Author Topic: Win2k - a few questions. (Read 1309 times)

Animal · « **on:** June 18, 2001, 04:55:00 PM »

Ok, I ordered a new IBM 40gb Deskstar 60GXP ATA/100 7200 RPM.

Since I'm gonna format, I decided I'd just get rid of the IMO obsolete Win9x kernel. Too many stability problems, to many crashes, etc.

Ive had Win2k before, back when it was first out. I guess it has progressed much more for now, back then using a SB Live! with it was a squeak, and some games had trouble.
I used to love the OS, but I decided to go back to 98 for a few problems.

But now, I am thinking of getting rid of 9x completly and making my new hard disk a NTFS partition.

Thanks for any info.

edit:I would also love any Win2k sites with information and tips for Win2k newbies, and hardware and software compatibility lists? I had one but I dont remember it :-/

Animal[/i]

Ps. once again, should I wait for Windows XP, or will Win2k be good forever?

---my system---
AMD Duron(tm) Processor 1Ghz
256mb PC133 CAS3 SDRAM
ASUS A7V @ 100MHz FSB
Geforce 2 GTS 32mb
Sound Blaster Live! Value

[ 06-18-2001: Message edited by: Animal ]

bloom25 · « **Reply #1 on:** June 18, 2001, 05:58:00 PM »

Win2k is almost as fast as win98 in AH. (I'm getting 60 - 75 fps just about all the time in win2k.) I'd say that just about everything now runs ok under win2k. Unfortunately I don't know about the saitek stick though. (Works fine with my logitech and M$ FF2 sticks.)

I'd take a look at www.ntcompatible.com for some win2k links and info.

Animal · « **Reply #2 on:** June 18, 2001, 08:57:00 PM »

Right, thanks.

Are the saitek problems directly related to AH, or is it a driver problem with Win2k?

I saw in SaitekHelp.com that they are planning on releasing SGE software for Win2k and new drivers. Lets hope soon.

Also, I have 256mb PC133 ram, does Win2k benefit noticeably from going up to 512mb?

I know Win2k manages ram much better..

DB603 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 19, 2001, 02:51:00 AM »

S!

I have 512Mb RAM under Win2K and no noticeable improvement in performance.It is true it manages mem and swap better.
I also second Bloom25's statement of almost all games/applications running as fast as in Win9x/ME.No big difference.Maybe less FPS changes in AH under W2K than Win9X IMO.
About SBLive!.There's a new set of drivers for it.Also if Ya are using VIA chipset,there's the new 4in1 fixing the SBLive! bug.

Sancho · « **Reply #4 on:** June 20, 2001, 12:23:00 AM »

I don't know about the X36, but my Saitek Cyborg USB works fine with Win2k. You just plug it in and works--no drivers needed. SGE software may or may not work--it didn't work for me when I tried it (v 3.0 I think) a few months ago. This doesn't matter to me though since I don't rely on complex stick mapping beyond what Aces High provides.

bloom25 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 20, 2001, 03:59:00 AM »

Windows 2000 will actually make proper use of 512 MB of RAM. You are unlikely to see a large fps boost in AH though. (I'm running 384 MB of ram, and it is quite a bit faster than 128 MB overall. AH by itself is not much better. )

Lephturn · « **Reply #6 on:** June 20, 2001, 12:23:00 PM »

Win2k rocks.

Get it, don't wait for XP.

The only concern is the control setup and getting it working, specifically the one you have. Almost all other issues have been worked out now by SP2. Win2k is in great shape, and you'll likely have to wait for a couple of service packs before XP is as stable and high performance.

MrRiplEy · « **Reply #7 on:** June 24, 2001, 01:12:00 AM »

A good guideline to follow is:

Never try out anything new Microsoft offers.

Doing so only makes you lose sleep over system problems.

That being said, Windows2000 SP2 seems like a huge stability improvement over W98 and even though it boots up much slower, overall performance seems to be on par or even exceed the 98 platform.

I deleted my 98 partition yesterday - had no need for it anymore.

bigUC · « **Reply #8 on:** June 27, 2001, 09:24:00 AM »

imo its better to use FAT32 instead of NTFS - FAT32 is faster, and u can always install win98/me on the box later on...
--

Lephturn · « **Reply #9 on:** June 27, 2001, 03:14:00 PM »

GAk. FAT is one crappy assed, lame old file system.

NTFS. Don't install W2K without it. It's a REAL file system. Most important is the extra security allowed with NTFS.

Yuck. Fat32=bad. Fat32 might be faster... it's certainly "lighter", but it's not as secure or reliable as NTFS. Also NTFS does not scale the clusters up to the volume size like FAT32 does, so no worries with monster drives. NTFS is also much more flexible. I'd make one partition for boot and the OS, and a second for "data". Later, if you add another drive, with NTFS you can just "extend" the data partition over the new drive. Sweet huh? Can't do that with FAT. BTW be sure to make the system/boot partition NTFS as well for security reasons.

bloom25 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 28, 2001, 01:19:00 AM »

You are right Leph, but you forgot one HUGE benefit of fat32. If you have a dual boot system you can share files between the OSs. Win98 cannot read NTFS, but it can read fat32.

If you aren't planning on a dual boot system (meaning having 2 OS at the same time), then go NTFS.

Win2k SP2 has not crashed on me once, and has never even generated an error. SP1 used to randomly (very rarely) have explorer crash on startup, but that didn't effect anything. SP2 also included the compatiblity utility, so small programs that won't run in 2k *may* be able to run under compatibility mode.

My system is:

Win2k SP2 + all security hotfixes + dx8a
Tbird 700 @ 927
Asus A7v (bios 1.06) (Via 4.29 drivers + 4.05c AGP driver)
384 MB pc 133 cas 2 ram
IBM 75GXP 45 GB drive
Asus V7700 Deluxe (GF 2 GTS) using 12.41 drivers
SB Live Value
Realtek 8029 based NIC card
Lucent Win Modem (<- won't last much longer, buggy in win2k, but I've got it working for now)
HP 8210i CD burner (<- works great under 2k, no drivers needed)
Toshiba 32X Cd drive
M$ Sidewinder FF2
Logitech Wingman Extreme Digital 3d

Tyro48 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 28, 2001, 02:44:00 AM »

OK I'm not as savvy on OS as some of you are so questions come to mind, whats win2k ( get that one) SP2 ( I dont get ) and what is NTFS file sys never heard of that one?

Lephturn · « **Reply #12 on:** June 28, 2001, 02:28:00 PM »

Windows 2000
SP2 = Service Pack 2

NTFS = Windows NT File System

Service pack 2 for Win2k is very stable. It works very well for me as both a server and a workstation.

Animal · « **Reply #13 on:** June 29, 2001, 03:11:00 PM »

I'll guess I'll go with W2K SP2 then.

But I have to wait till my joystick works perfectly with it tho.

bloom25 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 29, 2001, 07:18:00 PM »

For those of you reading this I thought I'd clarify one thing: Windows 2000 (i.e. win2k, 2k) IS NOT the same as windows ME. Windows ME is like Windows 2000 on crack.

It looks like Windows 2000, but is about as stable as a 20 ft sailboat in a hurricane...

The SP2 you keep seeing is refering to Service Pack 2. Microsoft regualarly releases major upgrades to the NT based OSs. (Windows NT 4 is now up to SP 6, and a 7th is possible.)

To sum it all up:

Windows 2000 with SP 2 = awesome OS

Windows ME = junk

(You would not believe how many people get Windows 2000 and Windows ME confused.)