• Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Windows 2000

This topic is 6516 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Is there any difference between Windows 2000 and Windows 98? I am not sure whether Windows 2000 is worth the money. Thanks... -Alex ^ / / /___\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Oh yes, there are some significant differences. for one 2000 is fuggin huge from what reports i''ve heard (dont use it myself, so prepare a grain of salt or two whilst you read on) but i do hear its more stable. and it has that neat-o menu effect and what-not, heh. It DOES NOT however, support all teh hardware that 98 does. its based of NT so things that didnt have NT drivers are questionable at best (i believe that it may be able to use some 98 drivers, someone else will have to clarify) but as for being worth the money... that depends on what a little added stability is worth to you. unless your an admin of some nature, i''d imagine that 200+ is most definately not worth it. i''m not sure of teh upgrade price, but knowing teh redmond boys, its over 100 at least.
If i were you though, i''d just hold off a bit, unless your 98 box is just terribly unstable, because you''re not likely to see "windows 2000" in teh minimum requirements of much software in the near future.

--
HitScan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really think it will be better to wait until Windows Melenium (Windows ME). It''s really the sequel to the Windows 9x versions, and made for home use. Windows 2000 is more in the NT category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windoes Millenium I heard Totaly takes over your computer and does way to many things in the back ground, Ive seen Millenium(the Beta, or Alpha, or sumtin), and I think performance wise, if you got a kickass computer, 2000 will get you MUCH better performance, and once the Service Packs come out, it will support much more hardware, I have to say, I use 2000 Beta 3, and it crashed onece in two weeks, and it ran Much faster than same comp with 98, though my modem would not work, because it had to be on COM5, and dats messed wit 2000. So could get on da net(before I got DSL). But now 2000''s probaly much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I use Win2k exclusively for my game development now, leaving Win98 around for testing only.

It''s wonderful to be able to mangle something horribly, and have Win2k just kill the process and carry on, when Win98 would keel over and die.

Not that I ever do that.

Yes, Win2k is a lot bigger than 98, and takes loads longer to boot and shutdown, but in use, it doesn''t seem all that much different.

It''s just a question of drivers, unfortunately. Luckily, all my hardware is now supported.



TheTwistedOne
http://www.angrycake.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I too use Win2K and it it sooooo much stabler. It is a little big but, hey, its a microsoft product so what you you expect

As for the boot and shutdown times, I haven''t noticed that they are any longer than Win98... although why would you be booting and shutting down your comp anyway? As long as it doesn''t crash I don''t have to worry about that.

The one problem I''ve been having is that if a program decides to hang I can''t always kill it will the task manager... for some reason Win2K thinks the program is being debugged when it is clearly not If anyone has any ideas to fix this I could increase my time between crashes/reboots from about a week (about how long it will run right now) to some even more incredible time span!

Definitely worth it! Especially if you can find a *cough*free*cough*verson*cough*from a*cough*frind or something*cough*... I mean... its definitly worth the price...

Check out the GPI project today!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know one thing is for sure I'm definitely not going for Windows ME. I use NT at work and beat it to death and it keeps on trucking. 98? No way, I run half the processes and it gasps for air and crashes all the time.

Since 2K is based on the NT kernel I'd go for that, but as said above, your hardware has to support it. From what I have read, its pretty stable and my experience with NT has been positive. Besides the sooner we can kiss the 9x line goodbye the better.

Edited by - Sieggy on 4/20/00 8:44:00 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is Win2k completely 32-bit? I know that Win95 and Win98 are both built upon a 16-bit DOS core, but what about Win2k?

And I replying to the post above, I think Win2k WILL support just as much hardware as Win98. I''ve somewhere before that they just took all the plug and play capabilities and moved them over. But beats me. I''m buying a copy soon for work anyway, so I''ll find out.

P.S. Anyone know how to build a large RAID server w/ hotswap abilities? I''ve been throwing together parts on an online store, but I''m not sure if they''ll work together. Thanks.


ColdfireV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I installed Win2K over my Win98 installation and everything worked pretty much okay (except my SBLive! card, it took some work to get that working, and even then not with all the functionality it had in Win98) Then something went wrong with my C: partition and I reinstalled Win2K from scratch. Everything stated up and worked fine, it was a beautifully running machine...except my surround sound speakers gave feed back with some Environmental Effects and Need For Speed 5 didn''t run at all, and there''s no way I''m not playing that. I didn''t even test any other games. I loved Win2K (relative to Win98), but I''m going to wait for a Service Pack or two before I reinstall. It''s nice (especially being able to kill a process), but it''s not quite there yet.

bcj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Win2K is completely 32-bit. In Win9x, all calls (including Win32 calls) get thunked down to 16-bit. Win16 calls go straight through.

With Win2K, Win32 calls get passed right through, Win16 calls are translated into 32-bit calls.

No 16-bit code in Win32 (well, a little for boot-up in real mode.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To clarify a point that''s been brought up: any driver written for the Win98 driver model will work in Win2K. This is not to say that any driver that works in Win98 will work in Win2K though, because Win95 drivers will work in Win98, but may not work in Win2K.

I have Win2k, and I was going to install it on the PC I just put together, but for some reason, it wouldn''t recognize my harddrive, and thus wouldn''t install. I have no idea why. As it turns out though, my DSL modem doesn''t have Win2k compatible drivers yet, so I guess I''m glad it wouldn''t install.

Overall, though, based on what I''ve been told by developers all over, I''d definitely recommend Win2K for your development machine. I''ve talked to developers who have had their Win2k box running for weeks, doing active development, without having to reboot.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to chime in to agree here.

I''ve been using Windows 2000 as my primary development system since beta release 2. Even back then it was worlds more stable than Windows 98, or even NT4.0.

Until you''ve used it, you have no idea how nice it is to have a DirectDraw fullscreen/exclusive app crash hard and be able to kill its process off and keep going without a reboot.

Windows 2000 *IS* bigger than 98, but not too much bigger. If you just want to use it as a development station, get Windows 2000 Professional. When installing, choose only the components you need...There''s a lot of shit on the cd that is installed by default but is of no relevence to a stand-alone development workstation (assuming you aren''t hooked to an office network and need ActiveDirectory and such) and by not installing it you can reduce the size of your hard-disk install.

The fact that W2K takes longer to boot and shutdown is somewhat irrelevent as you have to boot up far less often. My Windows 2000 box has been running for 5 weeks straight under heavy development. Since the final release came out, I''ve only ever shut it down to install hardware.

The one issue is that older (generally poorly written) games might have Windows 2000 issues. So if you already own a copy of 98 you might want to set up a dual-boot system. Any new game, and even most old games that are well written, will run fine under 2000 though, since it has full DirectX7/DX8beta support..Unlike NT4 which was stuck at DX3 forever.

Hardware drivers can also be an issue. In my experience, nearly any modem, network card and any major video card (3dfx/nvidia/s3/matrox based, for example) will already have workable drivers. Soundcards are slightly less certain, but all the majors (vortex-based, SoundBlaster family, SBLive, etc) have at least beta drivers that work well. The biggest disappointment in the driver department for me has been joysticks and such, which is slightly disappointing for doing DirectInput development/testing under Windows 2000....

Fortunately Gravis recently released beta 2000 drivers that work well for the Xterminator...And of course all of Microsoft''s joystick products are supported...Now I''m just waiting for the HammerHeadFX dual analog driver (you listening, InterAct? Nice gamepad, but it would be a shame if your joystick had shoddy support in new games because developers can''t test it on their W2K development systems!)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...And then there''s the issue of machines with more than one processor. If
you''ve got one of these, then you''ve wasted your money if you''re running
95/98 because it doesn''t use it to its full advantage. 2K will...
probably.

There was a rumour going around at one point that Win2K wouldn''t SMP dual
Celeron machines. It''d run, but would just do what 9x does (ignore the
other processor). Note that this is only with multiple Celeron systems:
other SMP systems should work fine. Can anyone confirm this? (I''ve got
such a machine and want to know if there''s any point in upgrading)


=> Arfa <=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement