Why is Windows 2000 pro the best OS choice for Internet user

[pr-man 1]

?

 

------------------

Celeron II 566@875 on a Abit BH6 Rev 1.01, 128 Pc100, Matrox G450 32 DH,

SBlive Value, Supra Express 56i ISA, Win98FE

[clutch 1]

It's the best choice for Power Users. At least, that's my opinion.

 

------------------

Regards,

 

clutch

[jdulmage 0]

it handles memory way better and is more stable than 9x

[Vampyr 0]

I suggest whistler.

[jdulmage 0]

uhhhhhhhhh..

what the hell? this guy is agreeing with me? that's a first...all the ranting and raving i've done about whistler and this guy agrees....hmmm....something weird is going on...

[pr-man 1]

win2k just feels kinda bloated I guess since you cant do a custom install

 

------------------

Celeron II 566@875 on a Abit BH6 Rev 1.01, 128 Pc100, Matrox G450 32 DH,

SBlive Value, Supra Express 56i ISA, Win98FE

[Vampyr 0]

I'm not gonna say linux is the best OS for games...mainly for one reason, the lack of games for linux. Right now whistler runs games faster than win2k or winme. Though the only "pro" linux comment i can make is that the games that are available for linux run faster than they do in Windows. I think this may have something to do with the way linux handles memory, or the fast file system?? All i know is that in quake 3 and unreal tournament i can see a noticible speed increase in linux over win.

[Vampyr 0]

jdul... you need someone here pro linux, you know, to add a little variety.

[whoisurdaddy 0]

Well, Win2k is ok with gaming. It still doesn't work with all the games though. I have problems with Mech Warrior 4 and Need for Speed 5 (only on multiplayer). But I don't care about those games because I only play like Counter-Strike, Quake 3, and AOEII. Just like what jdulmage said, it handles memory much better and more stable than Win9x. Not like I have problems with Win9x, but because of those reasons and Win98SE looks dull are my reasons for using Win2k.

 

Vampyr: Whistler version you are using would be beta version right not the real retail one? I thought Whistler retail wouldn't be out until like this summer.

 

[This message has been edited by whoisurdaddy (edited 30 January 2001).]

[Vampyr 0]

Yes, the whistler i saw was beta. And no, i do not currently have it installed. Though once i did for a while but it interfered with my LILO boot configuration so i had to toss it.

[pr-man 1]

well im running win98SE right now and it does look dull but gives me 0 problems so thats why im wondering if I should switch or wait till SP2 comes out.

 

------------------

Celeron II 566@875 on a Abit BH6 Rev 1.01, 128 Pc100, Matrox G450 32 DH,

SBlive Value, Supra Express 56i ISA, Win98FE

[OLEerror 0]

If you are not having any problems, then there isn't much reason to switch. Unless there is some specific feature(s) in Windows 2000 you want to take advantage of. You might as well wait for Whistler to be released if you are just upgrading for the sake of upgrading.

[clutch 1]

Just wait. And while you are waiting, get more memory.

 

 

------------------

Regards,

 

clutch

[jdulmage 0]

well, 128 + is good enough. 128 works for me, I have 256 now, only cause it was given to me

[pr-man 1]

hehe well jdulmage you can give me some , I need about 64 megs

 

------------------

Celeron II 566@875 on a Abit BH6 Rev 1.01, 128 Pc100, Matrox G450 32 DH,

SBlive Value, Supra Express 56i ISA, Win98FE

[Vampyr 0]

384 is better... pretty much everything runs from ram... no swap file usage

[jdulmage 0]

there are games that require a swap file no matter what, you should never 0 the swap file or do anything like that.

[Vampyr 0]

I know that. Your swap file "should" be 2xyour ram.

[clutch 1]

Not me. I wouldn't make a swap file larger than 350MB unless there was a specialized need (database, SMS, some 3D app usage, etc). No reason for it with gaming and most applications. Hell, on a default Win2K install with 384MB RAM, I think the swap file goes 576-1184 (or something like that). With several IE sessions and Outlook 2K going, your mem usage wont even register on the bar graph of Task Manager. I try to set my total system memory to 25% more than my max memory usage. I think that I have peaked a workstation to 325MB using Solidworks 2000 (3D modeling app), Outlook 2000, Excel 2000, Word 2000, 3 Windows Explorer sessions, and a couple of IE sessions.

 

------------------

Regards,

 

clutch

[Marchuz^ 0]

My swap file is 512Mb. I have 256Mb RAM and i have peaked 516Mb mem usage. I was running Photoshop, 5 Internet Explorer sessions, one Windows Explorer session, Outlook 2000, CMD, ACDSee 32 and 3D Studio MAX rendering a scene...

 

Well, it didn't go too fast if I say so, but it was still very usable...

 

------------------

Marchuz^

UIN: 42900735

marcus@fofso.net

[Guest]

Ahh, the good ole swap file discussion arises again! I dont know if I'm right or wrong, but this is how I have my swap configured.

 

I have 256megs of ram, and my swap file is set at 100megs, 50 one drive, 50 on the other.

 

Aside from an error i get ONCE, telling me that it's not big enough and that Windows will increase the size as needed, my computer runs so incredibly fast, since the system is forced to use RAM.

 

My start menu doesnt lag anymore (and yes i do have the Max Cached Icons setting in there), window pop up and disappear with speed and silkiness that wouldnt happen when things were constantly being paged.

 

Anyways.... just my 2 cents worth.

 

------------------

**********************************************

---Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.---

**********************************************

Pentium II 450@504 4.5X112

256MB PC100 SDRAM

Diamond Viper V770 Ultra

Sound Blaster Live! Value

Seagate 13.6 Gig 7200RPM ATA/66

Western Digital 13.4 Gig 7200RPM ATA/66

Quantum 8.3 Gig

36X Acer CD Rom

Viewsonic PS790 19" Sweet as Heck Monitor

3Com NIC

Lexmark 5700 Printer

http://sandoval.dynip.com

**********************************************

[clutch 1]

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Marchuz^:
My swap file is 512Mb. I have 256Mb RAM and i have peaked 516Mb mem usage. I was running Photoshop, 5 Internet Explorer sessions, one Windows Explorer session, Outlook 2000, CMD, ACDSee 32 and 3D Studio MAX rendering a scene...

Well, it didn't go too fast if I say so, but it was still very usable...

</font>

Sounds like your swap file may be perfect for you. Though might I suggest another 256MB of RAM...



Sandoval,

You have a similar setup to a lower demand workstation that I have, however I don't split the swap file in that fashion.

------------------
Regards,

clutch

[Guest]

Yeah, it really runs noticeably faster.

 

And after I got that error message once, it doesnt bug me anymore. I wish there was a way to edit the registry or something to tell Windows how to use the Pagefile.

 

Although I thought it was a terrible idea to begin with, the idea of a Pagefile being located on a RAMdrive has started to grow on me. PROVIDED THERE IS TONS OF RAM TO SPARE. I argued before that having a ramdrive for a swapfile is pointless, and defeats the purpose since it hogs up memory.

 

But, since Windows always uses the PageFile regardless of how much RAM you have, perhaps there is some sense to having a PageFile on a RAM drive. Of course, you would need to have about 800megs of ram to make this truly feasible.

 

Anyways... I dont have enough RAM to try this method yet... but someday I just might. Anybody have a RAMdrive set up with a pagefile on there? How does it run? Give us your system specs when you reply too. I am interested to hear!!

 

------------------

**********************************************

---Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.---

**********************************************

Pentium II 450@504 4.5X112

256MB PC100 SDRAM

Diamond Viper V770 Ultra

Sound Blaster Live! Value

Seagate 13.6 Gig 7200RPM ATA/66

Western Digital 13.4 Gig 7200RPM ATA/66

Quantum 8.3 Gig

36X Acer CD Rom

Viewsonic PS790 19" Sweet as Heck Monitor

3Com NIC

Lexmark 5700 Printer

http://sandoval.dynip.com

**********************************************

[Four and Twenty 0]

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sandoval:
Max Cached Icons setting in there</font>

Where do I find such a setting?

How do i make a ram drive for my pagefile? I want to do this


------------------
My System
Dell Demension XPS T500
Triple Boot
Windows 2000 Pro 2195
Windows Whistler Pro 2296
Windows Millennium Final Retail
PIII @ 500 Mhz (with after market heatsink and dual fan)
512 Megs Ram
Guillemot Maxi Gammer Cougar (TNT2 M64 w/ 32 Megs of RAM)
Matrox Millennium PCI (w/ 4 Megs of RAM for second monitor)
3Com Etherlink XL 10/100 Ethernet Card
Abit Hot Rod Pro ATA-100 RAID Controler
2 x 12.6 Gig Maxtor Hard Disks RAID 0 (for system)
1 76.3 Gig Maxtor Hard Disk (for storage)
40X LG CD Rom Drive
100 Mb Iomega Internal Zip Drive
MS Explorer Mouse
MS Natural Keyboard Pro
And not a single peice of software that I actually own

[Guest]

Go into regedt32

 

hkey local machine/software/microsoft/windows/explorer

 

then add a new value " Max Cached Icons "

and set it to 8000

 

 

AS far as the RAMdrive goes... I'm not sure cuz I havn't done it yet. I think you have to use 3rd party software. .. Anybody?