What were you running before Win2K?

[reversing_drive 0]

Personally, Windows 98se.

NT4 just lacked a few things, USB support, Games support, powers savings support.

Was glad to leave the flakey 9X kernel to more robust NT kernel, with Windows9X harware & software support

[Ralf Hutter 0]

I was running Win98lite. I tried for a long time to make Win98 stable. It really helped to get rid of the integrated IE crap in the OS, but Win2000 kicks butt in every way.

 

The Win2000 that I use now has also had IE removed by a little app called "IEradicator". Saves me 55+ megs of disk space and almost 10 megs of RAM (without the stupid browser even running!?!?).

 

I use Opera as my browser. Best, fastest browser I've ever used, backed up with the best OS.

[FatFish 0]

how come WinME is not on the list?

[clutch 1]

Dual boot between Win98SE (for gaming only) and WinNT4 (for everything else).

[Brian Frank 0]

I ran 98se, then thought that ME would be better, which wasn't true. Got fed up with it after a month and jumped to Win2k after I saw that the programs and games I mostly ran worked in 2k. I don't feel that the loss of my DOS games was that bad. I had two PCs at the time and my test PC had 2k on it and seemed to work well. Been using 2k for well over a year now, and probably will for a while. XP doesn't offer me anything I want or need, and other OS's are too time consuming to fiddle with right now. I'd like to get around to messing with the copy of FreeBSD I d/l, but that's not likely to happen until Christmas break at the earliest. Win2k works very well for me, and since I've gotten my tweaks sorted out, I've not been screwing the system up enough to demand a reinstall for a long time. My dad has reinstalled once since he went to 2k, and he probably didn't need to it---too bad he found the fix later on.

[CrazyKillerMan 0]

Quote:

Dual boot between Win98SE (for gaming only) and WinNT4 (for everything else).

Ouch...I've found NT to be a pretty horrible platform for developing. I had to use NT 4.0 over the summer, and it was a bad deal (well not so much bad, but for a lazy programmer/engineer it was ).

That said:
Win98 is probably worse for developing. I seriously dont know what I would do without 2k. I'd probably be down hte linux road already, to which I am just starting.

Just my 2 cents.

[clutch 1]

NT4 is much better than Win9X for network administration and the larger programs (Photoshop, Visual Interdev, Solidworks, etc) that I used in development and graphics work. Plus, it had much better memory management for boxes that I used (and still use on our network) when they went over 128MB RAM. But, NT4 is an "accuired taste" for most people.

[DosFreak 2]

98/NT4

 

NT4 for net use.

[Down8 0]

I am the one Win95 vote. Technically, I ran it before Win2K, b/c a friend gave me an old 486DX to use while I was building my first computer that was solely mine. This computer has only had Win2K on it [except for a run-in with Mandrake one weekend]. Before I built my own machine, the last computer my family had ran Win3.1, the one before it was DOS [~1988].

 

So, I could say I have never run anything before Win2K. Lucky for me there is no need to switch.

 

-bZj

[pmistry 0]

I was running Windows 95 on my old Pentium 166, I tried running Windows 98 with it but it was a tad slow, even with 32 megs of RAM. I ran NT4 for a while with it as well, but no good games compatibility especially DOS killed it for me, 95 was stable enough. After installing so many applications 98 would just get slower over time on the 166. Now with my Athlon I run Windows 2000 with 98 first edition dual boot, 98 is the test OS for programs I am uncertain of, as well as some games that give Win2k a fit.

[FrogMaster 0]

Win98 for playing around, NT4 for professional activities.

I have still to know what a bsod is under nt4, except for a very specific hardware config.

Well, hardware support is a little bit limited in NT4.

Win98 is (was) more fun in a way.

I agree with above statement when it comes to serious networking.

Win98 is a toy.

NT4 was a man's OS.

W2K is a breeze.

Hehhe, my 0.000000002 cents

No, really, pro networking environment was the realm of NT4.

But now, W2K just smokes any other os in this respect.

[PsychoSword 0]

I was running 95 and then ME, finally I saw the light.

[club_ice 0]

I thought I would just throw a vote in for the Mac, but I would never use Linux, Mac maybe when hell freezes over.

[reversing_drive 0]

I found that post quit amussing,

 

NT3.x is the only MS OS i have never used (Apart from XP - I'm poor:p )

 

I am still a huge fan of NT4, I have it installed on my laptop, Sharp 586, 16mb ram. A little slow given the 16mb of Ram, though stable as hell. (Without a CD drive it is hell reinstalling windows, never ever want to have to do it agin on that machine)

 

Plus the laptop has ibuilt hibernation type powersaving in the BIOS, i shut the lid and it suspends everything from the memory to some reserved disk space then resumes where i was next time i start the laptop (No need to reboot, and yes the laptop is completley powered off:D )

 

My 2 cents...

[bobbinbrisco 0]

I used win98se before accidentally moving onto win2k. When running it i thought it was the worst operating system i have ever used, being frustrated with having to download drivers for nearly every device i was using.

 

After a while i have grown to truly appreciate the power and stability of this operating system. i will keep using win2k for some time to come.