| Author |
Topic: ??? for J.Stoner / b0b,etc ??? |
Craig Allen
From:
BEREA, KENTUCKY, USA
|
Posted 17 Mar 2001 4:34 pm |
|
OK boys here's my question; Why do I want 2000 PRO??
Currently, (This week, anyway.LOL ) I am runnning 98 SE. I already knew that I didn't want, or need ME, but the jury's still out for me regrding 2000 PRO.
We set up one system with RedHat, and realy don't like it. We've been through all of the Evil Empire upgrades, and marketing ploys, and have settled on SE being the most stable system, so far. But.............
Any discussion?????
Thanx
|
|
|
|
Larry Beck
From:
Pierre, SD
|
Posted 17 Mar 2001 8:35 pm
|
|
We run a combination of NT and 2000 pro at work. So far I can tell you I don't get BSOD (blue screen of Death) calls on 2000 but they are regular as clockwork with NT.
98 is not an option in a security environment.
Now for the bad news: 2000 is a resource hog. You need more processor and lots more RAM. You also need more bucks to pay Micro$oft.
If yours is a home machine and you play some games where compatability may be an issue, Stay with 98.
If you want a fairly solid workstation that will come close to 24/7, try 2000.
For a server, Redhat or other good Linux distribution, solaris, bsd or novell.
In the end, it depends on what you need to do, and what you've got to do it with. |
|
|
|
Jack Stoner
From:
Kansas City, MO
|
Posted 18 Mar 2001 3:48 am
|
|
You do not want Windows 2000 if it is a home unit, used for multimedia and such. Win2000 is designed primarily for commercial applications such as workstations, servers, etc. Windows 2000 does not support any DOS applications and is not "backward compatible" with many Windows 95/98 applications. With Windows 2000 you have to have software that is designed to run on a Windows 2000 operating system. And, you have to have Windows 200 compatible device drivers for some of your PC's devices, such as audio, modem, video which are not always available. And as mentioned Windows 2000 has minimum Hardware requirements which are more stingent than the "consumer" versions of Windows.
If you want to upgrade, go to Windows ME, it is the "consumer" version and is a much more robust system. See the other thread on Microsoft ME. |
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 18 Mar 2001 6:52 pm
|
|
There's lots of music software that won't run on 2000 or NT. Windows ME is a better choice for musical applications.
Windows ME doesn't support dual processors. If you use a dual processor computer, Windows 2000 Professional is probably your best bet.
If you're a musician with a dual processor computer, you probably bought the wrong computer. 
------------------
 Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (E9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6) |
|
|
|
Craig Allen
From:
BEREA, KENTUCKY, USA
|
Posted 19 Mar 2001 4:26 am
|
|
Well actually, b0b, I have been a pro musician for the better part of 35 years, and I hate music. Don't even listen to it in the car. I am a TV junkie, though. So........
I built my system. I have a socket 307 M.board;500MHZ Intel/Pentium; 30Gig H.D. 32mHZ PCI grafix card, 512 meg sdram-pc100, etc.
This is my TOY.!!!!
so............What does anybody know about Windows XP ??????
I am not convinced about ME, yet, as I am told that it not that stable. I also wonder, that since it (ME) has done away with DOS, how does one do a format??
I will Probably stay with S.E., but..........
|
|
|
|
Jack Stoner
From:
Kansas City, MO
|
Posted 19 Mar 2001 4:57 am
|
|
Microsoft is working towards one operating system, rather than the "commercial" and "consumer" versions of Windows. I haven't seen much on XP but if it isn't their "one system" it is close to it.
Microsoft has been grappling with two versions for some time and the "problem" with the consumer versions is that they have had to make them backward compatible with older software (to a certain extent) and also DOS compatible so people would still be able to run their old software and also run Windows with older hardware. The Windows ME was the first major step in eliminating some of the legacy support and also requiring more modern processor hardware and speed.
Windows ME is a better operating system, as long as you have the hardware to support it. It still has some legacy support but also has some of the NT/2000 reliability/recovery features. NT/2000 has even more stringent hardware requirements and as b0b pointed out does not support much in the way of multimedia.
Microsoft's target release dates for new software usually is never met, so XP could be a ways off and the final version could be much different from the beta versions out now. Who knows, XP could turn out to be the "one" windows operating system.
|
|
|
|
Craig Allen
From:
BEREA, KENTUCKY, USA
|
Posted 19 Mar 2001 7:50 pm
|
|
Well jack, that's pretty much what I thought about the XP thing. I'm not too quick to jump on to the FAD thing, I like to hang back a little, but.......I don't want to be the last in line, either. I hate to fall for hype, so that is the reason that i wanted to open this discussion.
I had a pretty good grasp on the ME thing, too. But again, I wanted to know wqhat ya'll were thinking about the various systems.
i can't write code, or anything mystical like that, but i can get around my registry without frying my system, and I do experiment quite a bit. That's why I have a seperate system. (Can't seem to learn any other way than tweaking.LOL)
Well, I appreciate the dicussion, and I would like to see it continue for a while. I am learning from ya'll.
Thanx
Bon Chance |
|
|
|
