Dolores Dewbury <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> What do you think of Windows 2000? Someone told me it is better than 98, with
> much less crashes. Has anyone gone to 2000? I would appreciate hearing from
> you with an opinion.
> thanks,

Windows 2000 is NOT the next evolution of Windows 98, or even ME. It is the
successor to Windows NT, and as such, is quite different.

While the user interface is very similar, the internals are completely
different. It does not use the same kernel as Win 98, As such, you may find far
more limited hardware support. Some Windows programs may also not work properly.
Its requirements are far more than for Windows. I think the minimum RAM is 64MB,
and I wouldn't run it with less than 128. The processor should be at least a
Celeron 400 or better IMHO.

Windows 2000 is a good solution for the extraordinary power user, or in heavy
duty business applications. Another application is for dual (or more)
processors. Windows 98 cannot utilize SMP (Symmetric Multi Processing) systems,
whereas Windows 2000 can.

Windows 2000 is quite stable for me (I have 2 dual processing systems, one with
dual Celeron 433's clocked at 540, and another dual P-III 600 clocked at 700),
but still has its glitches.


--
Russ Poffenberger               Engineering Specialist
Schlumberger Technologies ATE   DOMAIN: [log in to unmask]
150 Baytech Drive
San Jose, Ca. 95134             Voice: (408)586-6718  FAX: (408)586-4675

             Do you want to signoff PCSOFT or just change to
                    Digest mode - visit our web site:
                   http://freepctech.com/pcsoft.shtml