Win2k is unimpressive. Prolly gonna move back to NT4.

[NFS4]

<< your a home user (running games, usb, etc). So you should be running Win ME . hehe.. >>


Win2k is faster and doesn't crash. It does everything that Win9x/WinMe can do and sooo much more. Besides, I've been running Win2k since February and WinMe isn't out &quot;officially&quot; until Sept.


<< NFS 4 from you description of what you do... >>


And from your name, you should be out racing hopped up Civics with coffee can exhausts, lowered suspensions, and 19&quot; chrome teddy bear rims

 

[riceboi5]

NFS4, of course win 2k is better than win '98/me, but that is only for more advanced users. All I'm saying was NT is not completely crap compared to win 2k, if you know how to tweak it.

As to my name it's supposed to poke humor at those people. I myself drive a stock '94 Mazda Rx-7 TT. It's stock because I actually worked and paid for the car, unlike some of the other racers. Maybe you should bring your 'race' car out to play

 

[NFS4]

<< NFS4, of course win 2k is better than win '98/me, but that is only for more advanced users. >>


Doesn't mean that I can't run it That's just like saying that you can't use a GeForce 2 GTS because a SDR Geforce is just as good

 

[Shuxclams]

<< Win2k is unimpressive. Prolly gonna move back to NT4. >>

Agree and disagree, here's my take. Win2000 is a very good Win OS, it is the most stable M$ product yet, unfourtunetly it is also, IMHO, still BETA. I oversee 5 Win2K servers and have noticed that sometimes its fast and other times its slow. Our office server at work is a P Pro 150 with 384MB Ram running terminal server, exchange and PDC, its slick as snot, a DUAL P-III 550 with 384 MB Ram and RAID 5 UWSCSI2 doing PDC and fileserving is butt slow, My home server was running 500MHz with 128MB running PDC,WWW, FTP, File server and Exchange ran pretty well considering how &quot;underpowered&quot; it was, other bugs such as win2k clients having problems being autherized by a NT4 PDC are just plain stupid, as are other &quot;small&quot; quirks. As for stand alone client it is nice, but the argument that folks have against Linux also fits to Win2K in this instance, Win2K is great for doing e-mail, Office apps, internet, some gaming and that sort of stuff, just like a Linux workstation, only more expensive.


SHUX

 

[OS]

My system is a dual cel 400s, 256 mb ram, maxtor 20 gig 6800+ (7200 rpm). No matter how far I over clock (up to 552), it doesn't seem to help either. I'd have to say if my system doesn't have enough power to run win2k, I'd hate to think how the people with the old skool cel 300As are getting along. I am starting to suspect tho that perhaps ACPI has something to do with the bad performance.



No USB support- I don't care, I only have one critical USB device (zip drive) and iomega has drivers for NT4.

no power management- I don't care, maybe reduce my electric bill by a quarter every month?

no PnP-Actually, there is some half assed pnp under NT4, but whatever is there works fine with me, I've never had any major hardware installation problems under NT4. The BIOS seems to take care of me when it comes to system resources.

clumsy DMA support-purely opinion based, you run an exe file and you click the boxes for the drives you want to have DMA support. How is this any more clumsy than navigating through all the menu tabs and property windows to get to DMA under win2k?

re-apply SP after any hardware change-I don't know if this is completely necessary, but I get along fine without doing so after changing hardware.

no FAT32-I don't care, NTFS is superior in every way.

lousy multimedia-that's funny, all my mpegs, mp3s, cds and dvds play great under NT4.

 

[riceboi5]

Anyone who has know how should definetely be using win 2k over win '98/me . The stabiliy alone is worth it.

 

I run NT4.0 on my secondary system, PPro/233/128M. No software installed other than the minimal OS, IE 5.01, and Outlook Express. I I stopped all services other than the ones I really need to keep the system alive.

The system really flys. I have over 91M of physical memory free. It boots and runs quicker than Win98SE or 2k on my primary system which is a much faster machine. I was entertaining installing 2k on it, then I realized I was crazy. I will install use Win2k on my primary system full-time as soon as it becomes stable, that's about SP4 if the past is any indication.

My findings, if you want a Microsoft operating system to run fast, never install ANY software on it.

 

[Sunner]

One thing that Ive noticed about Win2K is that NTFS5 seems more prone to FS corruption than NTFS4 did.
Of course maybe Ive just had lotsa bad luck, but I dont think so.

 

[Nikepete]

Hi guys, I don't get it, you're complaining about speed and you use NTFS instead of FAT. NTFS is more secure and more stable but FAT is faster. Go back to FAT if you don't need those security things.

Outersquare,

Dual Celeron @552 is no better than a single PIII-450 - No wonder it seems slow. And if multimedia &quot;runs great&quot; under NT4 (with DX3)then I guess my standard of greatness is too stringent.

Multimedia DVD under NT4 ? Do you have SCSI DVD with Adaptec software? or Creative Labs DVD with their special software ? or you just access your DVD drive as a data-CDROM ? But we're talking about third-party special software here and not native NT support.

 

[riceboi5]

NTFS is faster than FAT for partitions larger than 400meg.

 

[OS]

&quot;Dual Celeron @552 is no better than a single PIII-450&quot;

Maybe on your planet. Not on mine. You wanna back this up with some proof? In fact, I'll show evidence saying otherwise

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jamesw/mine.jpg

We all know the celeron and P3 core is about the same, except that the P3 has SSE, but that doesn't affect windows performance. In fact, the P3 450 is the old katmai design, the cache is the off chip half speed one. It's pretty impossible for a single P3 450 to beat 2 celerons at 552 in windows performance. Can a P3-450 burn CDs on an IDE burner, compress MP3s and run unreal tournament all at the same time? Good luck.

NTFS was extremely fast under NT4 for me, the disk accesses were almost completely unnoticeable to me. I can't say the same for Win2k. This isn't a file system issue. Not to mention at the time I bought my drive, it was easily the fastest IDE hard drive for NTFS.

I have a toshiba 2x IDE dvd-rom. NT just sees it as a CD/DVD drive, it can view, access and copy all the files on the drive, but it can't play them. I need to install powerDVD to be able to play my DVDs, but that is also the case for win2k. So I say again, under NT4 (and yes with DX3), all my multimedia files play great. MP3s, MPEGs, AVIs, wavetable MIDIs, CDs, DVDs, they all run great. Wanna be more specific about why the multimedia is lacking under NT4, besides saying &quot;lousy multimedia&quot;? Your accusations of bad multimedia under NT4 are vague.

 

[Train]

just wait until the option packs come out people, remember the NT4 you are using is most likely option pack 4 or 5 at least, Win2k has only released a skimpy 1st update, and like most MS products, wont reach its full potential until the 3rd or 4th update.