| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Redmond retirement ratchet spells doom for Win2k | |
|
||
| Time: 09:00 EST/14:00 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Windows 2000 has been given nine months to live, as far as OEMs are concerned, and Microsoft is pressuring the PC companies to stop offering dual install Win2k/WinXP systems immediately. Microsoft operating systems magically become more expensive and difficult to obtain as soon as there's a new rev out, but so long as the previous version is still available on new PCs via OEMs, business customers have a relatively simple way to stick with their current OS, rather than having to do an expensive rollout of the replacement. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 172 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:48:47 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7826 (65.205.133.2) at 7/8/2002 10:19:59 AM |
| Windows 2000 is a better OS than XP, IMHO. It's much more stable and requires far less resouces. I can run it comfortablly in my old P200/64MB laptop. I use Win2k Pro for Laptop and Win2000 Server on my work machine. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/8/2002 11:30:12 AM |
|
Foxbat - But then is Win98 better than Win2k because it will run on a 486DX4/100?
It would be hard to argue that Win2k is more stable than XP, and even more difficult to argue that 2k is faster than XP on modern hardware. XP really, overall, is a much better operating system than Windows 2000. I guess I'm surprised that there are still people out there promoting this nonsense. I understand the reluctance for change, but I would have thought by now most people would have had the opportunity to spend time with XP and realize just how much better it is. Even the editors of Infoworld are now admitting this after initially panning XP. |
| #3 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 7/8/2002 11:46:13 AM |
|
m00:
And if you didn't pirate the stuff, activation wouldn't mean a damn thing to you. Especially in corporations where you have the volume licensing, where activation is actually DISABLED. I find it pretty stupid that you run a server (Advanced Server, actually) as your desktop. It's not supposed to be used as your desktop, there is no point in it at all. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/8/2002 11:51:56 AM |
|
MOOzilla - Now as far as .NET Server is concerned, the improvements coming with COM+ 1.5 make it highly desirable as an application server. Especially in combination with the improvements coming with IIS v6.0. It's unfortunate that it's been labeled .NET as these improvements make for it to be an exceptionally scalable and stable environment for older ASP/VB web apps, something that Win2k unfortunately impacted negatively.
On top of that .NET server will support headless operation, allowing one to deploy it to blade servers, which may be highly desirable in certain environments such as web hosting or batch processing. I agree that it may or may not be worth upgrading, and it all depends. For instance at our company right now our file/print servers still run on NT4, whereas the app servers are on Win2k. We'll be moving file/print over to Win2k as we migrate users to AD. But that's a very different claim from saying "Windows 2000 is a better OS than XP." |
| #5 By 7826 (65.205.133.2) at 7/8/2002 12:12:12 PM |
|
Sodablue,
Read my post carefully. Do not take my comments out of context. I said, stability and less resource. Stability comes first. I don't think any Win9x platform can fit stability test. And WinXP is also less table than Win2000, IMHO. I've WinXP Pro running on my home desktop machine. |
| #6 By 531 (66.188.140.156) at 7/8/2002 12:47:17 PM |
|
Foxbat: That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but it's contrary to everything I've been seeing. Win2k was a great OS, and still is, nobody's disputing that. But I don't see the instability that you've been talking about. In fact, I can't remember the last time I've seen a blue screen. Do some programs crash? Yes, but that's the fault of the program, not the OS.
XP is built from 2000, so I don't understand where you can say that there's a huge difference in stability. If you are experiencing crashes, try blaming your hardware or device drivers, since that's more than likely where they've come from. |
| #7 By 7826 (65.205.133.2) at 7/8/2002 1:46:48 PM |
|
#12. I wasn't implying there is huge difference between 2000 and XP. It's just that some places that work quite well in win2000 are broken in XP. No. It has nothing to do with device drivers becuase I have M$'s KB articles to prove it. For example, registry hive failed to unload during log off because some OS components leak registry handle. The results is lengthy wait for computer to log off especially when using Remote Desktop. Unfortunately we have to wait until SP1 to get the fix. Don't even mention that a lot of time after a remote desktop session ended, the XP machine ended up with an automatic reboot. This may or may not have anything to do with the nVidia driver but it never happens with my win2000 Server Terminal Service. And that little thing about that XP machine won't enter into standby mode automatically after a certain period idle time configured by Power options.
There is no doubt XP has improvements over Win2000 is built on. However, until SP1 come out this fall, it is the fact that it is not as stable as Win2000 in current SP2 state. I understand not all of you out there will experience the same issue as I am. Just because you haven't experienced the problem (yet), doesn't mean it's not there. You're just not using the system to the extent I'm using. |
| #8 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 7/8/2002 2:22:45 PM |
|
Foxbat: Dude seriously... you think you use your computer more intensely then EVERYONE here. I highly doubt that. Your problems sound like hardware/config problems sure you might have "M$'s KB Articles" (BTW using the $ makes you loose alot of crediblity) for one problem but that doesn't seem like that big of an issue. Windows 2000 still has its little problems.
But seriously this comment: "I understand not all of you out there will experience the same issue as I am. Just because you haven't experienced the problem (yet), doesn't mean it's not there. You're just not using the system to the extent I'm using. " Makes me giggle. Do you understand that there could be any number of reasons that your computer is unstable that DON'T include the OS? A power management problem could be a host of issues, mostly hardware. Mine hibernates/goes on standby/shutsdown/restarts and I use my computer an awful lot. So I'll turn your logic around on you... Just because you have experienced the problem, doesn't mean its the Operating System. Seriously... put the ego away and realize the possible causes for your problem. It sounds like you are just passing blame to "M$" which seems to be many peoples action when they have a problem which could be fixed with a firmware update, hardware upgrade or a configuration change. |
| #9 By 1124 (165.170.128.65) at 7/8/2002 2:26:02 PM |
|
I remembered when 2000 first came out, people were saying the same things they are now say about XP. It's a waste of time to argue with them. When Longhorn comes out, these are the same people who will argue XP is better.
I want to hear the guys who are still on DOS and Win3.1. The best OS's ever made. :) |
| #10 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 7/8/2002 2:31:58 PM |
|
m00zilla: just out of curiosity why would you have w2kas on your desktop for dev/test stuff. I'm not doubting you need it, well maybe I am, but I just am curious why you would spend 4k on a legitimate copy of w2kAS for a desktop. I have seen W2kS on a desktop and that makes perfect sense... but AS? I mean Do you really need the support for 8 processors/8gb of ram or is it that you have your desktop in a cluster for some reason? Maybe i'm missing something but I think you just wasted $3.3k.
To each his own though... just curious This post was edited by Mr.Humpty on Monday, July 08, 2002 at 14:33. |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/8/2002 2:40:40 PM |
|
Try dual monitor functionality under XP... it works better than 2k. Also my WinTV display is deinterlaced under XP, another bonus.
There are other things, the more I work with XP the more I notice the subtleties. |
| #12 By 2960 (156.80.64.164) at 7/8/2002 3:10:30 PM |
|
"I remembered when 2000 first came out, people were saying the same things they are now say about XP. It's a waste of time to argue with them. When Longhorn comes out, these are the same people who will argue XP is better. "
And when Palladium hits, we can all cry in our Beer together. That's the day personal computing dies... :( TL |
| #13 By 2960 (156.80.64.164) at 7/8/2002 3:13:21 PM |
|
"m00zilla: just out of curiosity why would you have w2kas on your desktop for dev/test stuff. I'm not doubting you need it, well maybe I am, but I just am curious why you would spend 4k on a legitimate copy of w2kAS for a desktop. I have seen W2kS on a desktop and that makes perfect sense... but AS? I mean Do you really need the support for 8 processors/8gb of ram or is it that you have your desktop in a cluster for some reason? Maybe i'm missing something but I think you just wasted $3.3k. "
Those developing do not pay full retail price. For example, you can get Win2K AS (and most other current software) for testing/marketing purposes in one kit with a yearly fee of $299 if you are a Microsoft Partner or work with one. It's called the Microsoft ActionPack. There are also other plans available for professionals working with Windows. TL |
| #14 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 7/8/2002 3:15:04 PM |
|
Hmmm... and others begin to question Moozilla's pirating. And he replies with more "troll" retorts.
LOL. See ya matey! |
| #15 By 2332 (165.247.1.76) at 7/8/2002 3:19:26 PM |
|
I really like XP... the new start menu alone was worth the upgrade. It took a bit of getting used to, but now I can't live without it.
That, combined with the fact I boot in 11 seconds, makes XP a great OS for me. I do pretty hardcore development on the machine, and I've never had any problems whatsoever as far as stability. It does use a bit more resource wise, but I have 512MB of ram, and I don't really notice it. RAM is very cheap, so instead of complaining, spend the 20 bucks and get another 128MB. |
| #16 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/8/2002 3:47:02 PM |
|
RMD - All of my computers at home, with the exception of the Sparcstation are completely maxed out on memory. Why? Because it's a dirt cheap performance upgrade. 256, 382, 512 and 768 Megs...
Techlarry - appreciated post #19, but lay off the drugs on #18. |
| #17 By 7826 (65.205.133.2) at 7/8/2002 3:47:33 PM |
|
Sorry to hurt your feelings, Mr. Humpty. Seriously, do a search yourself on support.microsoft.com on issues I mentioned here. Do not post stuff you don't know or don't have facts to back it up.
As for the other comments on MSDN subscriptions with all the M$ discs, make sure you read the EULA carefully. You're only suppose to 'test' with those discs not use them on your primary machine in daily basises. |
| #18 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 7/8/2002 4:06:06 PM |
|
m00:
Hmmm, I've been at this site quite a bit longer than you have, and for the record, I never read slashdot, unless there is a story that is linked to it that I think might be interesting. Do you know what a troll is? |
| #19 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/8/2002 5:59:04 PM |
| The intelligence of the commentary here is approaching new lows. :( |
| #20 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 7/8/2002 6:08:41 PM |
|
#29, have you upgraded and needed to re-activate your XP install? I just want to know if anyone on this board that has WinXP Pro or Home non-corp editions, and actually activated it legally, has had to re-activate after an upgrade? Anyone at all? I mean I have not read a damn thing about this activation crap and upgrading since the OS came out. Not one story about it, maybe I don't surf enough to find them or maybe, just maybe they don't exist. As for using XP for the eyecandy and all that, you can turn that off you know, and the OS will run slimmer and faster than 2K. And for everyone else, I have XP Pro on 4 machines and have never had an issue. The one I am on now is used ten hours a day 5 days a week and no problems with hibernation or any software. My home machine is on 24/7 and never has an issue, it gets used for about 4 hours a day by me and crunches the other 20. The other two, one is my wifes Inspiron, that actually has Home on it, that runs 24/7 most of the time, and is used a few hours a day, my wife even does her excersise videos on it, with no problems. And the last is a cheesy Gateway laptop with 196 Mb of ram and XP Pro, that just sits there crunching away at folding. None have had an issue, yet at work I have a Win2K machine that randomly loses contact with its 3Com Nic drivers and decides to re-boot randomly every 3-4 days. Just re-boots and auto logs in and sits in the serverroom doing its thing. It does not even bother me that it does this, but the fact that it does and no other machine I have does it is a little strange. But it is not a critical machine so it can do it all day long for what I care, I have four other machines that are exactly the same and they have no issues. And people use them all day long.
Edit: So the point of this really is, whatever floats your boat. For every WinXP sucks and 2K is better there will be people that have had better experiences the oposite way. It is all in what you do with the box and what is in the box. This post was edited by mctwin2kman on Monday, July 08, 2002 at 18:10. |
| #21 By 1845 (12.255.28.36) at 7/8/2002 7:11:56 PM |
|
From TL "And when Palladium hits, we can all cry in our Beer together. That's the day personal computing dies... :( "
You still haven't answered my questions from a few weeks back. Why will Paladium kill personal computing? and what is personal computing anyway? |
| #22 By 61 (65.32.168.97) at 7/8/2002 8:52:47 PM |
|
m00:
It's just like you to start calling everyone trolls, or try to make them look stupid, I'm sorry, but it doesn't work. My post wasn't off topic, it was in response to your post... but anything to make yourself look better, right? And no, it was not contradictory. I stated a rule, and then stated an exception to that rule. |
| #23 By 1845 (12.255.28.36) at 7/9/2002 3:15:17 AM |
|
If only I had a clue why you were laughing at me, Raa. I'm completely converted from Windows 2000 Pro to Windows XP Pro. Faster, easier, more friendly in everyway.
Have you noticed that the control Microsoft has over the world is decreasing NOT increasing. Maybe you didn't notice the Justice Department has been persecuting them for about five years now. That has seriously affected the companies ability to "strong arm" others in the business world. If Microsoft were going to dominate us, the time was the spring of '98 before the anti trust case went to trial. Now they are one powerful company among many - AOLTW, Oracle, Verisign, IBM, etc. |
| #24 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 7/9/2002 5:06:42 PM |
| #41 you hit the nail right on the head. XP is just a newer version of 2K, yes it has some fixes and some extras and all but if you already have 2K there really is no need to upgrade to XP. Unless you just want to or have something that will only work out of XP or 2K. I had some things that just did not work out of 2K and I had some things that did not work in XP, so I decided what I needed and did not need until the non-working software would be fixed. Which it is now and everything works great. The reason I need XP, cause I am an IS Manager, and I need it to test our software and such for our business needs. Because eventually we will get PC's with XP on them. Of course not for a while as my company has a sweet deal with Dell and MS to keep installing older OS's, they just stopped putting NT or 95 on systems at the beginning of this year. Anyway the point, some people need it, or want it, then there are others who realize it is just a slightly tweaked core and offers no real world advantages over 2K, except media player 8. Since XP is NT version 5.1 and 2K is version 5.0, I think most will see it as a minor update, a service pack you need to pay for. |
| #25 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/9/2002 5:56:56 PM |
|
#42 - Of course by this logic Windows 2K is really just Windows NT 4.0 with some fixes and extras. And NT 4.0 was just 3.51 with some fixes and extras. And 3.51 was just 3.1 with some fixes and extras.
So there was really never any reason to upgrade fomr Windows NT 3.1, was there? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 172 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:48:47 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
