Does Win2K suck?

[Babe1975]

A few of my co-workers use it, and they say its only good if you have a very stable system!!!!!!

 

[Babe1975]

A few of my co-workers use it, and they say its only good if you have a very stable system!!!!!!

 

[Babe1975]

A few of my co-workers use it, and they say its only good if you have a very stable system!!!!!!

 

[DOOPYLOOPY]

Win2k is FANTASTIC

I love it really I do.

Sounds like the problems you're having are to do with the ATI Radeon and its crappy drivers.

I'm a little late in my opinion.

hehe

I've loved it from the moment it was installed.

 

[mitaiwan82]

i'd have to say win2k is good stuff...when I first installed it, I was surprised at the amount of stability it had and it amazed me how almost none of the applications/games I run can crash it 😀 All this coming from a VIA user....

 

[rigelproject]

Step 1: Reformat
Step 2: Install Linux Mandrake
Step 3: Throw away W2K CD.

 

[Qzruh]

If your a gamer then stick with Win98SE for performance.
-

Yeah ?

My Unrealtournament have higher frame/sec in W2k than 98SE !

 

[DaLeroy]

I'm a new Win2K user, just installed last night and I gotta say, first impressions are very good!! Installed all my network drivers etc without asking for driver disks 🙂 and was up and connected to my network in less time than it takes to tell. No crashes yet either 🙂 (I know it's earlier, but hey 🙂)

 

[WDCentral]

Windows 2000 is far from "sucking". I consider it to be a superior operating system, even to Linux. There is probably some type of problem in your case...

 

[steelnewfie]

Real stable, but ATI's drivers do suck for 2K

 

[Looney]

Just to add my 2cents to this very late discussion, i LOVE Win2k... stability and speedwise over Win9x is better, stability is a nobrainer, but speedwise i would say Win2k is faster... maybe it's because it's using my 512mb of ram more efficient? i don't know... for all i know it's an illusion, and it's infact slower than win9x, and even so, opening IE or Word 0.5secs slower is a VERY good tradeoff for the stability.

I also used NT4 for a little while, and i must say Win2k is superior to that as well. As for crashes, it's true NT4 had less, but i also had less hardware and software in NT4 than i do in Win2k. With the more hardware and software support migrating to Win2k, the more problems you are bound to have.



<< see, I keep hearing that it's the kick ass windows OS now.. but.. I can't help but notice that when I got to the operating system forum, all these problems >>



Based on that rationale, you should be using Win3.1 or Win95. You don't hear too many people whine about those OS on these forums. You hear a lot of problems on Win2k is because more people are using Win2k.

I would suggest using Win2k yourself instead of listening to people. The best evidence is your own experience.

 

[MrAnderson]

When I was testing Win2K it went for 6 months of use before it crashed for the first time. Check out the tips people have provided!

 

[potz]

win2k is great. linux is pretty nice except it's a pain in the butt to configure. it's got a lot of growing up to do before i would use it.

 

[smp]

I don't know.. any OS that is forcing me to buy more ram is a crappy OS in my opinion (when you already have 256 that is).. it's slow.. I installed mandrake last night, easy to configure, on my netwerk in no problem.. working fine.. what are ppl saying about linux? I hate windows cause of microsofts tactics.. man, linux came with about a trillion programs in it already.. and it was all free.. I don't know.. A lot of people that I talk to (in person) agree with me (unless they are media junkies, raised on TV, macdonalds, and microsoft).. so yeah, down with microsoft.. it might not crash.. but if it needs 512 megs of ram just to be a workstation.. I don't know.. that's sketchy.. I got the proper radeon drivers in there.. like, it's good, it's just so slow.. why is it so damn slow??? Doesn't this bother anyone else? shouldn't newer OS's be faster? I mean.. isn't that just logical?
example.. <windows key> + <E> = open explorer.. FIVE MINUTES LATER.. wtf? It lags.. I'm buying another stick of 256 this weekend.. if the problem persists.. then I guess i did something wrong.. I don't know, my benchmarks are okay.. if there was a conflict somewhere.. I don't know.. the only reason I'm keeping the stupid thing is cause I need a stable OS to run 3DSmax on.. (nt was good for this) and to do video capture as well with my AIW(nt could not do this, hence no NT).. 98 sucked for both really..

PS.. My logic tells me that programmers are the smartest computer nerds.. all of the computer programmers I've talked to.. say that linux is by far better than windows.. for a home, internet user I guess windows is better, except that you have to pay for it.. I can put my sister infront of mandrake now and she could surf the web with it too.. no problem.. I don't know.. too many ppl just like microsoft cause they are USED to windows.. ACCUSTOMED to it.. </end rant>

anyways.. Windows zealots.. you can commence flaming...

 

[rigelproject]

Trained chimps can load and configure W2K...it takes some brains and kahunas to load and configure Linux...if you want the easy way...well, nuf said...all you computer user wannabees...