Hey Guys

Now we are talking a different thing altogether! My earlier comments
were made with regards to older computers and for folks wanting to keep
their computers and simply move to a newer operating system, or for
those considering purchasing a second hand computer with an included
Windows 2000 license. Mainstream support for Windows 2000 ended in June
2005. Extended support will end in 2010. Windows 2000 can no longer be
bought through regular channels, you will have to buy it on E-bay or
find it in a rummage sale somewhere. A few suppliers might still have
leftover copies but that is rather rare. Also keep in mind that much of
the newer hardware available today did not even exist when Windows 2000
was released, that new hardware might not have the best of support under
Windows 2000. Same goes for some of the newer software out there. As
much of a Windows 2000 fan as I am I say if you buy a brand new computer
you may as well get it with Vista, or at least Windows XP. If you truly
are an aficionado of the earlier NT versions then by all means do use it
but be aware that it might not be the best operating system for your
fancy new computer.

John

Larry wrote:
That's great news. When I get a new computer, maybe that's what I'll do,
buy Windows 2000 and install it on the new computer.

But a question is, how long will Windows 2000 remain viable? Or let me put
it this way: Is Windows 2000 more viable today (more compatible with new
and upgraded applications etc.) than Windows 98? If so, why? I gather
W2000 was developed for business use more than personal use.

Larry


"John John" wrote in message
...

Larry wrote:

Even


with all its bugs, as released Windows 2000 was a very stable operating
system and much more capable than Windows 98.


Is Windows 2000 a reasonable alternative for someone looking to move

beyond

Windows 98 who doesn't want Vista? (I've been helping a friend with a

new

Vista machine--it's a totalitarian environment, way overstructured.)

I've

never used Windows 2000, but I gather its overall UI is pretty similar

to 98

even if the capacities are different.

Yes, I believe it is. Windows 2000 will run decently well on most
computers of the Windows 98 era if it has a decent amount of RAM. It is
much more capable and IMHO much more stable than Windows 98. The UI is
quite similar to Windows 98 but underneath, down in the bowels, it is
quite different. For all intents and purposes it is nearly identical to
Windows XP Professional less eye candy and fluff. It needs less
resources to run and it runs faster than XP on machines with border line
system requirements and it doesn't have product activation!

Two big mistakes not to make when installing Windows 2000 a

1- NEVER, EVER, connect it to the internet without a properly
configured firewall and certain security updates! As installed Windows
2000 is EXTREMELY vulnerable to virus and exploits! (The same is true
for Windows XP without later service packs).

2- Upgrades from Windows 98 to Windows 2000 are almost always doomed to
fail for some reason or other. Underneath the skin these operating
systems are completely different and most often upgrades end up being
more problematic than expected. It is best to cleanly install Windows
2000 instead of upgrading from Windows 9x, it will lead to a better
experience with the operating system. Windows XP on the other hands has
a better ability to upgrade these older operating systems, it was
intended to replace home operating systems so the upgrade process was
improved and it has a better track record than Windows 2000 with
upgrades from Windows 9x.

Almost every one that I know who has moved from Windows 98 to Windows
2000 has been very pleased and has a favorable opinion of Windows 2000,
I believe that you would be well served by the venerable operating system.

John.

"Larry" wrote in
:


Even
with all its bugs, as released Windows 2000 was a very
stable operating system and much more capable than Windows
98.

Is Windows 2000 a reasonable alternative for someone
looking to move beyond Windows 98 who doesn't want Vista?
(I've been helping a friend with a new Vista machine--it's
a totalitarian environment, way overstructured.) I've
never used Windows 2000, but I gather its overall UI is
pretty similar to 98 even if the capacities are different.

Larry


I personally don't see much point in moving from 98SE to
anything that came after, but to get a good overview, why don't
you take a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...rosoft_Windows

and decide for yourself.

--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

Larry wrote:

Even with all its bugs, as released Windows 2000 was a very
stable operating system and much more capable than Windows 98.

Windows 2k, when released, was aimed directly at corporations,
institutions, IT pro's, etc, not home users.

It took time for many drivers to become available for 2K, particularly
for sound cards. Gamers in particular did not move very quickly to
win-2K, for example.

Win-2K also had higher hardware requirements vs 98.

Many people say that win-9x was "less stable" than NT or 2k, but they
completely ignore the fact that win-9x was being installed on systems
with very paltry amounts of ram, and that early chipsets (particularly
AGP drivers) were buggy, and so were apps at the time.

By the time that better hardware (and MUCH MORE RAM) was becoming
common, win-2K was being installed on those better systems while 9x
was chugging along on the older hardware. And at that time, win-9x
was still dealing with 16-bit apps that was a legacy from win-3.x
days.

Truth is that if you installed 98se on new hardware circa mid-2001,
and if your apps were mostly (or completely) 32-bit, then 98se was
very stable. By 2003, with 128 or 256 mb of installed ram, the BSOD
was largely history, and so were "insufficient resource" messages.

Did 98se make a good development platform? No, because it doesn't
provide enough separation between processes to prevent one process
from crashing another. Memory management, and the way that 9x manages
processes are probably the two biggest differences between 9x and NT.
Both are 32-bit (it's wrong to say that 9x is "DOS-based", because
both 9x and NT switch the CPU into protected mode at startup). With
win-9x, the kernel and apps all run at ring-0 (providing
"cross-contamination" between the OS and apps) while NT separates the
kernel from the apps by running them at different ring levels.

For the average user (running well-behaved software), win-98 was
actually high-performance because of the lack of OS overhead that NT
has. All processes ran at ring-0, there wasn't any nasty and constant
permission checking going on all the time. What win-9x really can't
do - utilize multiple processors, really only came to the front a
couple of years ago. Hyper-threading is now widely seen as not the
performance-booster that was claimed, but the new dual-core cpu's are
the first real performance shifter in favor of NT and away from 98 -
assuming you're running software compiled for multi-threaded,
multi-processor use.

As far as 98 vs 2K, if you need enterprise-level user-account login
security, file permissions, remote management, etc, then yes, you
can't do that with 9x, but again if you're SOHO you don't need it
anyways.

Is Windows 2000 a reasonable alternative for someone looking to
move beyond Windows 98 who doesn't want Vista?

If I had to put together a new system for someone who had to run
software that would only run on an NT box (like multi-media apps,
video editing, graphic design, CAD, etc) then a year ago I would have
chosen 2K over XP, mainly because of the principle that I don't like
an OS that is always checking to see if it's authentic.

Today, I would choose XP because it's just easier to build, update,
and maintain an XP system vs 2K, and at this point you're starting to
see 2K drop away from support list for some software and hardware.

If it's your own system, and if you believe that your computer
shouldn't phone home every time you start it up, then install 2K. If
it's for someone else, and you don't want to be a 24-hour on-call
support tech, then install XP.

Ok. I was thinking along the lines of a system with a similar UI to Windows
98, but more technically capable of running in the "modern" world. To me
Vista is out of the question. Just one example: the number of dialog boxes
you have to say OK to for every adjustment you make in the system. That is
the stupidest thing I've ever seen. As though it's protecting you from some
other person taking over your computer and making changes to it. But of
course if another person has taken over your computer, he can click "OK" to
those security dialog boxes as easily as you can yourself!

I really think Microsoft has lost its mind. I think it's run by people who
are caught up in this or that "craze" and are not thinking rationally about
the total effect of what they're doing.

You can turn off UAC if you want, then these pesky confirmation boxes
will go away. Unless you have special hardware Windows 2000 will run
just fine on a brand spanking new computer. The point is however that
other than security updates no new operating system fixes or support is
provided for it. If a certain new device is buggy, or doesn't work
because of an operating system bug or limitation, you will have no fixes
for it other than what the manufacturer of the device offers. I am not
overly concerned about drivers and software, most of the good reliable
manufacturers and software companies will still support Windows 2000 for
a good while yet. The idea of using at least XP is that it still has
mainstream support and that your chances of having Microsoft fix bugs or
add additional hardware support for newer devices is at least somewhat
better than if you use an operating system that is no longer in its
mainstream support stage. Mind you, with Vista now out users can expect
Microsoft to drag its heel with XP improvements or support for the
newest gizzmo's...

John

Larry wrote:

Ok. I was thinking along the lines of a system with a similar UI to Windows
98, but more technically capable of running in the "modern" world. To me
Vista is out of the question. Just one example: the number of dialog boxes
you have to say OK to for every adjustment you make in the system. That is
the stupidest thing I've ever seen. As though it's protecting you from some
other person taking over your computer and making changes to it. But of
course if another person has taken over your computer, he can click "OK" to
those security dialog boxes as easily as you can yourself!

I really think Microsoft has lost its mind. I think it's run by people who
are caught up in this or that "craze" and are not thinking rationally about
the total effect of what they're doing.

But is Windows 2000 fully as capable in the "multimedia dept" (including the
availability of lots of drivers, and somewhat specialized and compatible
multimedia application software (audio and video), as Win98SE?

As I recall, Win2000 was never was developed for that specialized purpose,
so logically I would assume Win98SE is still ahead of Win2000 in this one
area, but I don't know that for a fact. ??

John John wrote:
You can turn off UAC if you want, then these pesky confirmation boxes
will go away. Unless you have special hardware Windows 2000 will run
just fine on a brand spanking new computer. The point is however that
other than security updates no new operating system fixes or support is
provided for it. If a certain new device is buggy, or doesn't work
because of an operating system bug or limitation, you will have no fixes
for it other than what the manufacturer of the device offers. I am not
overly concerned about drivers and software, most of the good reliable
manufacturers and software companies will still support Windows 2000 for
a good while yet. The idea of using at least XP is that it still has
mainstream support and that your chances of having Microsoft fix bugs or
add additional hardware support for newer devices is at least somewhat
better than if you use an operating system that is no longer in its
mainstream support stage. Mind you, with Vista now out users can expect
Microsoft to drag its heel with XP improvements or support for the
newest gizzmo's...

John

Larry wrote:

Ok. I was thinking along the lines of a system with a similar UI to
Windows
98, but more technically capable of running in the "modern" world. To me
Vista is out of the question. Just one example: the number of dialog
boxes
you have to say OK to for every adjustment you make in the system. That
is
the stupidest thing I've ever seen. As though it's protecting you from
some
other person taking over your computer and making changes to it. But of
course if another person has taken over your computer, he can click "OK"
to
those security dialog boxes as easily as you can yourself!

I really think Microsoft has lost its mind. I think it's run by people
who
are caught up in this or that "craze" and are not thinking rationally
about
the total effect of what they're doing.

It's as, and more capable in that area than Windows 98. Drivers are not
really a problem with Windows 2000 unless you buy some obscure or really
cheap hardware. Consult all or most of the mainstream software and
hardware manufacturers' support site and you will see that drivers and
software for Windows 2000 is readily available, I dare say even more so
than it is for Windows 98. As for multimedia, using the NTFS file
system Windows 2000 is not limited to the 4gb file size limit that
Windows 98 is limited to with FAT32. Software and hardware developers
quickly latched on to Windows 2000 capabilities and almost immediately
started developing for it. Windows 2000 is very well suited to CAD/CAM,
engineering, video editing and all other memory and processor intensive
computing. It is multi-processor capable and has memory support for up
to 4GB or RAM. Just because Microsoft purposely made sure that the
latest Media Player, IE7 or Defender were not going to run on Windows
2000 doesn't mean Windows 2000 can't handle these types of programs!

The one type of programs that will not run on it are older DOS programs
that want or need direct access to the hardware. Windows 2000 does not
allow direct hardware access. Those with old dos games might find that
their games don't run on Windows 2000, to use these type of programs
they will have to boot to DOS.

John

Bill in Co. wrote:

But is Windows 2000 fully as capable in the "multimedia dept" (including the
availability of lots of drivers, and somewhat specialized and compatible
multimedia application software (audio and video), as Win98SE?

As I recall, Win2000 was never was developed for that specialized purpose,
so logically I would assume Win98SE is still ahead of Win2000 in this one
area, but I don't know that for a fact. ??

John John wrote:

You can turn off UAC if you want, then these pesky confirmation boxes
will go away. Unless you have special hardware Windows 2000 will run
just fine on a brand spanking new computer. The point is however that
other than security updates no new operating system fixes or support is
provided for it. If a certain new device is buggy, or doesn't work
because of an operating system bug or limitation, you will have no fixes
for it other than what the manufacturer of the device offers. I am not
overly concerned about drivers and software, most of the good reliable
manufacturers and software companies will still support Windows 2000 for
a good while yet. The idea of using at least XP is that it still has
mainstream support and that your chances of having Microsoft fix bugs or
add additional hardware support for newer devices is at least somewhat
better than if you use an operating system that is no longer in its
mainstream support stage. Mind you, with Vista now out users can expect
Microsoft to drag its heel with XP improvements or support for the
newest gizzmo's...

John

Larry wrote:


Ok. I was thinking along the lines of a system with a similar UI to

Windows

98, but more technically capable of running in the "modern" world. To me
Vista is out of the question. Just one example: the number of dialog

boxes

you have to say OK to for every adjustment you make in the system. That

is

the stupidest thing I've ever seen. As though it's protecting you from

some

other person taking over your computer and making changes to it. But of
course if another person has taken over your computer, he can click "OK"

to

those security dialog boxes as easily as you can yourself!

I really think Microsoft has lost its mind. I think it's run by people

who

are caught up in this or that "craze" and are not thinking rationally

about

the total effect of what they're doing.

"Bill in Co." wrote:

But is Windows 2000 fully as capable in the "multimedia dept"
(including the availability of lots of drivers, and somewhat
specialized and compatible multimedia application software
(audio and video), as Win98SE?

As I recall, Win2000 was never was developed for that specialized
purpose, so logically I would assume Win98SE is still ahead of
Win2000 in this one area, but I don't know that for a fact. ??

Most OS's are benchmarked against when they were released and hence
which hardware they were likely installed on, because most PC's come
with their OS pre-installed, and the vast majority of machines are not
built from parts, are never upgraded, and never see more than their
initial or first OS running on them.

That said, in the minds of most software developers, win-98 is seen as
having a certain hardware profile (CPU speed, memory, hard drive)
regardless of what the reality is for every win-98 owner. So if they
are developing software that requires 512 mb ram and a 64 mb video
card, then odds are that most win-98 systems will not have it, so it
doesn't make sense to write a win-98 compatible version of the
software (with all the necessary development and debugging that is
required, etc). Because of the differences between the win-98 and the
2k or XP API, it's not necessarily an easy task to port an app to 98.

That said, yes, back in 2000 to 2003, lots of video editing software
was written with win-98 compatiblity. But especially for video, the 4
gb file size limitation for 98 is actually pretty large. A
digital-video stream coming into a PC via fire-wire or USB directly
from a digital camera, and being captured "raw", will consume about 1
gb for every 5 or 10 minutes of video. And you pretty much have to
capture it raw because mpeg converstion on-the-fly really can't be
done without dropping frames.

But very quickly after win 2K came out, all multi-media and
video-editing software makers turned to 2K because they knew that MS
was phasing out 9x and that all future OS's would be NT-based.

You truely are someone who likes to argue without doing the needed research.
If you don't believe it, just do a 'Find' in any newsgroup you participate in
and read your responses.

"thanatoid" wrote in message
...
"Ron Badour" wrote in
:


"thanatoid" wrote in message
...

OK, let's hear your take on the Windows Automatic Upgrade
(if that's the right name) trojan.

I have no clue what you are talking about.

Now THAT made me laugh out loud. Thanks. And if you REALLY don't
know what I'm talking about, you should read some computer news
once in a while. Maybe even get put on a mailing list.

Let's hear your defense of
Hotmail being essentially an open book for hackers,
spammers and ID thieves.

Why should I defend it? I don't use it and I don't know
why anyone else does.

Well, not a bad way out of that one.

Let's hear your defense of Vista as anything other
than XP3 further modified to satisfy the fascist DRMA
concerns of the entertainment industry.

Doggies, another conspiracy. I won't be defending Vista as
I have no intention of switching to it and I won't have the
knowledge to put on a defense.

Cool. Except it's the holy truth, not a conspiracy theory. See
above informing yourself. I will personally never go above
98SE (unless I am forced by hardware constraints to go Linux)
but I do like to know what's going on.


--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

"Buffalo" wrote in
:

You truely are someone who likes to argue without doing the
needed research. If you don't believe it, just do a 'Find'
in any newsgroup you participate in and read your
responses.

"thanatoid" wrote in message
...
"Ron Badour" wrote in
:


"thanatoid" wrote in message
...

OK, let's hear your take on the Windows Automatic
Upgrade (if that's the right name) trojan.

I have no clue what you are talking about.

Now THAT made me laugh out loud. Thanks. And if you REALLY
don't know what I'm talking about, you should read some
computer news once in a while. Maybe even get put on a
mailing list.

Let's hear your defense of
Hotmail being essentially an open book for hackers,
spammers and ID thieves.

Why should I defend it? I don't use it and I don't know
why anyone else does.

Well, not a bad way out of that one.

Let's hear your defense of Vista as anything other
than XP3 further modified to satisfy the fascist DRMA
concerns of the entertainment industry.

Doggies, another conspiracy. I won't be defending Vista
as I have no intention of switching to it and I won't
have the knowledge to put on a defense.

Cool. Except it's the holy truth, not a conspiracy theory.
See above informing yourself. I will personally never
go above 98SE (unless I am forced by hardware constraints
to go Linux) but I do like to know what's going on.


--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

1) Who asked you?

2) If you're going to butt in, at least read the whole thread
instead of replying to the first post of about 5.

3) I read my responses. Why would I post and argue if I wasn't
going to read the replies? Just because 1 of 2 (or 9 out 10)
people disagree with me does not mean I'm not right. And if I'm
wrong, I don't care. Nothing is real anyway. Just killing time.

4) Truely is spelled truly.

5) Some people even more a-r than I would complain about you
top-posting.

--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.