..How folks feeling about W2K ???

[tad]

Been long enough for problems, so am wondering how people are feeling about W2K.
Specifically, how do you save yourself when a bad driver overwrites a good one. I just had this happen on a W98SE machine when I tried to load a "newer" UDMA driver. Blew the OS, but I saved it with good ol' DOS.
What do you do in W2K. We know things will go wrong.

Wondering ,,,,, Tad . [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]

[tad]

Been long enough for problems, so am wondering how people are feeling about W2K.
Specifically, how do you save yourself when a bad driver overwrites a good one. I just had this happen on a W98SE machine when I tried to load a "newer" UDMA driver. Blew the OS, but I saved it with good ol' DOS.
What do you do in W2K. We know things will go wrong.

Wondering ,,,,, Tad . [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]

[Sean Sedwards]

Excellent, stable operating system but relatively slow on simple tasks, such as opening folders etc. Should work well with X because X was developed on it, but it doesn't solve any of X's inherent problems. Don't confuse 'stable operating system' with 'stable application' - a fualty app. is just less able to crash the system.

Regards - Sean

[diniel]

It's excellent. I have no hesitation in recommending it. It is remarkably stable, especially when you have lots loaded. It likes its RAM, so use as much as you can justify.

I found it much faster than I had expected. I've had a couple of problems with odd crashes recently, but narrowed them down to either the video card drivers or Service Pack 2, perhaps a combination of the two.

Use WHQL drivers where possible, and don't install SP2 and in my experience, you'll have a fantastic and stable operating system. I use the PC 10 hours a day (or more), and it often goes for a week or two between reboots. Even then, the reboots are because I don't believe it can run longer, rather than actually requiring one.

Buy it now, before Windows XP comes out at the end of October and makes 2000 difficult to find.

[james_frost]

Highly recommended. I've not found anything that makes me want to go back to Windows 95/98 and wouldn't touch ME with a barge pole.

The only reason to stick with 98 would be for hardware reasons (if your machine is not beefy enough for Win2K) or if you are addicted to old DOS games that won't run under NT/2000.

(BTW, I personally have had no problems with SP2)

James

[qmr]

PII-300 ok to run win2K? especially if i double the ram to 256?

Q.

[Erik Heyninck]

Read more about it at:


www.pcnineoneone.com


I, for one, am convinced.

If you don't work against time, time often works for you.

[james_frost]

You should be fine with a PII 300 - but would recommend the extra RAM (its nice and cheap these days)

The lowest spec machine we've got running Win2K in my office is an elderly Pentium Pro 200 with 96MB of RAM - even that runs OK providing you don't overload it with software.

(and Xara runs great on just about anything!)

James

[raffon]

Tad,
Not much more I can say that hasn't already been said. It has excellent hardware support, likes RAM which is cheap, and as Daniel said "Buy it now, before Windows XP comes out at the end of October and makes 2000 difficult to find." On the subject of RAM, I would encourage everyone to look at the of price memory. Last year in June a 128meg DIMM memory module was selling wholesale for about $145 US. It is now at $20 US. Buy as much as you can afford and what your motherboard will support. Another factor in speed is the RPM of your hard drives. If you are thinking of upgrading to W2K, you might want a larger HD, they're cheap too. Get one that spins at 7200 RPM, loads much quicker. If you can afford it get a UDMA controller too. I put in a Promise UDMA ATA100 PCI controller when I upgraded OS and HD. Boot up to desktop took 2 minutes instead of 5!!!
I upgraded on top of a Win98SE install and had no problems what so ever. Checkout MS W2K home page for compatability og hardware and software, its pretty good. Have fun.

TANSTAAFL