9/10 No, I don't like Bill Gates and WinBlows. However, I really need it
cuz of the apps that run on it. The question I have is, is Win2K
worth it over Win98? Please don't post 'format, get FreeBSD/Linux' Thx
\_ will someone port cakewalk already?
worth it over Win98? Please don't post 'format, get FreeBSD/Linux' Thx
\_ the IT people where I work said that it is still too unstable and
buggy to switch to(they won't support it.) thay said that it will
be an improvement when it has been debugged, and that they will
"let us know when it no longer sucks".
\_ This is the traditional "Wait until the Service Pack answer".
For mid- to large-size corporations this is true (Active
Directory is hard to configure). If you're small, the benefits
from Win2K far outweigh consequences, compared to WinNT4.
\_ Yes, if you're not paying for it.
\_ I agree.
\_ format. Install FreeBSD/Linux. Install VMware. Run Win98.
\_ clarification:
Win2000 = new version of WinNT
WinME = new version of Win98
(where ME stands for Mellinium Edition)
Why they switched their naming convention to have their "server"
OS go from letters to numbers and desktop OS to go from numbers
to letters is beyond me.
\_ Quite simple - Win2000 was supposed to be the "unifying"
release for everyone to run. Then they saw how completely
unusable it was for most home users and had to come up
with a new name for ME, which was supposed to be the last
"consumer" release, but they're now working on another
version for 2001, currently code-named "Whistler", and the
Great Unified OS dream has been put off several more years.
\_ not being able to track memory leaks in
Win98 drives me insane.
Win2k has stability and is easier to admin.
The only problem is with the lack of good
driver support.
\_ Not being able to track memory leaks in
WinNT4 drives my cube mate insane. Muhahaha! |