Which OS ME or 2000 is best suited for laptop?

[Guest]

Hi everyone,

I am wondering which OS WINME or WIN2K PRO is best suited (fastest) for a laptop (INSPIRON 8000, PIII 700, 192MB SDRAM PC100, 10GB IBM HD, ATI RAGE MOBILE 128 4XAGP, ESS MAESTRO SOUND CARD, ACTIONTECH COMBO MODEM & 10/100 NIC CARD, DVD, INTEL 815 CHIPSET...) and the following applications: 3D modeling small part and assembly (PRO/E, SOLIDEDGE, INVENTOR, IDEAS etc), MEDIA STUDIO PRO video editing (small footage less than 5 minute), WINDVD (movies) and internet. Any insight thought is greatly appreciated.

 

[Guest]

I would prefer Win2k anyday over WinME, but some programs and hardware does not work well with Win2k, but as long as you can verify that the hardware will work, and that the drivers or updates are available for you laptop, than use Win2k.

 

[doczenith1]

For starters, I'm no laptop pro, but I remember reading that win2k is as good as win98 in the whole power managment arena. So you should be ok in that area.

Doc

 

[Guest]

I installed Win2k on a Toshiba Satellite 2250XCDS, didn't have too many problems, except the big one, I had a 3com network card and come to find out, there are only 2 3com cards that have win2k support and the rest are not going to be supported in the forseeable future... So make sure you have a win2k compatible card.

 

[doczenith1]

An update to my previous post. I came across a benchmark comparing battery life between 98 and 2000 and the 2000 machine came out ahead!

 

[crapple0]

I use Win2k Advanced Server on my laptop, and it's stable as a rock. There are a few power management issues...I think there are less options under Win2K, but battery life is great. I think if you have 98 and have to reboot a few times during the life of the battery, it wastes power on spinning up all the drives, using the HDD to load the OS again, load all your applications, etc. Win2k doesn't do that, so it's more efficient there too.

~Crapple0

"intel inside, idiot outside"

 

[Arrow]

I would say Win2000. Much more stable!

Rob
Please visit <b><A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/shop/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/shop/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048</A></b>

 

[Guest]

2000 wins!

 

[Guest]

I'd go with 2000 for the simple reason Micro$oft is killing DOS platforms (95, 98, ME) this year. their new OS "XP" is 2000 with improved trashcan icons

Later Jim

<font color=blue>Permanant A7V Beta Tester (or thats how it feels) </font color=blue>

 

[Guest]

Having worked for well over a year in laptop support, I would encourage anyone to stay away from Win9X or ME on
Laptops... very poor APM implementation and unreliable as ****. Go for Win2k.

 

[Guest]

I agree with everyone above - Win2000 wins hands down. Another nice feature is "hibernate" instead of shutting down. It just saves the system to disk as you have it (open programs, whatever) so when you turn the computer back on everything is exactly like you left it. It makes booting up MUCH faster since the operating system doesn't have to load all over again.

I have a Dell Latitude L400 that came with Win2000 and couldn't be happier. Battery life is great and the system is rock solid.

 

[ejsmith2]

I dual boot Nes98 and Win2k, using system commander. The newest version will let you dual-boot NesME/win2k. If you at least dual boot for awhile, you can fall back on winme if you're having problems with win2kk. Win2k is enough different that you'll have to spend some time just learning where everything is.

 

[FatBurger]

ME is way better than 2000!!!
Oh wait, no it's not.
ME sucks

------------------------------
Apple? Macintosh? What are these strange words you speak?