• 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.

Win2K is great!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Soccerman is right. If you know what your doing, it's likely that you will NOT have problems. I upgraded to Win2k from Win98 about 4.5 months ago. Before that, my Win98 install was over 1 year old and I had no problems with it. It rarely crashed. Now with Win2k the main benefits for me are: more stability (i.e. going for two weeks or more without needing to reboot), win2k uses more memory (my 256mb was useless in win98), and the networking is better. it's easier to manage multiple network connections and I find the network performance much better. I play a lot of games and have no problems either. I have yet to get software that will not run on Win2k.
 
Damn, He left? I missed out 🙁


I dont know what kinda computer you have, but I'd say it has issues.. 😉 Win98SE is a slow dog. Windows 95OSR2 loaded faster than Win2k, but I'm not complaining, considering I haven't rebooted in over a month.. with normal, everyday usage. Explorer has even died without a reboot. I'd REALLY like to see your 9x machine do that. 😛

I'd like to see your Win9x machine keep my BBS up, along with normal everyday internet surfing and program-bullsh!tting, for that long ...


 
well, there are so many sources to winme, like winning the contest 🙂

GM left, cheers for the forum 😀😀😀

anyway, GM doesn't even know what he should be comparing, and he is like asking why a rig can't go from 0-60 in 5 secs...... well....
 
WinME boots about as fast as Win95 OSR2. That's the only good thing about it, otherwise, it sucks.

-RSI
 
WinMe is faster, more stable, easier to use, faster to install, more featured than win98se was for me. I have absolutely no problems with WinMe and would recommend everyone who has decent hardware to use it. Basically that rules out Aureal sound cards and 3dfx for now. Nvidia and SBLive work perfectly though.
 
I have a 3dfx card, and it worked fine for me, so what's your prob with 3dfx and WinME?

WinME was not fast though, not fast enough for my liking. Even my parents noticed it being slower.

-RSI
 


<< I have absolutely no problems with WinMe and would recommend everyone who has decent hardware to use it. Basically that rules out Aureal sound cards and 3dfx for now. Nvidia and SBLive work perfectly though.
>>


That was stupid...

edit: about the video cards at least. how the hell could having a 3dfx hinder your OS performance? and will aureal cards not work in WinME? I find that hard to believe...
 
MY Win98 explorer crashes without a reboot, while rc5-in'. Because I'm special🙂. I don't have any problems with it, I guess I'll just wait until a friend picks up 2000 and then maybe I'll snag it. That's the only reason I'm not on win95 still, hehe.
 
W2k is beyong great.. it's beautiful! 🙂

This is why I replaced Win98SE with Windows2000 Pro for all our workstations at work (mostly tech support). Nice user profiles, interface, STABLE 🙂.

It's a great OS.
 
Grand Theft Auto 2 doesnt run in Win2K - and that game can be FUN multiplayer, and my gamepad doesnt work in Win2K (thats a driver issue anyway) my solution - dual boot until all my games work in Win2k...
 
oh and one more thing:
-------------------------
T-bird 900MHz
Asus K7M
Asus 6800V GeForce 256 DDR 32MG
128MB PC100
Maxtor DiamondMax+ 40
Soundblaster 128 PCI
Conexant 56K modem
in 98 SE
Win 2000 Proffessional

i would NOT be boasting about that, i'm a poor techie for an isp and those modems are EVIL

 
win2k rules. I had it before it was release the RTM version. That was 9 months ago, and it is so rock stable. Best OS i've ever used. My roomate tried it on his p2-333 laptop with 32mb of ram, and didnt go back, even with 32mb he thought it was so much better. After 6 months i convinced him to go get 64mb more. I just read that thread GM wrote. First off nvidia cards have been proven to have faster frame rates in win2k, so he must have done something wrong. I've got a v5 and i think its supposed to be slower in win2k but its only a few FPS so who cares.
 
Anyone who had to deal with Win NT 4.0 on a day to day basis would welcome the improvements that Win2K has brung to the table. I love it ...need alot of RAM to run it tho 🙁


Ausm
 
To those of you who are wondering about my Aureal and 3dfx comments, I could not get them to work. I have an Aureal card in my 3rd system with a V3 2000 PCI. And with either of those in the system it is very flaky.
 
Kami the Drivers in ME for Direct X are Software only and the last driver revision from Aureal Doesn't Change it to allow for Hardware Acceleration. I have a MX-300 and My Drivers according to DxDiag won't Do Hardware Tests with the Aureal Drivers.

Dazed
 
A friend of mine is a Microsoft Beta tester. He just got to test out Whistler... I'll see what's so good about it (the next upgrade from microsoft 🙂).

BTW - WIN 2K is all that and more. It's the best OS I've ever used (next to Linux and win 95).
 
There's one thing I can't understand, although I do get better fps in Win2k vs Me that is if my refresh rates are stuck @ 60hz but if I edit the nv_ inf file and put them to say the highest my monitor can support my fps drops down to the same as 98. What gives? how come when it runs 60hz my fps increase, but when I want to get better hz they go down?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top