🚀 go-pugleaf

Johnny <ch9...@central.ntua.gr> wrote in message
news:8c8n4n$20gg$1@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> Hi,
>
> I currently have Windows 98 and play a lot of games. I have a Voodoo3 with a
> SB Live card. Should I upgrade to Win2000 or will I find a lot of
> compatibility problems?
> What are the pros/cons of such a move?
>
> thanks
> Yannis
> sorry for the crossposting. I am just trying to collect as many opinions as
> I can...
>


If you have a lot of games, you would be making a mistake going for Windows
2000.  It is meant as an upgrade to Windows NT and I don't ever recall a lot of
gamers as being devoted to Windows NT.  I suggest you wait until Windows Me
comes out later this year.  That's definitely what I'll be doing because I see
no reason to change from my current Windows 98 first edition until that time.
The reasoning being that all of my games run great, so why would I want to rock
the boat and risk a lot of compatibility problems just to get the newest
version of Windows? (which, to me, "proves" nothing).


~NightSky 421~

No no no.  If you are primarily a gamer, you want Win98.  Win2000 is for
business.  Security etc.  It will not improve your gaming, just make it more
difficult to install and run, as well as being behind the curve on DirectX
and hardware compatibility a bit.
--
Jim

Johnny <ch9...@central.ntua.gr> wrote in message
news:8c8n4n$20gg$1@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> Hi,
>
> I currently have Windows 98 and play a lot of games. I have a Voodoo3 with
a
> SB Live card. Should I upgrade to Win2000 or will I find a lot of
> compatibility problems?
> What are the pros/cons of such a move?
>
> thanks
> Yannis
> sorry for the crossposting. I am just trying to collect as many opinions
as
> I can...
>
>

"Thundercok" <smo...@americanisp.com> writes:

>No no no.  If you are primarily a gamer, you want Win98.  Win2000 is for
>business . . .

I must respectfully disagree.  During most of W2Ks development cycle MS
said that NT5 was to be the general replacement for both NT4 and the
windows line.  This statement was changed only near the end, when the
feature set was relatively stable.  From the start, NT5/W2K was intended
as a *general* platform.

IMHO, MicroSoft is now advertising as separate and special so as not to
kill the W98 sales and to avoid the issues of forcing the entire product
and user base to port to W2K.  As usual, they bit off more than they could
chew and are now pretending they never said the things they once said.
In this they're little different from any other large s/w company.   But
IMHO (and in my limited experience; not a big-time gamer) W2K works fine
as a gaming platform - for the games that I own happen to own and have
tried under it.

Older voodoo (v2) support is terrible, but IMHO this is a problem with
3dfx, not W2K or MS.  My G200 card works great.

I get the feeling that Microsoft changed Win2000 from a general platform
to a business platform at the last minute because they had MAJOR
problems that were unlikely to be resolved within the perceived release
date of the product.
THAT is way they are now waiting for the next generation of O/S, so that
they can have more time. The impression I got was they were having major
problems with device drivers. Obviously this area needs to be as good as
Win98 to allow games to play games on a variety of systems.
-- 
Rob 'FlashPan' Pollard
53rd VFS Warhammers
20th TFW

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action Johnny <ch9...@central.ntua.gr> wrote:
: Hi,

: I currently have Windows 98 and play a lot of games. I have a Voodoo3 with a
: SB Live card. Should I upgrade to Win2000 or will I find a lot of
: compatibility problems?
: What are the pros/cons of such a move?

: thanks
: Yannis
: sorry for the crossposting. I am just trying to collect as many opinions as
: I can...

Well, if .gr is greece, it appears that a ban of win2000 will be enforced in Europe
as of Mon 3. April and to July 1.  You may be able to get hold of it for a few days
after apr 3rd but probably not for long.  I expect some companies panicing and 
bying what's left.

Also, as mentioned in another post.  Win2000 is not the next version of win95/98,
but rather the next version of Win NT (NT 5.0).  There will be a new version for
win95/98 later.  Don't know when.  Personally, Win95 works great for me, and I
never even considered upgrading to win98, and win2000 is definitely out of the
question due to horrible dos emulation (I suppose there is something about 
growing up with DOS 5 and no Win 3.0)

On 3 Apr 2000 04:35:29 +0200, Morten Wennevik <mp...@alfred.uib.no>
wrote:

>Well, if .gr is greece, it appears that a ban of win2000 will be enforced in Europe
>as of Mon 3. April and to July 1.  You may be able to get hold of it for a few days
>after apr 3rd but probably not for long.  I expect some companies panicing and 
>bying what's left.

Isn't this post two days late? :-)
-- 
Chris Nahr (christoph.nahr@uumail.xxde, remove xx to reply by e-mail)
Please reply either on Usenet or by e-mail but not both!

Not particularly accurate.

Windows 2000 is an evolution of the Windows NT kernel, which is the reason
that  Microsoft are positioning it to take over NT's role. The move allows
them to sell 2000 for a premium, and later release "millennium" which they
can sell to the end user, allowing them to make more money.

Windows 2000 is a step up from Win98 in overall design, not only is it a
true 32 bit OS, it does not have a legacy kernel, as well as the windowing
system being integrated into the kernel, which means 2 OS calls for every
window request as opposed to 4, and the calls in kernel mode, rather than
user, read 6ns as opposed to 12ms, a factor of 2 million. Quite a bit
faster. Win 2000 also finally offers memory protection, so like NT it is
virtually uncrashable, as opposed to 95/98 whose lack of memory protection
allowed any process to overwrite kernel memory and crash the machine, or at
the very least overwrite memory or use a resource that was not allocated to
it and terminate itself or the process whose resource it had grabbed. To
quote Ken Macgregor, head of The University of Cape Town Computer Science
Department and an expert is OS design, "Windows 95/98? That's not an OS,
that's a pile of shit!"

If I sound horribly pro microsoft and win2000, it's simply 2000 is one of
the few decent pieces of software released by Microsoft, even if it is
HORRIBLY overpriced. Of course you could always use Linux, which has always
had all these features anyway, but then you'd have no software support. You
just can't win ;).

Oh BTW, as far as Win2000 having major problems, the only real problem it
had was when they added a new TCP/IP stack and promptly broke TCP/IP with
half the hardware out there, AFAIK this was fixed with service pack 1
(released on the same day as 2000 itself interestingly enough ;))


cheers,
Sean Cameron

ps. sorry about the length of this post, it's hard to discuss OS design and
be succinct.

Rob Pollard wrote:

> I get the feeling that Microsoft changed Win2000 from a general platform
> to a business platform at the last minute because they had MAJOR
> problems that were unlikely to be resolved within the perceived release
> date of the product.
> THAT is way they are now waiting for the next generation of O/S, so that
> they can have more time. The impression I got was they were having major
> problems with device drivers. Obviously this area needs to be as good as
> Win98 to allow games to play games on a variety of systems.
> --
> Rob 'FlashPan' Pollard
> 53rd VFS Warhammers
> 20th TFW