• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Looking for Win2k alternative

W

wfbberzerker

Lifer
I'm currently looking for an alternative OS to win2k, and i am looking for your input. i have a few questions, and a few guidelines as to what i want.

what would be the best choice in terms of
-compatability with my hardware
-compatability with software and games
-ease of use and install
-best looking GUI

and it should be free.

thanks in advance,
wfbberzerker
 
Originally posted by: wfbberzerker
I'm currently looking for an alternative OS to win2k, and i am looking for your input. i have a few questions, and a few guidelines as to what i want.

what would be the best choice in terms of
-compatability with my hardware
-compatability with software and games
-ease of use and install
-best looking GUI

and it should be free.

thanks in advance,
wfbberzerker
Click to expand...
If by games and software you mean software written for Windows, then you're not going to get much in the way of compatability from any of the *Nix/*BSD's.
If you stick with any of the mainstream distro's and you shouldn't have too much trouble with your hardware, as long as you're willing to read a lot, you'll get a decent GUI (KDE2/Gnome2, or in redhats case KDnome/GnoDE 😉), and the install's are pretty easy...
 
Now see if BeOS was still around and just had some good software it would get a recommendation from me at this point. Personally I think a multi-user version of Be (with good app support) could have been the Unix desktop OS that the PC needs. Mac has OS X which covers this. PC has Linux which is getting there, but Be had already arrived. Their failure was almost inevitable though. With MS's current monopolistic domination any commercially competing product simply can't suceed. The only reason Linux has survived as long as it has is b/c it's open and free.

Of course you could go with Linux, but at this particular moment I don't think it's a good regular desktop replacement (unless what you need on your desktop is a Unix workstation. some of use do). Games support is limited, but there is the standard selection of 3d shooters (Quake 1/2/3, Unreal, etc), and Neverwinter Nights will have a Linux client (if they don't have it already, I haven't check in a while). Linux is getting better by the day though so you might want to keep an eye on it (personally I'm PRAYING that DirectFB will catch on and replace Xfree86. They've already got a rootless X11 server for it a la XWin32 for MS Windows . . . ).
 
If Win2k is too unbearable for you, you certainly wont like NIX.
Click to expand...

That's far from true, infact I'd hazard to guess that most people that don't like Windows do like unix because of the simple and consistent way that it just works, opposed to Windows overly convoluted ways that work half of the time.
 
Originally posted by: MGMorden
Now see if BeOS was still around and just had some good software it would get a recommendation from me at this point. Personally I think a multi-user version of Be (with good app support) could have been the Unix desktop OS that the PC needs. Mac has OS X which covers this. PC has Linux which is getting there, but Be had already arrived. Their failure was almost inevitable though. With MS's current monopolistic domination any commercially competing product simply can't suceed. The only reason Linux has survived as long as it has is b/c it's open and free.

Of course you could go with Linux, but at this particular moment I don't think it's a good regular desktop replacement (unless what you need on your desktop is a Unix workstation. some of use do). Games support is limited, but there is the standard selection of 3d shooters (Quake 1/2/3, Unreal, etc), and Neverwinter Nights will have a Linux client (if they don't have it already, I haven't check in a while). Linux is getting better by the day though so you might want to keep an eye on it (personally I'm PRAYING that DirectFB will catch on and replace Xfree86. They've already got a rootless X11 server for it a la XWin32 for MS Windows . . . ).
Click to expand...

BeOS was better than Mac OS X is.



:Q
 
opposed to Windows overly convoluted ways that work half of the time.
Click to expand...

For someone who knows *nothing* about Windows 2000 in a Domain Environment, you sure seem to know how it works............
 
windows is convoluted, and it gets worse with each incarnation....

and to say something a silly as "For someone who knows *nothing* about Windows 2000 in a Domain Environment, you sure seem to know how it works............ " is asking for trouble.

He has no need to understand how it works. If he used it he'd know. A person doesn't have to understand how something works in order not to like it. All he'd have to know is some poor S.O.B's that had to learn how to use it and how it compares to a unix enviroment, and obvisioly he beleives it to be inferior.

Compared to Unix windows does have a very convoluted way of doing things. for a example: In unix every program's settings are laid out in plain text files. These files are located the /etc directory or one of it's desendants. If a user has settings that are specific to his/her enviroment they are stored in hidden files in the user's home directory or in their enviroment variables that are set up by a /etc/profile file or a hidden file in his/her home directory like ".bash". (The dot before the file makes it hidden.) You can find out about xyz program and it's config files by typing: "man xyz" or "info xyz". And thats pretty much it.

In Windows all programs have their settings stored in a special file. These settings are stored as hexadecible units. This is called a registry. A registry will have up to around half a million entries and it is only accessable thru specialized programs like regedit, the control panel, or preferences menus. Each program has a multitude of entries (keys) spread out thru various folders in the registry. Even the program's manufactures cannot design a unistall program that will remove all the entrys. After reinstalling and removing programs you will end up with multiple and conflicting entries that will contribute to the instability of the OS. Each program has it's own specific way of dealing with manipulating their settings. The menus are all different, and often it is hard for users to actually find the settings for different programs. Even within the OS different aspects of Windows has vastly different ways of handling different system resources. etc etc. And with each new version it gets worse.

Windows is not as easy to use as it first seems. For the average user it works fine, however for power users it is endless struggle. To deal with lack of documentation, propriatory programs, restrictions, unavailable source code, and Microsoft's specific brand of user freindly-ness (like hidding regedit.exe so users can't screw up their own computer by accidently finding it) contribute to the fact that IF a user is fed up with W2k it MAY be a good thing to try out a Linux distro. There is a possibility that a person's personality may conflict with MS's OS and may find Linux a refreshing change.
 
chances are i'll probably stick with win2k. the constant problems and crashes i have were always getting to me, but if i have to give up a lot of the hardware/software compatability that i currently have, i think i'll stick with it, at least for now.

thanks for the input,
wfbberzerker
 
wfbberzerker, if you're having "constant problems and crashes" in Windows 2000, you probably have something wrong with your hardware, you're overclocking, or you upgraded from your previous installation instead of doing an install from scratch.
 
For someone who knows *nothing* about Windows 2000 in a Domain Environment, you sure seem to know how it works.......
Click to expand...

I support Windows NT in a NT4 Domain and recently in AD, so yes I've had a lot of experience with how it works and how it doesn't work.

The best thing about AD is how much they copied exactly from Novell, I mean like SYSVOL, they could atleast rename it. And the fact that AD isn't heirarchical, you can't have 2 users in different OUs with the same username, what's the point of the directory then?
 
Originally posted by: owensdj
wfbberzerker, if you're having "constant problems and crashes" in Windows 2000, you probably have something wrong with your hardware, you're overclocking, or you upgraded from your previous installation instead of doing an install from scratch.
Click to expand...

no, its a fresh install, im not overclocked, and im pretty sure there are no hardware conflicts (the only thing i can think of is the via/sblive conflicts, and i havent had too much trouble with that), i think its just that i tweak my computer a lot, which can cause problems. either that, or im paranoid and i notice every little problem that goes wrong with my computer.
 
hehe, face it w2k is not ment to be used. It sets itself up the way Microsoft expected it to be used by the majority of users, and thats it. If you change anything you are doing what is called 'user error'. 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top