LiGhTfast Posted July 9, 2001 Share Posted July 9, 2001 gonna be using it for games mostly and the odd letter so is it worth upgrading?? gonna be on a athlon 1ghz 128mb ram geforce2 mx is win2k any faster than winme?? i know its more stable... cheers :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redmak Administrators Posted July 10, 2001 Administrators Share Posted July 10, 2001 Yeah with that hardware games shouldn't be a problem but I do agree with 8tImER get some more ram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcia Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 LiGhTfast Win2k is not a gaming machine, the architecture of the OS is not built for gamers. Quite a few games will run on win2k but not all. If you are looking for an upgrade then wait for winXP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab1225 Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 In case you didn't know Windows XP is based on NT/2k. It uses the a kernel based on Win2k. The only reason more games will work with Win XP is 1) I will make my games work. 2) the new compatitbility engine. Also, the compatibility part is part of Windows 2000 Service Pack 2, however it is a hidden DLL that you have to activiate. Have A Nice Day! :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcia Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 WindowsXP was going to be the OS that was to combine ME & Win2k. This now seems not to be the case. There will be three or four versions on the OS WindowsXP Home WindowsXP Professional WindowsXP Server and maybe one other who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KornDogg Posted July 12, 2001 Share Posted July 12, 2001 The home and professional versions are very close to the same, limitations set inbetween home and pro include NTFS, SMP, remote mangement, and small things like that. www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/guide/comparison.asp has the details of what will be different so far. As to when and if they will release Sever, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server I have not heard anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davjak Posted July 13, 2001 Share Posted July 13, 2001 I have used Win2k on a Cyrix PR200 with 64mb of RAM and It ran faster than WinME did. WinME crashed constantly. I only kept that OS for about 2 weeks. I'd upgrade, but thats just my 2 cents worth :) I noticed in a different post someone suggested a dual boot. If you've got the HDD space why do you not dual boot it? You could use 1 as your main OS and the other for any other needs? Just and Idea. This reminds me of a joke I heard recently. Microsoft is combining its 3 main OS's .. WinCE WinME and WinNT making Microsoft CEMENT :)Cheers Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTUsEr Veteran Posted July 13, 2001 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2001 garcia: on my win2k comp, i can run all my games ( half life, q2,q3,UT,DUKE Nukem 3D!!!:D , i get better proformce in 2k them xp and 9x combine! system: amd athlon 1.3 ghz 1.5 gigz of ram ati radeon 64mb VIVO win2k Linux <-----COming s00n! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n10s Posted July 14, 2001 Share Posted July 14, 2001 Word of mouth has it that Win2K is much faster in graphical display and internet speed... this has always been the word-of-mouth.... :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeaR Posted July 16, 2001 Share Posted July 16, 2001 Well late but gonna talk about something imp. Win2k is fast for gaming and stuff, Why its simple. 9x and Me keep programs in ram even after they are shut down which causes crashes and slowdows. Win2k on the application shutdown removes all traces of it from the ram. When you close all apps and play you got fresh mem and a speedy comp. Its the same with NT as well. I thing though i cant run some dos games :( Which is disappointing. Win2k is the best os out there. If you dont have it install it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C@N'T }{1T $}{1 Posted July 24, 2001 Share Posted July 24, 2001 It runs everything for me, Half-Life, Q3A, UT, its stable, FAST, with new IE6 betas, win2k dont get much quicker! C}{$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyllyWylly Posted August 13, 2001 Share Posted August 13, 2001 If you're using ME, get rid of it - fast. It sucks up resources even on the meanest of machines. If you can find a copy (provided you don't have one already) dual boot 98SE and 2000. Older games have problems with 2000's way of doing things, hence the dual boot. I use 2k for dev work and regular use and fire up 98SE when I want to frag a few peeps ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Neo] Posted August 19, 2001 Share Posted August 19, 2001 Originally posted by LiGhTfast gonna be using it for games mostly and the odd letter so is it worth upgrading?? gonna be on a athlon 1ghz 128mb ram geforce2 mx is win2k any faster than winme?? i know its more stable... cheers :D Get Windows 2000 or wait for the final version of Windows XP. On another note what are you doing with a GeForce 2 MX on a 1ghz Athlon? That just doesnt cut it.. You should have a GTS video card to make the most outta that beast :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aco Veteran Posted August 20, 2001 Veteran Share Posted August 20, 2001 If you will not be networking then I don't see the point in getting windows 2000. WinME is more user-friendly and more games work. Don't get me wrong some games work in 2k. Or you could always try XP... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiGhTfast Posted August 20, 2001 Author Share Posted August 20, 2001 im using XP now soon to be tripple boot Win xp Win me linux mandrake atm its ME and XP but i never go into ME cause it sux :) linux looks good so ill try it.. gonna get a Geforce3 one day but atm the mx is fine only really play half life ocassinaly and the odd blast on max payne, watch DVDs and VCDs mostly on me comp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quboid Posted August 20, 2001 Share Posted August 20, 2001 I've had a fair bit of experience with both: WinME: Troublesome - crashes, slow, bloated (have you seen Win Media Player!?!). Easy to setup. Runs nearly all Windows software, doesn't run DOS software. Win2k: Stable (crashed once in 3 weeks) Much faster for application use. I think it was about 1-2 FPS slower in 3d games - only noticable in benchmarks. I've had no problem with software incompatability but if you use older software you could. Harder to setup and, well, not more confusing really, but different for day to day admistration - installing and such. It took me about 4 days to completely work it out (how to get something in just one person's startmenu, how to get it in everyones - things like that which are really very simple (and perfectly logical) in hindsight). I completely recommend Windows 2000, and if you're installing onto a blank disk, NTFS5 is a better disc format than FAT32. More efficent, better handling of big discs and lots of files, you can set security for each file similar to Linux. Only Win2k (and XP at a guess) can access this, so if you have Win9x/ME discs on a network, I don't think they will be able to access it unless you run an FTP server (not very resourse intensive when not being used). The big worry is if you use older software - check http://www.ntcompatible.com/ before installing to see if any essential software you use works. Of course Linux (I suggest Debian) is better than Win2k, but you probably won't want to take the leap. I am using ME as I have a problem with 2k ATM (another thread :) ) but I intend to get 2k going ASAP. You could do a dual boot. I found installing Win2k on an empty disc (must be FAT32) and then installing WinME from within 2k gave a perfect dual boot (takes a bit of fiddling in boot.ini to get Win2k the default option, but anyway). I'm one of the people who know Linux is better, but I like my games/MS Office/etc too much. Of course I could dual boot... There you go - Win2k 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortensen Posted August 23, 2001 Share Posted August 23, 2001 I use Win98. I have XP, 2k, 95, 98, 98SE and ME but I choose to use Win98SE. Win2k is amazingly stable, WinME is pretty unstable. Win98 seems to work very well and is very compatible. -mortensenj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tikimotel Posted August 23, 2001 Share Posted August 23, 2001 Multi OS : winME, Linux Suse 7.2, WinXP RC2 (upgraded win2k) I'm using ME at the moment no crashes, no problems. Instal date : December 2000. I hate powersaving and that stuff, turned all of them off!!! Win98SE Dutch(Tweede Editie NL) crashed about 2 times every hour when gaming. Hate it, half translated, crashing, upgrading drivers for my hdd controller, etc... Win2k = SLOW(er) in D3d, Win2k = FAST or FASTER when OpenGL is used! so if you play a lot of Quake based games go right ahead and install win2k, on the other hand if you play D3d like games (giant kabuto) you will get arround half the performance as win9x machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortensen Posted August 23, 2001 Share Posted August 23, 2001 I had Win2k on for AGES and found that Direct3D games weren't too much slower. Half-Life (I'm running in D3D) ran JUST as fast as Win98. -mortensenj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quboid Posted August 24, 2001 Share Posted August 24, 2001 Originally posted by mortensen I use Win98. I have XP, 2k, 95, 98, 98SE and ME but I choose to use Win98SE. Win2k is amazingly stable, WinME is pretty unstable. Win98 seems to work very well and is very compatible. -mortensenj You could do worse than Dual boot Win2k and Win98 (plus the 98lite patch that's around to remove crud and boost performance and stability but remove Internet Explorer etc). I'd avoid WinME. The main thing I'd disagree with here is the "Amazingly stable" - it crashes for me about once every 2 or 3 day (although the install's a bit of a mess so once a week is more like it). I've got a Linux server which I've had for about 2 1/2 years and it's never crashed. Not once :) Tikimotel: You get 1/2 performance in Direct 3D? Somethings broken there, I got pretty much identical! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
configure Veteran Posted August 24, 2001 Veteran Share Posted August 24, 2001 Mandrake is crap :p SuSE and Slack 0wnz ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fugi Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 gonna be using it for games mostly and the odd letter so is it worth upgrading??<br /><br /> gonna be on a<br /> athlon 1ghz<br /> 128mb ram<br /> geforce2 mx<br /> <br /> is win2k any faster than winme?? i know its more stable...<br /> <br /> cheers :D Yes your such an intence gamer LOOK AT THOSE SPECS WOW THAT JUST BLOWS ME AWAY! :sleep: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoLdFuSi0n Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 upgrade to XP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldaccount1 Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 win2k---yes--get the latest SP though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFM Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 you should have upgraded years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts