From: Pat Presidente (pat.presidente_at_sd72.bc.ca)
Date: Sat Jun 15 2002 - 14:20:40 EDT
I totally agree with Andre'
I run a dual boot W2K / Xp system on a 570E, but prefer W2K overall for
stability and performance.
ME is/was a joke foisted on the public by Bill to test the transition
from 98 and NT to Xp. ME defintiely had the highest price Bill ever
charged for a beta OS.
Pat
======================================================================
Pat Presidente School District 72 (Campbell River)
District Technology Resource Teacher 425 Pinecrest Road
Email: pat.presidente_at_sd72.bc.ca Campbell River, BC V9W 3P2
Ph.(250) 830-2353 Fx.(250) 830-2329 Your door to the future
======================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: STeve Andre' [mailto:andres_at_msu.edu]
Sent: June 15, 2002 10:36 AM
To: thinkpad_at_cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: [560x] Running Win2k on it...
Indeed. Win2K is the only MS op system I actually kind of like. It's
far more stable than anything else they've done, including XP. I have
win2k machines with 6 weeks of uptime on them. They're so stable that
things like memory leaks in MS Word start showing up, something I'd
heard of but had never seen before. My users who are on Win2k generally
don't need
much help any more, at least not with bizarre crashes, etc.
Win2k is MS's magnum opus.
--STeve Andre'
On Saturday 15 June 2002 13:24, rclay_at_uab.edu wrote:
> W2K: not much support for multimedia? Can't be recovered if it
> crashes? You sir, are flaunting your ignorance to the entire
> list......
>
> Granted on a 233mhz machine with 96mb of ram, w2k might be a bit
> sluggish... Otherwise it is a VASTLY superior OS to winME.
>
> Rob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve C. [mailto:stevec50_at_yahoo.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2002 11:54 AM
> To: pioroman_at_gmx.net
> Cc: thinkpad_at_cs.utk.edu
> Subject: Re: [560x] Running Win2k on it...
>
>
> Yeah, it will be a lot slower. Why would you want an
> ancient OS like that? I wouldn't install W2K on
> anything since it's over 2 years old now and was just
> a facelift for NT which is 7 or 8 years old.
> It has lots of problems like not much support for
> multimedia, can't be recovered if it crashes, etc.
> Use Windows ME and it should be a lot better. Your
> Win98 programs will still run, most drivers will work,
> etc.
>
> --- "pioroman_at_gmx.net" <pioroman_at_gmx.net> wrote:
> > I have an old laptop running win98 on a 560x with
> > 96Mb of ram... I believe
> > it's a P233Mhz... is anyone using Win2K on it ? I am thinking of
> > upgrading to Win2K but I am afraid that it will be slower than
> > Win98... given the low
> > spec of the 560x..
> >
> > Has anybody else tried this ?
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:58:59 EST