Windows 2000: should I switch from 98?

[mijman]

I have been considering switching my system to Windows 2000 but I'm not very versed in the NT platforms. Should I do this? I have heard that the 2GB avi limit is not there either, is this true? Is there a limit? My system is a monster, so I'm not concerned with processor speed or memory.

[HillJack]

Though some will say, "wait for XP"... There is nothing wrong with Windows 2000 imo (if it aint broke, dont fix it)...

I prefer Windows 2000 over Windows 9x anyday - this installation has been running without problems since March, and I haven't rebooted since July 25th and it still runs like it was just rebooted - I've ripped a dozen DVD's and encoded them with TMPGEnc, and captured probably 40 TV shows since. Stability alone is a reason to switch imo.

2000 is not much different (gui-wise) than 9X. Just things are in different places is all... You'll get used to it quickly.

As for file limits, using NTFS there is no limit (atleast not one we would ever reach). Provided your capture/editing programs support large files (which most do as far as I know) then you are ok there!

[karter74]

I recently made the jump from Win98SE to Win2000 Pro. Actually I dual booted it, just in case i didn't like Win2000. All can say is WOW! This is such a better improvement. Now all I use my Win98 is for gaming compatibility, but other than that Win2000 all the way! It is 10x more stable than Win98 (don't quote me on that I even got faster downloads on my dial up connection! Believe me, Windows 2000 pro is definitely worth the upgrade, don't let people fool you, it is great! From what I've read, WinXP will actually be a little better! I'm gonna get the Proffesional version, no product activation! So, if you can't tell, you should definately upgrade to Win2k, dual booting is a piece of cake! If you need help dual booting, feel free to e-mail me about it!

[Vejita-sama]

Yeah, well I had 'problems' with win2k, so I stepped back down to winME. But I'm running a lot of 'odd drivers' that weren't win2k specific. IF I pulled that hardware, then yes win2k is nice. Basically ask youself this question, what will win2k (or xp) do for me that my current OS doesn't.

Win2k is nice, and certainly more stable (course a drunk frat boy walking a tight rop blind folded is slightly more stable then win9 but you know what I mean...

[SatStorm]

Basicly, that has to do with your hardware...
I believe with fast intel machines, w2k are better
But with AMD machines, because of the drivers, you are more sure with W98SE.
We don't talk for WinME, they really suck...
Of course, I have to mention that the drivers for w2k gets better and better, and probably in 6 months they shall be as well as the drivers for W9X.
We shall see
Right now, I use both systems. For encoding and some other tasks I use w2k. For multimedia and capturing, I use w98SE. Ain't so difficult to have both systems...
If you are OK with W98SE, stay as you are. W2K won't give you something extra. But if you have crashes etc, then try them. If you are lucky, you'll be OK

[Martok]

I'm running an overclocked AMD T-bird with Win 2k...rock solid. Much better memory management than Win 9x. Once I encoded 3 DVD's to VCD and burned them...without rebooting. Even had my boot drive fail (it quit writing but would still read). Cloned it with DriveCopy and didn't loose as much as a single byte....and still no blue screens.
Now try THIS with 9x or ME:
Run PhotoShop, Acrobat Writer, MS Streets and Trips, ACDSee, Access, Fax with WinFax Pro, while scanning a document. I work from home, and do this at least once a day, 5 to 6 days a week.
No lockups...no blue screens...smooth as silk.

[HillJack]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-09-25 18:00:21, HillJack wrote:
and I haven't rebooted since July 25th and it still runs like it was just rebooted - I've ripped a dozen DVD's and </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>

Crap! I knew I should have knocked on some wood when I said that - I came home today and the power had gone out earlier and of course my computer rebooted

Anyone have a spare UPS they dont need? (

[Psx]

Wait for XP is all I can say...no point in getting windows 2000 when XP is going to be out REALLY soon. And for the record, AMD has better RAW processing power for business applications but when it comes to games intel is better because of the chip instruction set. So it wouldn't make any sense if win2k is faster on an intel machine over any amd machine of the same clock value

[nfl2k2]

with win98/Me I had so many problems i felt like throwing my pc away. then I had some guy get me Win2000 and since july 2001, I haven't had one problem yet *knock on wood*. yes, I'd recommend it.

[d4n13l]

XP.

[gNOMEintheRedHat]

I've run XP since Bata 1, even in it's UNSTABLE builds it was far more stable than 98. WinME never was nice to me.

For my office I've kept 2000 just because XP will not give me anything 2000 doesn't and it would cost too much to upgrade.

[d4n13l]

Thats an ironic name...

[TIbrO]

I had used Win2K since October 2000 and I always said that it was Microsoft's best OS ever. It never crashed or messed with me like 9x did sometimes, and ME did every time I booted it. Now I am on Devils0wn XP Professional build 2600 release. It's identical to Windows 2000 Professional, except the Luna interface ofcourse, and the ability to eliminate your Virtual Memory Pagefile. So if you have 1.5GB of RAM like me, youc an make Windows use just that, and your hardisk LED on your case will never light up, unless you load something.