windows 2000 is not................a consumer grade OS...

[oblivion]

It is not the next version of windows98 poeple,it is really NT 5.0,it is not some easy dream to use,it is not some awesome stable alternative to windows98,people just do not seem to get it.

(I know many of you already know this,but I see so many posts at all of the forums where people seem to think they will just replace windows98 with windows2000,and use it without looking back)

If you do not use NT win2k will not be much easier.


the next windows 98 = windows millenium

get it right people

[deep_sky]

i think that most people DO know that it is not the next windows 98, but having had so many problems with 98, i dont want another 98...i use nt at work and while i may not have enough memory, it is much more stable and has more tools that i would like to have on windows.

[seti]

WHAT! You mean Microsoft isn't makeing to competeing OS's???

I agree with deep_sky.....who want's another 98??

I've played around with beta 2 of millenium, there are quite a few features that are really great, and enhance the OS's quite a bit IMO. I really like being able to play mp3's from the folders, and I like the thumbnail idea for picture folders. As far as the internal changes in the OS....well I wouldn't be the one to tell ya. It still crashed. Now with Win2K I had a few driver issues, and other little patchable problems. Is it a consumer OS...no. Can it be used as one....you bet. If people want to pay the extra cash for the stability of an NT based OS, more power to them I say. Who cares if they (me) don't use every little thing it packs along with it.

[jad1097]

Really wow!
Lets see I am running Windows 2000 and love it. No it does not support everything that win9x does. I think it is just as simple as win98 if not easier.It is much more stable than win98.
Also you can upgrade from win98 to win2000.
I really don't understand the reason for this post.
I do happen to think it is a consumer grade OS and think many will use it as such. Is Linux a consumer grade OS? It is much more diffucult than win2000.

Also did you know that the win9x kernel is being phased out? Codename "Whistler"

Here is link to send someone who may not understand .

[This message has been edited by jad1097 (edited 02-08-2000).]

[oblivion]

Games play much better on win98,and it will be that way for quite a while,also there is much more driver compatibility with w98.


Q Why did I make this post???
A because alot of people really think that w2k is the new w98,and it is not


I know I will be running 98 until win2k gets some good drivers,I guess that is because I am first off a gamer,then secondly a comp freak

I will also be running a win2k server for a win98 gaming box soon, because I like to play games,alot

[oblivion]

I guess I am really saying

"why werent you using NT to begin with,if you wanted a stable OS?"

If you want to use w2k then why werent you using NT before this release?

[seti]

Not everyone want to spend the money on a new OS, set up a dual boot system....then have to switch back to 98 everytime they want to play a game.

[jad1097]

Ok, now it makes sense.
I am not much of a gamer so I don't notice any driver problems. As for not useing NT I was stuck thinking that it was not a consumer product. Even though 2000 is really not either I think many people will change over in time. Honestly I installed 2000 to see what the hype was about.

Also running BEOS.

[This message has been edited by jad1097 (edited 02-08-2000).]

[deep_sky]

oblivion..
i am a college student.....i do not have a lot of money and to even get any os was a trouble for me....nt was not on my list of options so i took what i could get at the time...i now know more than i did when i first got my computer and want the stability of nt.....not everyone can get nt even though they might want to.....

[OuTpaTienT]

I don't have any problem with this being posted. I think there are still quite a few people that don't realize Win2000 is NOT the newest "regular" Windoze version. And I would strongly recommend against anyone trying to "upgrade" Win98 with Win2k. If you must, then go with a clean install. Why MS even allows for this upgrade option is utterly beyond all comprehension.

And I must honest and say, after reading this thread, the only question left unanswered is Why weren't you Win2k users just using WinNT in the first place???

[oblivion]

My points exactly,OuTpaTienT.........

(they are more clearly stated though)

I feel to jump to w2k from w98 is crazy(unless you have been using NT at work
(see-deep_sky)or whatever)and you should think twice about w2k unless you know your OSes well(or unless you want to dual boot or some such)

[bdog]

w2k=directX
nt4=nope

nt4=very few games
w2k=lot more games (but not as many as 98)

nt4=no usb
w2k=usb

nt4=no real plug and pray
w2k=decent plug and pray

[seti]

Doesn't it say "based on NT technology" right on the box?

You guys are makeing me feel bad for useing 98 and wanting to use 2k. Am I less??

In my opinion 2k is opening the doors to more advanced 98 users by offering broader support. Good job M$.

[deep_sky]

you got seconds on that one seti....it may be that people who are using win98 now and want to upgrade to win2k are people who did not know enough to run nt at the time but now know enough to want more stability and have the knowledge to run an nt box....
my two cents...
and i am using a crappy server with nt terminal server on it and not enough memory(64mb) to run OracleForms without issues...but still it is more stable than win98 with plenty of mem and no oracle(what a resource hog)...

[Joel Kleppinger]

bdog summarized why I, a hardcore computer user and gamer, am looking forward to Win2k. Certainly, I would be using NT4 on my main machine if it had these two little features:
USB support (I have a mouse, zip drive, digital camera, printer, scanner, and UPS that are all USB)
DirectX 7 (Massive one - if I can't play Need for Speed: High Stakes, what's the point of an OS?)

Here are the advantages of NT over Win98:
Better, more secure file system (NTFS)
Unlimited GDI/user/system resources (boundaries set at run-time using amount of RAM as a base - never run out of resources) - this is my BIG one... I'm dying for this. I never get higher than 35% free resources when doing normal life and I'm constantly running out when doing serious work
More stable TCP/IP stack
JUST MORE STABLE, period.

It really is a consumer-oriented OS. It's just that the apps and drivers aren't quite there yet. But the same was true of Win95 when it first came out. Give it 6 months, and Win2k support will be mandatory out of the box for any hardware or software except some low-level system utilities.

Win9x is on its way out and good riddance. This has been written from a Win98SE machine with 256 MB RAM and yet only 32% free system resources under typical daily usage (5 Navigator windows, Eudora, winamp, AOL IM, ICQ, and a few other odds and ends). Serious usage is Excel, Word, FrontPage98, and Adobe Photoshop all open as well as the above with a few more Navigator windows open, too.

Win2k could handle that - Win98 never has (without crashing something), never will.

[This message has been edited by Joel Kleppinger (edited 02-09-2000).]