i can have a dual boot, windows 98 and win2k. should i get win2k if all i do is play games, and just do hw, and internet stuff?
windows 2000, do i need it?
- Thread starter aUt0eXebat
- Start date
basically for me, the biggest plus of win2k is the stability because i leave my computer on for extended periods of time. if youre not going use the stability, its not really that useful. games overall work better in 98 and you can surf the web and type papers just as well in 98. i would probably not go with win2k in your situation.
Like what FOBSIDE said.
Win2k is great for stability and it never BSODs on me. If you run something for long periods of time its great.
98 is okay but it is better for games.
Gatsby - 63
Win2k is great for stability and it never BSODs on me. If you run something for long periods of time its great.
98 is okay but it is better for games.
Gatsby - 63
Nah 128 will be fine.
192 or 256 would be better, but there wont be any problems with 128 MB, 64 OTOH is a completely different matter.
192 or 256 would be better, but there wont be any problems with 128 MB, 64 OTOH is a completely different matter.
yup, I was running ok with 128, but went to 256. sweet jesus it sped up.
The thing is that win2k is so frickin stable. The scheduler works, too. (WOW). I have left diablo 2 minimized for weeks. It takes too long to start, so I just minimize it until I play again. Works for red alert 2, as well. Hell, it works on all my games.
That kind of real usability and stability is what made me switch from 98 and linux dual boot. I used linux for real work, and 98 for games. Now I have an easy interface to a real OS. The only limitation is that any windows platform sucks for code development.
The thing is that win2k is so frickin stable. The scheduler works, too. (WOW). I have left diablo 2 minimized for weeks. It takes too long to start, so I just minimize it until I play again. Works for red alert 2, as well. Hell, it works on all my games.
That kind of real usability and stability is what made me switch from 98 and linux dual boot. I used linux for real work, and 98 for games. Now I have an easy interface to a real OS. The only limitation is that any windows platform sucks for code development.
i was recently discussing this with a friend of mine who was on the win2k developer team, (he's now doing whistler) & the general consensus is that on anything above 64 MB of ram, win2k will outperform 98 because of the faster kernel & better ram utilization.
frankly i wouldn't want to run _anything_ on 64mb... lol
other than the stability factor, SECURITY SECURITY! this is my main reason for loving win2k... (& the NT family). If you set it up properly it's just as secure as *nix & it's quite nice if you want to be logged onto a domain & restrict file permissions in strange ways. *grin*
& yeah. this machine is running 2k server. pretty cool. The weirdest thing is that when you get 2k server it automatically runs sql server. I need to come up with a useage for this. *grin*
frankly i wouldn't want to run _anything_ on 64mb... lol
other than the stability factor, SECURITY SECURITY! this is my main reason for loving win2k... (& the NT family). If you set it up properly it's just as secure as *nix & it's quite nice if you want to be logged onto a domain & restrict file permissions in strange ways. *grin*
& yeah. this machine is running 2k server. pretty cool. The weirdest thing is that when you get 2k server it automatically runs sql server. I need to come up with a useage for this. *grin*
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter