Unkoon2000 0 Posted March 13, 2000 I am officially going back to windows 98 since windows 2000 is having too many problems with games,hardware,and networking. Until they come out with all the fixes that I require, I'm staying with win 98 Share this post Link to post
Beavis 0 Posted March 13, 2000 This is the best post I have ever seen!! Some people don't understand Windows 2000 and should stay with win98. Some of us have a little more experience with other operating systems and don't mind "tweaking" things. Personally, I have had very few problems with Win2000. Most of the setbacks I have had are because of immature drivers. Give Win2000 about 3 more monthes and then put it back on. Companies will put out new drivers by then. Trust me. Share this post Link to post
allvtec21m 0 Posted March 13, 2000 OMG i dont belive what you just said, WINDOWS 98 is such a POS os to windows 2000, 1 windows 98 is slower then hell, 2 every 5 mins a illegal operation of some kind pops up mostly kernal32, i think if people do some more reading before they just install things they will be really happy with windows 2000, but most likely instead of going and finding out of something works under windows 2000 they just go ahead and install what ever program they want and then they get upset when it dosnt work or causes more problems once installed, all i have to say is DO SOME READING Share this post Link to post
Palos 0 Posted March 13, 2000 Yep, i'm back with old W98 as well...too many problems with drivers, especialy video (nVidia). Other than that, it was a kick ass OS (still is), but i think one needs 192 Mb RAM to be really cool...128 is ok, but leaves me 55-60 MB free after boot...and trust me, i did a lot of tweaking! We just have to wait for the damn drivers...days, weeks, months...years! I'm really looking forward to SP1 sometime this summer...until then, it doesn't hurt W98 if you reboot it manually when you are mostly playing games, right? Share this post Link to post
Unkoon2000 0 Posted March 13, 2000 Actually, Win2000 was working fine for me until I needed my Lexmark 3200, Network, Superdisk Parellel Port and my scanner. Otherwise It would be the perfect OS for everyday gaming and internet. Microsoft should blame Lexmark and Imation for not releasing the drivers on time. Share this post Link to post
Ge0ph 0 Posted March 13, 2000 If I were to give up Windows2000 and go back to anything, it would be NT4. My rule for NT was, if it wont run in NT, I don't need to run it. All the games I played in NT works in W2k and a lot that would not run in NT will work in W2k. Windows2000 is so much better if you have the hardware. I have a P233 with 128 of ram that runs W2k very well. My main machine is a dual 400 with 160 megs of ram and it runs good too. Windows98 is the most stable dos based windows but it's still very flaky compaired to NT or W2k. Share this post Link to post
slkh 0 Posted March 15, 2000 Takes a little bit of time for the drivers to mature. I do agree some games doesnt work on Windows 2000. But it has nothing to do with Windows 2000, it is because the games are not written specifically for Windows 2000. Can't blame Windows 2000. Neither can blame the games developers because when they release the product, Windows 2000 isn't born yet. Well, so far, most of my crucial applications does work on my Windows 2000. Occasional lock up with some of my games, I suspect my drivers or the games need patches. But will eagerly wait for its update or patches for Windows 2000. For those who wants everything to work fine? Go for Windows 98. For those diehard fans of Windows 2000 that wants things getting running, you are in the right forum Share this post Link to post
grimm 0 Posted March 16, 2000 I wouldn't go back for win98 even if there is no drivers available for my cheap SCSI card for my HP Scanner. I can tell I am saving aprox. 2 hours per day using win2k just as for the resources consumptions and crashes I am avoiding with win2k. I am in the Multimedia Design using high perf. applications and I am satisfied with win2k's stability. Who agrees with me ? Share this post Link to post
thibs 0 Posted March 16, 2000 Grimm, I fully agree with you and I think that most people believe W2000 is not this good because there are no drivers for many stuff so far. Well, what I'd like to tell them is if they can't help installing crap drivers and then complain about it ... they rather go back to W98. The typical example would be liveware for SBlive ! Well I "only" use the W2000 driver provided on the CD and it works just great. As a conclusion I would suggest all people that don't use W2K in a professional way to stick to W98 untill proper drivers come out. ------------------ Config: Dual celeron 400 on BP6 128 Mo SDRAM PC 100 Rage fury 32Mo, SB Live Player IBM 20Go U66,DVD A103S,Yamaha 4*4*16*: IDE Win2000 Final Share this post Link to post
EddiE314 0 Posted March 16, 2000 Unkoon2000 - You let me know if you want a copy of Windows for Workgroups. Okay people. Read this post, its a prime example of a dumbass that doesn't know how to use an operating system. If you don't like it. Don't come here to b1tch and complain. Have a Nice Day. [This message has been edited by EddiE314 (edited 16 March 2000).] Share this post Link to post
Fozz 0 Posted March 16, 2000 EddiE314...that's a bit harsh! I'm currently dual booted with 2000 and 98 and I only use 98 for BattleZone2, I use Win2000 for all other purposes. However, I keep getting BSOD's in 2000, as documented in my thread here "Random Shutdowns". Now, I am taking onboard all suggestions to fix these errors and I don't consider myself "Unable to use the OS". I've used all the preloaded Win2000 drivers except for the TNT2 card, which I've installed the Detonator 3.78 drivers for. But I'm getting a lot of crashes, and not in games either. Actually, the only game I play in 2000 is UT and that works a charm. I'm getting crashes while browsing and just on the desktop and his dos not happen in 98. So should I return to 98 due to my inability to use 2000?! I think not. I cannpot say if the problems are with my hardware, my video drivers, or with whatever apps I have running in 98, but I'm having problems, and I can understand someone reverting to 98 for now, and then coming back to 2000 in a few months. Having said that, I want to stick with 2000 - I simply prefer it to 98. But there are a lot of peple who will not have as much patience and go back to what they know, at least for a while. That's all. Share this post Link to post
Xetenor 0 Posted March 17, 2000 Dear reader, I must agree that Windows 2000 Professional is the currently best OS out, but not for gamers. Windows 2000 Pro has some disadvantages still. One is driver support, and games. I must admit that Windows 98 for me works currently the best, eventhough its the slowest OS there is. Would you want the most compatible OS or the fastest? I personally would choose compatibility. Best Regards, Xetenor http://home.earthlink.net/~xetenor Share this post Link to post
5t3ph3n 0 Posted March 17, 2000 Quote: Originally posted by EddiE314:Unkoon2000 - You let me know if you want a copy of Windows for Workgroups. Okay people. Read this post, its a prime example of a dumbass that doesn't know how to use an operating system. If you don't like it. Don't come here to b1tch and complain. Have a Nice Day. [This message has been edited by EddiE314 (edited 16 March 2000).] I am really amazed why this problematic (and probably full of complexes;as someone else in the past noticed) bully "Eddie-IQ50" hasn't yet been kicked out from this forum and everybody is still tolerating him. A person (unkoon2000) just voiced/typed his/her opinion (and he/she has every right to do so in a democratic world) and this e-fascist bully replied in that manner. If you do not agee with an opinion (like me) either post a reply in which you explain your reasons for not ageeing or do not reply at all. Share this post Link to post
T. Clark 0 Posted March 17, 2000 I think a lot of people are just plain missing the point. Windows 2000 isn't the successor to Windows 98; it's the next evolution from Windows NT, and it does a great job of it. My recommendation is one from what I saw in another post here... if 2000 doesn't do all that you want it to, dual boot 98 and 2k. When newer drivers are released for the operating system to cover many of the devices out there that aren't supported, you might be able to make it the OS of your choice; but it's designed as a business application, not the home PC/all-inclusive gamer's solution. ------------------ Share this post Link to post
jdulmage 0 Posted March 18, 2000 Talk about not getting the point. If your going to release an OS, then release one that is compatible with stuff. All of my games don't work, i'm currently looking into solving this, but i'm still sticking with Windows 2000. Also most of you think it's because W2K wasn't designed for use with most games....WRONG!! I was told my Microsoft that games don't run, because they look to see what OS you have, if you have NT, then simply don't work because a long time ago, NT sucked and couldn't run anything. So the games are tricked into thinking it's Windows NT, not Windows 2000 Share this post Link to post
URinsane 0 Posted March 26, 2000 I think you all misunderstood what Unkoon was trying to say. I don't think that he means Win2K is the problem, he means the driver support that many of the manufacturers offer is less than great. I saw that he had the same problem with his Lexmark 3200 as I did, and I am sure that his other problems were just as fun. The problem is, not all of us have the time to try and hack the drivers to make them work with our systems. I spent all night and the next day hunting down driver releases, hacked drivers, and solutions to make drivers work in Win2K when I installed it on this box. I really do like Win2K, however, during that long evening, I thought more than once that I should just screw it and go back to Windows 98. Right now, there are some features of my system that must go unused because of a lack of drivers (Digital out on my soundcard, non digital sound on my Microsoft Digital Speakers, etc) Oh well. -URinsane Share this post Link to post
jdulmage 0 Posted March 27, 2000 I love Windows 2000, but i don't get why Microsoft would keep the famous "Hardware Abstraction Layer" on NT. They should have found a way to get rid of that, or at least a feature to turn it off or something I think Whistler will be better anyways =) Share this post Link to post
Shrink 0 Posted March 27, 2000 The whole idea of the HAL is to keep the computer from being taken down by poorly written drivers or applications that access hardware directly. Without it, Windows NT would be no more stable than Windows 9x. Frankly, I will take stability over a negligible speed hit (if any speed hit at all). ------------------ Shrink 92% of the things we worry about don't happen - but the other 8% DO! PIII 450@504 Soltek SL67B Mobo with 128 mb pc100 20 gig Quantum KX 8 gig Quantum CR SBlive Value Voodooo3 3000 AGP ... and a bunch of USB Stuff Windows 2000 Pro Retail Share this post Link to post
simonroockley 0 Posted March 27, 2000 A lot of the time it isn't that the games are checking for windows 95 it's also to do with poor coding on the application/game side of things because they haven't stuck to win32 specifications when programming it. Windows 2000 is the best operating system I have seen from microsoft and with the X-box being based around a Win2k kernel more games should be compatible in the near future. Share this post Link to post
prum555 0 Posted March 27, 2000 Previously I ran dual boot on my PC. Since last week after SB released their Liveware for W2K and I got a workable Parallel port driver for my Syquest SparQ. I am now a pure W2K guy. This does not mean I don't have problems with some of the appliactions or games under W2K. At this point I have more than 95% of the work I want to do on my PC available running W2K with no problem. So I choose to stay on W2K only. Whether you want W2K or W98 is purely a personal choice. W2K or W98? IThis is a matter of your personal choice. Share this post Link to post
jdulmage 0 Posted March 27, 2000 What exactly is the X-Box and how will it work?? Will this be a program that patches up Windows 2000 and allow games to work better or what?? Share this post Link to post
Shrink 0 Posted March 27, 2000 X-Box is MS's version of the playstation. It is a console gaming machine. ------------------ Shrink 92% of the things we worry about don't happen - but the other 8% DO! PIII 450@504 Soltek SL67B Mobo with 128 mb pc100 20 gig Quantum KX 8 gig Quantum CR SBlive Value Voodooo3 3000 AGP ... and a bunch of USB Stuff Windows 2000 Pro Retail Share this post Link to post
mickbench 0 Posted March 27, 2000 I agree with Shrink on the HAL. The Hardware Abstraction Layer is there to ensure no applications gain exclusive rights to your hardware. Without this safety feature, Windows 2000 would be as much use as Win9x is today. This is one of the reasons Win9x crashes so much. Too many applications given too much control over your hardware. By having layers that control how applications behave in your O/S is much more reliable, but the pay off is that hardware drivers have to be more tightly written. Even Virtual Memory settings in W2K behave under layers in W2K. Its a pain, but its better in the long run..!!! Now W2K Services... That’s another topic altogether. Share this post Link to post
