Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Tech Talk
Reload this Page >

Win2K vs. Win ME? Which is better?

Tech Talk Discuss PC Hardware, Software, Internet and Other Technology

Win2K vs. Win ME? Which is better?

Old 01-03-01, 12:13 AM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Aurora, IL
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am a total moron when it somes to this... I know next to nothing... just to set the record straight...

I am sick and tired of Win98 crashing all the time... I am going to upgrade... But I don't know where to go... Win2K or WinME...

So, if anyone could break the differences down into layman terms...

I don't know if my computing habits make a difference, but if they do, fire some questions at me and i will answer them as best I can!
Old 01-03-01, 02:20 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Win2k is Microsoft's first approach at a real operating system.

95/98/ME are a sorry a$$ joke played on Joe Six Pack

Check your hardware and see if it is win2k compliant. If it is, run win2K. Make sure you have at least 256MB of ram and tons of hard drive space.

If you are a serious gammer, then you may need ME. ME is a better gaming OS, but some of the more popular FPS games work just fine on win2k.
Old 01-03-01, 05:10 AM
  #3  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Aurora, IL
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I do VERY little gaming... as in I have one game... and i play once a month or so...

Most (all) of my time is dealing with surfing and downloading MP3's...

I also burn a TON of CD's, I am big into that...

Old 01-03-01, 05:45 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia (The other side of the planet).
Posts: 11,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Our whole work tried unsuccessfully to use ME and are now all using Win2k without dramas so far.

------------------
Regards...
Drinker of much Pepsi, trainer of Dingo's and Jack's Aussie Moonshine importer...
John 3:16
Old 01-03-01, 08:07 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
twikoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Right Behind You!!!
Posts: 79,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
win me may be the biggest piece of garbage I have ever seen on a computer
2000 is pretty nice
Old 01-03-01, 09:35 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 4,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i would take 98 over me any day.
But if i had the hardware i would run 2K. Forget the latest prank played on the public by microsqaush.
Old 01-03-01, 01:12 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Aurora, IL
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As for checking my hardware... What am i checking for? Am I just making sure that the burner, zip, and network cards will work? Or is it lots more complicated than that?

What should I be looking for in making the switch... I would (obviuosly) be interested in the win2k switch... What is my next step in checking for compatibility?
Old 01-03-01, 01:22 PM
  #8  
Mod Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Gone to the islands - 'til we meet again.
Posts: 19,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by chrisfelice:
As for checking my hardware... What am i checking for? Am I just making sure that the burner, zip, and network cards will work? Or is it lots more complicated than that?

What should I be looking for in making the switch... I would (obviuosly) be interested in the win2k switch... What is my next step in checking for compatibility?
<HR>


Go to the MS site, select Products/Windows Family and then Windows 2000. There should be a link somewhere there about upgrading. After selecting that link you should be able to find a download which checks for both hardward and software compatibility. There is also an area to look for specific hardware or software on the compatibility list.

------------------
D.
Old 01-03-01, 01:30 PM
  #9  
Mod Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Vermont
Posts: 3,883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by chrisfelice:
As for checking my hardware... What am i checking for? Am I just making sure that the burner, zip, and network cards will work? Or is it lots more complicated than that?

What should I be looking for in making the switch... I would (obviuosly) be interested in the win2k switch... What is my next step in checking for compatibility?
<HR>


This site should help you with checking compatibillity.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000...at/default.asp


However, don't rely on it completely. I recently upgraded and the only set of drivers available for my SCSI card (they come with Win2K) provides less than complete compatibility.


------------------
DVD-ROM & Computer Forum Moderator - [email protected]
DVD-ROM FAQ - Jason's Digital Domain - AIM: northrupjason
Old 01-03-01, 05:16 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: STOCKHOLM, Sweden
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What about NT 4.0? I have it at work and love the stability compared to win 98. My computer is to old for Win 2k I guess (256 MB ram is a lot!).
Old 01-03-01, 05:42 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by craig_karriarist:
What about NT 4.0? I have it at work and love the stability compared to win 98. My computer is to old for Win 2k I guess (256 MB ram is a lot!).
<HR>


NT 4.0 is good, but can be a little qwerky. NT 4 is happy with 128mb of ram.

Old 01-03-01, 05:53 PM
  #12  
Mod Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Vermont
Posts: 3,883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by 4KRG:
NT 4.0 is good, but can be a little qwerky. NT 4 is happy with 128mb of ram.

<HR>


I'm running 2000 on 128MB and seems happy for the most part (see my SCSI thread about possible memory upgrade).

------------------
DVD-ROM & Computer Forum Moderator - [email protected]
DVD-ROM FAQ - Jason's Digital Domain - AIM: northrupjason
Old 01-03-01, 06:37 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jason Northrup:
I'm running 2000 on 128MB and seems happy for the most part (see my SCSI thread about possible memory upgrade).

<HR>



ACK! I didn't like it at 128, but I am a poweruser.

I have about 150mb in use at any one given time 192mb is the min. I would ever run win2k on, the kernel is just too damn big (about 20mb more required to run than NT 4) Right now I have 135mb in use and I am hardly doing anything (getting ready to go home), with 128 that would put me to swap OFTEN!!

If you can get to 512mb cheaply I have a nice registry edit that removes 2000's ability to send the OS to swap, really nice. But it is not worth spending the bucks on for most people.
Old 01-03-01, 08:49 PM
  #14  
Mod Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Vermont
Posts: 3,883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by 4KRG:

If you can get to 512mb cheaply I have a nice registry edit that removes 2000's ability to send the OS to swap, really nice. But it is not worth spending the bucks on for most people.
<HR>



I would love to upgrade to 512, but since I don't even feel that I should spend the $140 on the a SCSI/RAM upgrade but am probably doing it anyway, 512 is out of the question.


------------------
DVD-ROM & Computer Forum Moderator - [email protected]
DVD-ROM FAQ - Jason's Digital Domain - AIM: northrupjason
Old 01-03-01, 09:03 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk God
 
twikoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Right Behind You!!!
Posts: 79,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
if you dont have a ton of memory (but do have plenty of extra harddrive space).. just go ahead and make a massive page file.. win2k can take advantage of a huge page file to make up for the lack of ram
Old 01-03-01, 09:36 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by twikoff:
if you dont have a ton of memory (but do have plenty of extra harddrive space).. just go ahead and make a massive page file.. win2k can take advantage of a huge page file to make up for the lack of ram
<HR>



and how exactly does a large page file on a slow arse hard drive help anyone from a performance standpoint????

Jason,

The benefits of 512 vs price were out of the question for me too, hence no reg edit on my machine. 256 is more than enough for MOST users on win2K. 128 is weak, if I were you I would go 256, the price is right.
Old 01-03-01, 09:59 PM
  #17  
Mod Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Central Vermont
Posts: 3,883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by 4KRG:

and how exactly does a large page file on a slow arse hard drive help anyone from a performance standpoint????
<HR>


Yeah, when you do a lot of multimedia stuff, that could become unacceptable. That's why I'd love 512MB.

------------------
DVD-ROM & Computer Forum Moderator - [email protected]
DVD-ROM FAQ - Jason's Digital Domain - AIM: northrupjason
Old 01-04-01, 12:51 AM
  #18  
Needs to provide a working email
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Formerly known as Darrin Garrison
Posts: 3,321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jason Northrup:
I'm running 2000 on 128MB and seems happy for the most part (see my SCSI thread about possible memory upgrade).

<HR>


I'm running Win2000 on 128 MB and I get obviously better performance than in WinME on the same system with the same memory. I still have to dual boot between the OSes, though, because there are some things I can do in 2K that I can't do in ME and things I can do in ME that I can't do in 2K.
Old 01-04-01, 09:53 AM
  #19  
Mod Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Gone to the islands - 'til we meet again.
Posts: 19,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jason Northrup:
I'm running 2000 on 128MB and seems happy for the most part (see my SCSI thread about possible memory upgrade).
<HR>


Most of the machines we have here are Dell PII/PIIIs with 128MB and Windows 2000. We don't have any problems running at this level and most users have found it to be as fast or faster than NT on the same machine. The only machines that really need an upgrade are a couple of the lowend servers running with 196MB (supposed to be replaced with all new boxes this spring). The 196MB really wasn't enough for these particualr boxes under NT either, but we even have some of the other servers running fine at 128MB-196MB.

------------------
D.

[This message has been edited by Dead (edited January 04, 2001).]
Old 01-04-01, 01:46 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i have 9 Win2k servers in my office. They giving me lota problems.

Well..perhaps we have to wait for SP6 *wink* (just like Nt4)

------------------
my password is *%$encrypted#*^*
Old 01-04-01, 01:55 PM
  #21  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Aurora, IL
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Okay okay, so the concensus is Win2k...

I currently have 64MB of Ram... I am getting the idea that that is not enough... Would an upgrade to 192MB be a good idea? Would 64 not run at all, or just very inefficiently?
Old 01-04-01, 02:24 PM
  #22  
Mod Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Gone to the islands - 'til we meet again.
Posts: 19,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by chrisfelice:
Okay okay, so the concensus is Win2k...

I currently have 64MB of Ram... I am getting the idea that that is not enough... Would an upgrade to 192MB be a good idea? Would 64 not run at all, or just very inefficiently?
<HR>


In my experience, Win2K will install and run on 64MB. It's slow, but it will work... adding another 64MB or more will speed it up considerably.

------------------
D.
Old 01-04-01, 02:54 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dead:
In my experience, Win2K will install and run on 64MB. It's slow, but it will work... adding another 64MB or more will speed it up considerably.

<HR>


DEAD your standards are way too low

Technically it will run in 64mb of ram, however the second you load some other program you will be using hte swap file to do it.

128mb of ram is fine if you only run one program at a time (or run several small ones ) but if you plan on running 4 or 5 apps at once you should have 256mb. The performace gains are substantial up to 256, then they sort of die off (depending on what you do) for most users.

192mb would be great!!

Old 01-04-01, 03:01 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by ninelives:
i have 9 Win2k servers in my office. They giving me lota problems.

Well..perhaps we have to wait for SP6 *wink* (just like Nt4)

<HR>


Sounds like someone has active directory running

I have not even considered it an option to put win2k SERVER in production yet. Win2k PRO on the desktop is fine, but server?, server is a whole different ball game.

I am glad someone is helping microsoft beta test this stuff before I decide to use it

Old 01-04-01, 03:07 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 4,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dead:
Go to the MS site, select Products/Windows Family and then Windows 2000. There should be a link somewhere there about upgrading. After selecting that link you should be able to find a download which checks for both hardward and software compatibility. There is also an area to look for specific hardware or software on the compatibility list.

<HR>


Make it tough

www.microsoft.com/hcl

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.