I have been running win2000 on my laptop for several months now. I used
both the beta, and the final release. When I had win98 on it, I had many
performance issues and typical lock ups.
With win2000, I have yet to experience a single lock up or shut down issue.
I have actually seen a 15% speed increase. I was so distraught with
Windows98 that I actually converted to Linux, so I at least had a stable
platform if I wanted to be sure of no crashes.
Windows 2000 actually wooed me back to the world of Gates, and I am pleased.
Although I do still have my Linux partition. My education pricing was only
$125 for the upgrade, it will upgrade wiindows95/98/nt.
My other associates also have upgraded, and are fairly happy too. In all our
cases, we started with a clean install, and reloaded our programs (our
preferred method).
Dan
>
> On 14 Mar 00, at 6:51, Peter Shkabara wrote:
>
> > I recently installed Windows 2000 on my system
>
> > finding that some
> > operations are extremely slow.
> > When the disk access was already cached, repeating the unzip only took 2
> > seconds. Has anyone else run into this?
>
> I've run into it with MSIE on W2k Advanced Server -- clean install on a
> dedicated partition. Page loads seemingly take forever, if they
> complete at all. I also have three Seagate Barracudas, but I
> doubt if they
> are the problem.
>
> > There is a lot to like in Win2k, but for now it seems that I need to do
> > productive work in NT4.
>
> That's certainly the same decision I've come to. I really think most
> people are not going to find a reason for W2k, especially at the price,
> and with the new bugs it will certainly introduce, and the requirement for
> upgrading many expensive software packages -- like BackupExec, for
> example. Now enterprises might feel differently. But they want stability
> too, and are unlikely to switch in any large number before at least SP-1.
>
> Yuki
Do you want to signoff PCSOFT or just change to
Digest mode - visit our web site:
http://nospin.com/pc/pcsoft.html
|
