• 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.

why get win 2000?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
A little late but I just wanted to say I was running Win2k Pro with 64 MB with no problems at all. Even did some multitasking (Paint Shop Pro, Mozilla, and Winamp all at once) with no crash, slowdown, or anything. However, it is MUCH faster and more stable with 128, and for doing anything serious I would say 196 MB absolute minimum.

But with RAM prices as low as they are, there is just no excuse not to have 512 MB or more. 🙂
 
You think at this point it'd be better to just stick it out for WinXP?

First of all, the consumer version of XP will be better priced than 2k now. Secondly, you'd have to upgrade to XP Pro if you use 2k.

And of course I throw in the assumption you pay for all your MS software 😀

My friend was complaining hardcore that I put 2k on his machine (along with 98). I told him to use it for a week exclusively. Now he's complaining that 98 is taking up hard drive space.
 
right on 😉

oh yea, one thing is too, 98 hates RAM (well lots of it 512^)

how can you possibly hate ram 🙂!!!!!!!!!!

2k loves every singel stick you through at it!!!!!
 
DeeK,
I third, your second....er, the quote that you quoted. I have no stability/compatibility probs w/Win98SE. I install all the latest patches and drivers, defrag 2x week, run only HW monitor and Norton AV on startup and background. It's great.

Win2K is awesome. But not for me.
 
Deek brought up a good point. I never thought of it but some ppl actually pay for their software, so who'd wanna buy something new and questionable when theirs works just fine for what they do. hard to justify a purchase like that.
 
Man, I love win2k vs. win98 arguments. Well, not the arguments themselves... just the arguments defending 98, they are a riot! Here is a few of the things that made me laugh in my pitiful cubicle at work:

1. Stability is over-rated.
Pffft! Yea ok budy. Just like cars with 4 wheels are over-rated. In fact, I don't even have a roof.. I like getting rained on every once in awhile - sorta spices up my life.

2. Win98 runs just as stable as win2k....... you just need to defrag 3x a week, scan your registry and task manager for stray programs, reprogram the freaking OS to your liking, reboot constantly, never multitask, and the list goes on.
Funny how on Win2k this stabilty can be achieved just by installing the OS, go figure!

3. My friend has this problem with win2k, blah blah blah.
Suprised? No one said win2k was the end all be all OS. Its from microsoft, there will ALWAYS be problems.

4. I just got comfortable with win98, win2k looks too differently to me!
Uh, WTF? Last time I checked, my win2k box looks exactly like my win98 box. Pass whatever you are smoking this way.

5. Games barely work in win2k.
This is such a common over exageration. If you are really worried about compatibilty, DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Don't ask generally in a forum because you will get mixed responses. Find the games you are worried about and scan the compatibilty patches for them. Or try them on a friends win2k machine first.
I have yet to find a game I wanted to play that didn't work in win2k and I play ALOT of games. From d2 to counter-strike to everquest to quake1 to anarchy online beta to hitman to serious sam, just a few I'm playing right now.

6. The only time win98 crashes is because some application crashed - it is all the applications fault. Heh funny but when an application crashes in win2k, I just get a simple error log, which I can then click OK to and re-open the application...mmm yea.

To leave you with a little food for thought - My win2k GAME machine has been up for 50 days. 50 days through an anarchy online beta, quake1, winamp running 24/7, icq, aim, outlook, 3 web browsers(if not more) open 24/7, you name it. If your win2k machine gets REALLY bad (happened to me once so far) you just RELOG IN. Doesn't even require a reboot, uNF.
 
The question really is, "why shouldn't I get Windows 2000?"
Actually, Quake 3 runs faster in Windows 2000 than it does in Windows 98 on most systems. Though I do have to admit that most games do perform slightly better in win9x than in win2k. However, the slight improvement is not worth the stability you sacrifice by using win9x exclusively. I've also found that multi-tasking is infinetely superior on Windows 2000. I can have 10 ie windows open, with winamp going on and have no slowdown whatsoever. Try that in Win98.
 
I think this is my favorite arguement against Win2k...

"Those of you having stability problems with Win98 must be running too many things at once"

Well, err, um, yeah. Funny though, that I can run all these things on Win2k without a problem. Like you're SUPPOSED to be able to do in the first place. It's called multi-tasking folks... look it up.

Also, as TheKidd pointed out, some games, like Quake III Arena, run FASTER in Win2k. With some tweaking my Win2k box runs faster than my Win98 machine when tweaked.
 
you guys are missing the point here. For us gamers, WIN98SE is the best OS so far and you cannot argue with that. Compatibility wise and speedwise WIN98se is a better OS for games than Win2k. Win2k in my opinion is a great product, i just hate the slow boot times and the fact that it just "feels" slower around the desktop. WIN98se isn't perfect, but i think its damn stable. Granted i don't leave my computer on for longer than 12hrs at a time i think it is pretty good. However, i do understand that it just keeps getting slower the longer you keep it on and that kinda bothers me, but not really considering i can reboot it in only 13 seconds. Win2k is just not worth the $160 for me. I will wait till XP comes and see if it is worth it or not. The real question here is: Do you need WIN2k??? Win2K is marketed at those who run servers and demand absolute stability. Guess what, i don't run a server.
 
What's with all the "my EA games won't work in Win2k!!"? I have Madden 2001, NHL 2001, Fifa 2001, and Need For Speed: Porsche Unleashed and I have never had any problems with any game on my Win2k rig. The only game I've ever had any problems with is Need For Spped III: Hot Pursuit, which is fairly old anyways.
 
My 98 machine does get slower and slower the longer I get leave it on. I see the BSOD all the time, so when I get my new comp built I am going to get 2K.
 


<< , i just hate the slow boot times and the fact that it just &quot;feels&quot; slower around the desktop. >>



That's funny,i found the exact opposite when i switched over from 98 to Windows 2000 pro.
 
Maybe win2k feels slower around the desktop due to &quot;effects&quot;. Although I am sitting at a winNT machine right now, I think the effects can be found on one of the tabs in the properties menu. The effects make right click menus appear in strange ways, instead of popping directly up. I disabled them because I hate waiting. These effects include unfolding from the top, the right, and fading in and out. Other than that, I can't see any forseeable slowdown on the desktop. And as for load time? I dunno.. havn't rebooted in 50 days, it COULD be slow I just can't remember 😉
 

I get BSODs all the time on my syste with W98SE.. I'll be switching to W2k very soon.

Incidently, my second system, a P166, has has W95b on it since 1996, and never crashed once or had a BSOD, no matter how hard I have flogged it.

 
I personally like win2k so much better than any win9X, I normally run a 98/2k dualboot on my main system. At the moment I only am running 98 and can not change back due to drive mappings. I have had some games that it was unstable on and boot back to 98 and they worked, but for general usage 2k is great. I can crash 98 just by reading these forums and opening a new browser window for every thread that I want to read, in 2k the memory usage will go up, but the system will remain stable.

One problem I had was the &quot;lag&quot; when trying to access a networked computer via my network plces/computers near me, but after removing 2 registry keys it works fine.
 
as for the win2k menu &quot;slowdown&quot;--- that's alpha blending, which i think looks absolutely awesome. all you have to do is get tweakui, and set the menu speed to the fastest, and they pop right up. even if you have 'fade in' turned on, its still quick.

i just installed win2k last night and i am loving it!! feels like a very polished product, as opposed to win98, where i felt as if i was on the edge all the time.
 
some of you really need to get your asses out of your fat arses. never i claimed you should be using 98SE, i just said as a casual websurfer and gamer 98SE is the one for me and i didnt wanna go thru all the hassle when i just installed 98SE yesterday. hungrypete, thx for personal attacks, i am so flattered now.



<<
1. Stability is over-rated.
Pffft! Yea ok budy. Just like cars with 4 wheels are over-rated. In fact, I don't even have a roof.. I like getting rained on every once in awhile - sorta spices up my life.
 >>



readinng out of hte context. did you even READ what i posted? i appreciate the stability. maybe i didnt phrase it right, what i meant is STRONG STABILITY OF WIN2k IS OVERRATED, as opposed to that of win98se. for one thing my 98SE doesnt crash, gets its job done. stability only matters when things ARE unstable, the fact is my win98 is farqing stable.



<< 2. Win98 runs just as stable as win2k....... you just need to defrag 3x a week, scan your registry and task manager for stray programs, reprogram the freaking OS to your liking, reboot constantly, never multitask, and the list goes on.
Funny how on Win2k this stabilty can be achieved just by installing the OS, go figure!
 >>



NO, i do not defrag 3x a week, i dotn have that many stray programs, reprogram what? i love tweaking tho, i guess if you are so lazy as not to be willing to cuztomize your settings to your likings, more power to ya. never multitask? i open 10+ IE windows when i browse the forums and plus run diabloii in the background almost all the time, zero problems and zero slowdowns. if i ran stuff like photoshop win2k might have helped but for me those kinda apps is just as useless as ah heck in your nostrills.



<<
3. My friend has this problem with win2k, blah blah blah.
Suprised? No one said win2k was the end all be all OS. Its from microsoft, there will ALWAYS be problems.
 >>



no, not suprised by a bit. you are merely approving my point, we are talking about one and the same thing. you like playing with words dontcha?



<<
4. I just got comfortable with win98, win2k looks too differently to me!
Uh, WTF? Last time I checked, my win2k box looks exactly like my win98 box. Pass whatever you are smoking this way.
 >>



no pass, what YOU are smoking this way. interface is a bit different, and that little is only annoying not helpful in any way.



<<
5. Games barely work in win2k.
This is such a common over exageration. If you are really worried about compatibilty, DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Don't ask generally in a forum because you will get mixed responses. Find the games you are worried about and scan the compatibilty patches for them. Or try them on a friends win2k machine first.
I have yet to find a game I wanted to play that didn't work in win2k and I play ALOT of games. From d2 to counter-strike to everquest to quake1 to anarchy online beta to hitman to serious sam, just a few I'm playing right now. >>



i never claimed this. i am getting an impression you have a queer tendency to accuse people of something they have never said. maybe i will go do my homework, you go learn how to read.



<<
6. The only time win98 crashes is because some application crashed - it is all the applications fault. Heh funny but when an application crashes in win2k, I just get a simple error log, which I can then click OK to and re-open the application...mmm yea.
 >>


i dont give a rats ass about crashes that **might** happen once in a blue moon. case closed.



<<
To leave you with a little food for thought - My win2k GAME machine has been up for 50 days. 50 days through an anarchy online beta, quake1, winamp running 24/7, icq, aim, outlook, 3 web browsers(if not more) open 24/7, you name it. If your win2k machine gets REALLY bad (happened to me once so far) you just RELOG IN. Doesn't even require a reboot, uNF. >>



whats your point? i dont need that, people have different priorities and being able to brag about how long my machine could be up and running without a 20 second break really isnt a feat in my book.
 
i know OGL games run slightly better in win2k. but this is RADEON i am talking about. i didnt say radeon runs like sh!t in win2k, just not as good as it does in win98... go over at rage3d board and ask them, this place is not as dedicated as rage3d when it comes to radeon cards. somebody in the said he loves stability over performace... thats your opinion, good for you. the thing is performance doesnt always coincide with unstability, and if choice was given i would go with reasonable stability and performance than bulletproof stability and lacking performance.
 


<< BM, now you're just neffing. I'm running a Radeon under Win2K, and everything's fine. >>


no its YOU whos neffing if anyone is. i was making a point with valid arguments, but all you are doing is giving your opinion with vague or no details.



<< Even if you just use your machine for web surfing, stability is far more important than speed. >>


when i say stability is overrated, i mean the term 'stability' is subjective and could mean many things. if my machine gives BSODs every time i open 10 IE windows, would i still be using it? heck no. the thing is my machine is perfectly stable under most circumstances so i never really had to worry a thing about stability.



<<
I would sacrifice speed for the stability of Win2K, except Win2K is almost Win98SE's equal in speed now too. Other than cost and compatibility with some legacy hardware and DOS-only software, there is no reason to stick with Win98/ME. >>


again, i am using a radeon. cost is another thing, why go with an OS that barely improves anything at all at what i am doing and pay out the ass? thats one retarded argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top