatability mode?

Edited by Kelsenellenelvian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol the old junker is my favourite thing

i love it

its like a litte kid and hes favourite toy

am not getting rid of it

when i die am gonna get buried with it lol

and i havent got windows 2000

i was going to go get it off ebay by local pick up

Edited by starcraftmaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You DID know you can turn Aero off and not use the sidebar right?

Then you don't have anything to complain about that way.

I am a BIG Vista hater and always have been but 90% of the "Crap" can be VERY easily turned off or disabled.

Edited by Kelsenellenelvian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if win98 had better support for NTFS and some good file system for big files.

I should have use it now instead of windows 2000.

Windows98 is a fantastic OS.

and with RP9 and kernelex it is really good.

But there is no good way for NTFS.

Yes there are a few NTFS for win98 but for me they have not worked very well.

Have you tried free Paragon NTFS for Win98:

http://www.paragon-software.com/home/ntfs-win98/

It supports NTFS 3.1: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310749

Regards, Roman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You DID know you can turn Aero off and not use the sidebar right?

Then you don't have anything to complain about that way.

I am a BIG Vista hater and always have been but 90% of the "Crap" can be VERY easily turned off or disabled.

yer i know

still very blogged system but

i dont care that much because i always use my older comp for music , browsing and starcraft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on you it sounds like XP is the sended by God.

and nothing else is good enough.

Compared to 9x and 2k? Just about. Not that I use XP anymore mind you.

@starcraftmaster: you were lucky for not being banned last time (not by me) for your foul language and were warned. Looks like you didn't learn your lesson. Goodbye.

[Topic closed as no good is gonna come out of this]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...