Windows 2000 - install or not?

[jimbo]

Of all the Windows versions, 2000 is by far my favorite.[nbsp][nbsp]It has the stability of NT, and the plug and play functionality of 98.[nbsp][nbsp]I personally hate Windows98, it assumes you know nothing and does everything for you.[nbsp][nbsp]99% of times it's not what you want it to do.[nbsp][nbsp]Windows2000 is much better at letting you control what your computer does :).[nbsp][nbsp]

Not only is the stability better, but Windows2K manages memory usage much better than any other Windows version.[nbsp][nbsp]Productivity is key :).[nbsp][nbsp]In the same vein, I've found Win2K to handle TCP/IP much better as far as the settings it uses - so broadband connections & network connections seem to speed up.

From a software perspective, reboots are minimized, and startups and shutdowns are sped up.[nbsp][nbsp]Microsoft Office 2000 installs in about 1 minute with no reboot required![nbsp][nbsp]For a network slave like me, this is a great feature :).

The only software I've seen that's not supported Windows2K is the Palm USB Connector software.[nbsp][nbsp]In a corporate environment this is a problem.[nbsp][nbsp]At home, not a big deal.[nbsp][nbsp]I haven't really had any other problems with any major or minor programs.[nbsp][nbsp]Heck, the Freeware PHPEd can run on 2K...

Oh, if you're a gamer, Win2K won't work for you very well.[nbsp][nbsp]I got bored and tried to install Need For Speed, and it caused Windows to not recognize that I had a hard drive.[nbsp][nbsp]That was scary.[nbsp][nbsp]If you are a heavy gamer, stick w/ 98.

Most hardware/software mfg's have smartened up and released Win2K versions of their product, or at least a patch that enables it to be supported.

And heck, I installed it on my mother's HP Pavilion, and even she loves it :).

I highly recommend Win2K over any other Windows version - especially the joke they called "Windows ME".[nbsp][nbsp]I use it at home and at work (a lot at both locations) and have yet to have a single "Blue Screen Of Death" or other Windows hiccup happen.

If you're not a gamer, and you plan on running more than one program at a time (aka use the machine for productivity) get as far away from '98 as possible.[nbsp][nbsp]Reformat that hard drive and take the '98 disk and play some ultimate frisbee :).

I guess it depends on what you will be using the machine for.

Hope this helps :)

-jim

[BOF]

Many thanks, Jim - I'm encouraged.

I'm not bothered about gaming (just the odd hand of Hearts!) so it sounds as though 2000 might be for me. I do like the idea of running multiple programs, e.g. NOF and Photoshop, probably with IE open, without having to reboot every hour!

Thanks again.
------------------
Chris
Hong Kong
www.simplyaromatics.com (http://www.simplyaromatics.com)
www.plainwebdesign.com (http://www.plainwebdesign.com)

[sheila]

We got Windows 2000 on the machine we bought for our kids this past Christmas. I haven't used it too much (it is the kids' machine, after all...) but I do like it. (We selected that operating system, largely, so that we could have different permission levels for users. Thus, hubby and I are the administrators of the machine, and the kids are "users". So they can't muck up the operating system, or install software and such.)

Anyhow, the next machine I get (hopefully in the next few months?), I plan to get Windows 2000 on it. Then again, I really don't play games.

We have had some issues with software for our kids, that would not run. In all cases it was game software. Especially older software, or software for younger kids (like the Reader Rabbit series, for example), may not be able to run on Windows 2000 and there may be no patches out for it, either.

[BOF]

I'm considering installing Windows 2000 but am hesitating as I've read that some software/hardware is incompatible with the OS - or is it vice versa?!

I have a spare 6GB hard drive and I would propose to install 2000 on this rather than partition my main drive.[nbsp][nbsp]I would then try to install hardware and software to check compatibility.

I believe that it's possible to select OS when booting (choose 98 or 2000) but the question is - is it worth all the effort?[nbsp][nbsp]Is 2000 really that much better than 98?[nbsp][nbsp]What are the pitfalls I should watch for?

As always, thanks for any input and advice.
------------------
Chris
Hong Kong
www.simplyaromatics.com (http://www.simplyaromatics.com)
www.plainwebdesign.com (http://www.plainwebdesign.com)

[Justin]

I personally recommend Windows 2000, but check the hardware compatibility list first and make sure all of your hardware is listed. If any of it is not, check with the vendor. If you still can't find any information about 2000 support, proceed with caution and have a backup plan (eg, the extra hard drive method).

With that said, I haven't had many problems other than the initial install (it didn't like one of my CD drives; it works fine, just wouldn't let me install from that drive). Software hasn't been a problem, and I'm really into gaming. QuakeIII, Unreal Tournament, Counterstrike -- all work great for me. In fact, these run a LOT faster on 2000 than I ever remember them running on 9x... probably the memory management.

I run Windows 2000 on one of my desktops and my laptop (the rest is all Linux). If it weren't for Windows 2000, I would be a 100% Linux user -- but 2000 came just in time and is really that much better. Where previously I'd have to reboot at *least* once a week, and sometimes as often as daily, now I never reboot (even the laptop; I use hibernate, and haven't had an actual reboot in a very long time).

If you have relatively newer hardware (last 2 to 3 years or so), and don't plan to use any old DOS games/programs, you should be fine. The only software that will give you trouble would be software that didn't run on NT4 either (since 2000 is the NT kernel, and has all of NTs API). There are significant differences programming for 9x vs NT, and 2000 is NT. If it worked in NT4, it will work under 2k (with the exception of device drivers, which do have to be specifically written for 2000).

End result -- if you like rebooting daily, having Explorer crash and taking your taskbar with it, having no control over processes, no view into memory/CPU usage... then stick with 9x. Otherwise, upgrade :)

And my advice to everyone is to stay very far away from Windows ME. My experience with it (several machines, most new) shows that it just plain stinks. If you can't use 2000, go with 98 SE...

(sorry for the long rant, but I have to stay awake somehow ;)[nbsp][nbsp])

<edit>
Seems I forgot to be disagreeable, so I will counter one point: Everyone keeps telling me that Windows 2000 boots faster than 9x. Maybe it's just my particular setups, but I have yet to see this.

Both my desktop and my laptop take an eternity to boot 2000, where my one 98 box boots in under 20 seconds from powerup. I've cleared out all the unnecessary startup items (registry hacking involved), and no matter what, I can't get a comparable boot time to 98...

But, luckily, the hibernate feature is awesome. I can go from Windows to Linux on the laptop in a matter of seconds, without closing a single IE window -- and in another few seconds I'm right back where I was. Luckily Linux boots fast enough on its own...

But there I go again with the rambling...
</edit>

------------------
Justin Nelson
SFE Software (http://www.sfesoftware.com)
[This message has been edited by Justin (edited 04-09-01@10:18 am)]

[jimbo]

Justin,

I haven't used Windows 98 in so long, I forget how long it takes for it to boot.[nbsp][nbsp]I migrated from NT to 2000, so I guess I'm comparing it to NT which takes longer to boot, reboot, and shutdown than many inter-continental flights :).[nbsp][nbsp]So I will rephrase:[nbsp][nbsp]&quot;Windows 2000 boots much quicker than Windows NT&quot; - how's that?[nbsp][nbsp]:)

ME is a total joke.[nbsp][nbsp]I still don't know why they decided to bring that piece of garbage to market.[nbsp][nbsp]But talk about fast booting times![nbsp][nbsp]That's about the only good thing about WinME.

Chris,

Right now I'm on a 400P3/128MB, and I'm currently running Photoshop 6.0, Dreamweaver UltraDev, WS_FTP, 3 IE windows and Outlook - and I haven't even gotten that much into the day yet :).[nbsp][nbsp]Windows 2000 handles this much better than NT ever did, and I don't think I'd even try to do this on 98.[nbsp][nbsp]Windows2K is a multi-tasker's dream come true :).

I can't believe I'm saying so many good things about a Microsoft product!!!

-jim

[teach1st]

Well, you all have convinced me and I'm an innocent bystander (albiet an innocent bystander on WinME, which came with this box and which really is a joke).

Will an upgrade from WinME and all fairly new hardware (all on the compatibility list) go smoothly? I don't particularly want to do a clean install. I have two supergiga twirly HD's and Partition Magic, so instead should I do a dual boot?

And finally, who knows a decent place to buy the upgrade? I've scoped a few good prices, but all at places with which I've never dealt before.

Thanks!

------------------
fred

[BOF]

Thank you all for the feedback and advice - all useful.

I think I'll go for the clean install on the second drive, then feed software over bit by bit.[nbsp][nbsp]That way I can fall back on good ol' 98 if necessary.[nbsp][nbsp]

Thanks again.
------------------
Chris
Hong Kong
www.simplyaromatics.com (http://www.simplyaromatics.com)
www.plainwebdesign.com (http://www.plainwebdesign.com)

[jimbo]

Fred,

Since you have two drives, I think you should do what BOF is doing - doing a fresh install on the second drive.[nbsp][nbsp]As a general rule I never like to upgrade an OS; whenever I do, it never seems to run right.

When I bought my Dell a year ago, it came with a free upgade to Win2K when it came out. When I first installed the Win2K Upgrade disc, it didn't impress me.[nbsp][nbsp]It seemed quirky, and generally not as fast.[nbsp][nbsp]I finally was able to do a Fresh Install, and once I did that it cleared up all the problems.

New OS = Reformat

I don't use partitions, and I'm not too familiar w/ how Win2K handles them if there are other OS's, but NT would hijack all partitions, and wouldn't let you run anything else, IIRC.

-jim

[Justin]

In my experience, doing a fresh install on a new drive really is the only way to go. It may not always be an option for those with a single PC and a single drive, but for me anyway, I know I'm always running out of disk space and usually end up with another new drive at least once every OS upgrade (thanks a lot, Napster :P)

Upgrading an OS invariably results in problems. Generally any Windows issues end up carried over from the previous installation, and usually defeats the purpose.

As for where to purchase, I don't know -- I picked up a copy at Office Max the day Win2k was released, over a year ago...

As far as Windows 2000 coexisting with other operating systems, I haven't seen any problems yet. My notebook runs three bootable partitions:

- Windows 2000
- RedHat Linux 6.2
- A custom distribution I'm working on for a dedicated MP3 box... long story there...

I use Linux's boot manager rather than Windows, though I did successfully get it to work in either configuration (it just seemed wrong using the NT boot loader to get into Linux; Lilo is just easier to work with, especially with kernel updates etc).

As I mentioned before, if it weren't for 2000, I would have dumped Windows all together about a year ago. Windows 2000 really is just that much better than any Windows I've ever used, and it's the first MS OS I've found to actually be considered &quot;good enough&quot; for real use.

Personally, I run my taskbar twice the size of normal, with the actual taskbar on the bottom, toolbar at the top, and an address bar in there as well (it's really handy). Even so, at 1024x768, I often times find that I can't read the taskbar entries due to having so many windows open. Even with 40+ windows open, I can hit the power button (which I have set to hibernat), and be in Linux in a matter of seconds...

But enough about that, I'm starting to sound like an MS liking person, which I am not. Hail Linux!!! :P

------------------
Justin Nelson
SFE Software (http://www.sfesoftware.com)

[teach1st]

Thanks for all the replies. Looks like a fresh install on my 2nd drive is the option for me.
------------------
fred

[BOF]

Well, it's worked for me! :) So far, so good.[nbsp][nbsp]Installation was no problem once I'd read the read-me files, and 2000 picked up all my hardware except the Epson scanner - and that was easily configured after the event.

The clean install seems the best route and if all goes well I shall reformat my main drive and put 2000 on that to replace the 'crasher', aka Win 98!

I'm grateful (again) for all the help and advice.

Best wishes to all.

------------------
Chris
Hong Kong
www.simplyaromatics.com (http://www.simplyaromatics.com)
www.plainwebdesign.com (http://www.plainwebdesign.com)