This OS rocks

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
flamethrower205

flamethrower205

Illustrious
Jun 26, 2001
13,105
0
40,780
Hi,
just wanted to say how impressed I am with Win2k. Have been using it for a few months now (switched from Win 98SE). Graphics apps run much better, and it's much more stable. Not to mention teh extra customizability and the better internet performance. Simply a great OS.

When I rule the world, Apple will only mean the fruit.
 
I agree, Win2K is a pretty good OS for those who want stability and reliability.

Rob
Please visit <b><A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048</A></b>
 
I totally agree. And it's the best for networks. I've run 2000 for months on my network at work and it hasn't locked up at all.

Now if I could only convince my boss to switch everyone to Windows 2000, then I can stop having to fix all the Windows 95/98 machines when they blow up...

<i>I don't know anything about computers... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night...</i> :lol:
 
I dual boot Win98SE & Win2k, but I almost forgot that 98 was on my second drive. Haven't used it since I install W2k 3 months ago. I don't need WinXP because Win2k is a decent piece of work. Not perfect, but I have no complaints.

JC-------<*){{{>{~~~~~
Fisher of men
 
Why don't u take off Win98 in that case and convert everything to NTFS 5.0 Very impressive performance under NTFS, since my hard drive was having problems, and had a burst rate of 1.9MB/s, but w/ NTFS it was almost as good as having a working good quality HD in Fat32. Now that my HD is working fine, I am speechless about its performance. can't wait to get my RAID and 2 hd's:)

When I rule the world, Apple will only mean the fruit.
 
Me too. I upgrade to win2k for 9 month ago for win 98SE. It is a lot more stable than win 98 and networking capablity is a lot better too.
 
My first HDD is FAT 32 (Win98SE) and my second drive is NTFS (Win2k), and yes the performance is extremely impressive compared to FAT 32. I haven't decided what to do with my FAT 32 HDD since I don't use is much. After tasting prime ribs it hard to go back to SPAM :smile: . Maybe, just maybe I'll try RAID. My whole system is nothing but SCSI so RAID would be a reasonable choice. Once my money tree blossoms I won't have to give much thought to the subject. But for now I'm happy.

JC-------<*){{{>{~~~~~
Fisher of men
 
<i><font color=green>"just wanted to say how impressed I am with Win2k..."</i></font color=green>
Don't be surprised, the difference in performance is because the Windows 98SE (and as just /98 and /Me) in reality is an updated version of the Windows 95 (the same DOS7 code), but the Windows 2000 is built on the 32-bit WinNT code base and is a true operating system, as opposed to an operating environment, which means it doesn't rest on the older 16-bit DOS7 platform of Win95(/98/Me).

WinNT, /2000, /XP as 32-bit systems are generally much faster than their 16-bit Win95(/98/Me) counterparts because they can move 32 bits of data at a time instead of 16. {Although Win95 can handle both 16- and 32-bit programs.)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
""WinNT, /2000, /XP as 32-bit systems are generally much faster than their 16-bit Win95(/98/Me) counterparts because they can move 32 bits of data at a time instead of 16""

Ok.

""{Although Win95 can handle both 16- and 32-bit programs.)""

???... where is the point ...??? Both can move 32 bit at any given moment,.. dont get what you are saying... 🙁


it's my life, don't tell me what to do with it...
 
It rocks until you try to make it a print server and it Blue screens. But other than that it rocks.

😎 <font color=blue> I know nothing that is why i am here at THG!</font color=blue>
 
I have set up one of my computer as print server and sharing internet connection. It worked without any problem. I have not reboot it over two month now.
 
" ???... where is the point ...??? Both can move 32 bit at any given moment,.. dont get what you are saying... 🙁" ]

I agree, not clear.
What I was trying to say, that there is dramatic improvement in NT (/2K /XP) architecture in comparison with Win 95 (/98 /Me).
Yes, Win95 works as fully 32-bit operating system, but still is a combination of a new DOS 7.00 (see VER command) and a new Windows interface. Booting a Windows 9x system automatically loads the GUI, but changing one character of the MSDOS.SYS text file causes the computer to boot to a DOS prompt, after which you must type WIN to load the Windows interface, like in Win3.x.
Click to expand...
 
Lucky you, i am doing an os clean install right now.

😎 <font color=blue> I know nothing that is why i am here at THG!</font color=blue>
 
you dont have to make it a print server, just share the printer on any pc in your environment (domain, work group) and let everyone to see it, as easy as that.
(blue screen can be a driver for the printer:)

it's my life, don't tell me what to do with it...
 
Yeah, 2K would rock even more if it actually supported my soundcard (SBPCI512) correctly, my DVD decoder, my UDMA33 chipset, or my second NIC. Granted, it may not be the newest hardware out, and it's not MS's fault the drivers aren't always provided, but this hardware worked fine under ME and even Linux (well except for the DVD, but that's because of CSS bullshit).
Other than that, no crashes yet. And it's just about as fast as ME was. Shocking actually. Can't wait for my new Shuttle m/b and athlon to get here, maybe that will solve some of my driver issues. But when it comes down to it, I still like my Mac with OS X better. :)
 
NASTY Macs. AARGGHH hate them. How are they user friendly? To get to the CD drive I had to go through like a billion windows to see the CD's contents! Plus they are not nearly as powerful as they are touted to be.

When I rule the world, Apple will only mean the fruit.
 
There's just an oppinion...

from <A HREF="http:// http://www.labmice.net/FAQ/win2000faq.htm " target="_new">http:// http://www.labmice.net/FAQ/win2000faq.htm </A>

“…How stable is Windows 2000?

...the leading cause of crashes in Windows 2000 have been poorly written 3rd party software and hardware drivers, not the operating system itself….” ]

I agree with that, when I installed, the machines (relatively old, assembled from good brand parts) got the Win2000 flawlessly from first attempt. Never crashes, (no lock-ups, no need to restart).
Click to expand...
 
please let's not even get into the mac vs. pc crap here. both are good and both have their strengths and weaknesses. i just don't see how a company that started so long ago and getting stronger all the time you can say is more/less [-peep-]. currently i only have a pc but i have used both. is the mac a gaming, 3d animation/render platform? nope. but it's one hell of a video/dtp/graphic design platform. pc excels at the games and 3d content creation apps. audio mastering is pretty equal, though most i know would prefer a mac for audio, but the pc is right there. the computer is a tool whether for work or entertainment. use which ever one suits you needs/wants more. and learn to work/play within each's limits.

always with one shoe untied and never finding the other.
 
[flamethrower205:
NASTY Macs. AARGGHH hate them. How are they user friendly? To get to the CD drive I had to go through like a billion windows to see the CD's contents! Plus they are not nearly as powerful as they are touted to be. ]
I don't know what kind of Mac you used, but for most of us, the steps to open a CD are: insert CD, double click the icon that appears on desktop. That's it.
I use both daily, and there is literally nothing that I can do on one that I can't do on the other. Both have thier strengths. I really can't understand why some people have such an aversion to them. It's one thing to just not use them, but quite another to actively hate the platform. Get over it, it's just a computer. So what if it's not Windows. Not like Bill needs more of a marketshare.
(And I have a couple 3D artists at work who use Maya on their G4's that might take offense at that 3D rendering remark.. :) )
 
take offense? how, it's plain as day that there are more support for 3d animation on the pc than macs. more apps, better driver support/implementation, better graphics cards. not to mention maya for osX isn't final yet and the beta still has a lil ways to go. but another 1-1.5 yrs and the mac platform will be right there with the pc and maybe past.

always with one shoe untied and never finding the other.
 
Didn't want to start a flame, but anyway, the reason I say Macs aren't as good for 3D is that first not as many apps are supported. Also, although the G4 is 128-bit, teh RAM is 64-bit, and the software 32. Therfore, you are running on a 700 MHz 32-bit processor. I'll take a 1.2 Ghz T-bird thank you.

Your brain: PC
You brain on drugs: Mac
 
Sorry, but I feel a slight correction is in order. The G4's are only 32bit processors. They do have a 128bit vector processing unit, though. The way I understand it, it's not unlike the floating point processing unit on CPU's. It's just one of Apple's sales tricks. But aren't the SSE2 extensions on the P4's 128bit as well?

I unfortunatly haven't used Win2k. But I've heard enough good things about it and liking some of the things that are in the WinXP RC1 that I've been running that I'm going to get a copy of Win2k here pretty soon. Should be cool.

Ben Porter.
 
Yes, G4's are only 32-bit, just like Athons and Pentiums. The difference is a 128-bit datapath as opposed the the 64-bit path used in the other two. The altavec is something else as well. I'm waiting until January... the new G5's should be out by then and they're 64-bit processors like the Itanium or DEC Alpha's. :) I like all of these platforms... just pick the tool that works for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom