Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

What Is The Limitation Of Windows 2000


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow


  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:04:21 PM

Posted 25 October 2005 - 08:38 PM

I'm not a power user, so I upgrade the computers at the house from ME to Windows 2000 SP4. The kids only do light gaming so they are not an issue either. I hear everyone praise the lastest and greatest and all but dismiss everything below XP Pro SP2.
The question I have is, where is the break point? At what point in modern SOHO computering do you have to move up? What programs or networking in the small world require XP or now Vista?
I am not blind to the fact that everything is get more robust by I have not seen any "average use" computering that taxes W2k. Not looking for a fight. I am recommending people to move from '95, '98, ME, and NT to W2k. If for no other reason than it runs great on older computers.
What am I missing?
I am asking the question for those who may be wanting to move to a more stable platform but not buy a new PC.
"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 rigel

rigel

    FD-BC


  • BC Advisor
  • 12,944 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina - USA
  • Local time:06:21 PM

Posted 01 November 2005 - 10:42 PM

Hi Acklan,

My opinion of the line in the sand for software is... It depends on the nature of use, and who you are interfacing with.

Nature of use: If it ain't broke, don't fix it? That may be truier than belived. I know several older computer users that use Word Perfect - on 5 1/4 floppies. They are comfortable with their systems. They know what they are doing. There isn't ANY benefit for them to upgrade. So why change? By the way, they are running DOS 6.2 with Windows 3.11 :thumbsup:

Interfacing with whom: That forces us to upgrade at my work. Wanna talk pain! Once one piece of Novell software is upgraded, history shows me that others will follow. Our tracking software. Sometimes e-mail and others. We also had a case... last week, where w2k HAD to be upgraded to XP. The software we purchased was not supported for anything other than XP. Would it work with W2k? Yes. Would they give us support when it crashed, No! :huh:

You also have to consider who you will be dealing with and their compatabilities. It may not be a problem with W2K yet, but I feel its coming. I don't know if my "Word Perfect friends" could work with the rest of the world anymore. But, I love their view. Dos is fast on the old systems!
:(

My opinion,

Rigel

"In a world where you can be anything, be yourself." ~ unknown

"Fall in love with someone who deserves your heart. Not someone who plays with it. Will Smith


#3 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow

  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:04:21 PM

Posted 01 November 2005 - 11:31 PM

Yeah I know that is why I ordered the service pack updates on CD. I figure MS will turn out the lights on Win2k and the 9x series of software one of these days.
I have been using a live linux lately. It works very well, and it is very similar to '95 in apperence and feel. I setup a day care with 30, 233mhz with 256 RAM for the kids to play on. They never knew the difference so it works like a charm.
I don't think Linux will ever take market from MS until they come up with a flavor that is as easy to use. That is why I recommend W2k to users who want to upgrade from '9x. It has the feel of '9x but very stable. And it runs on the older equipment. Like your friends that don't want to get up their "Perfectly good computer".
Everyone has his/her own requirements. Like changing your background on your desktop..it's all personal.
"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"

#4 Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 5,898 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Florida, USA
  • Local time:05:21 PM

Posted 05 November 2005 - 01:05 AM

The time to go to the next version is when Microsoft no longer supports the op system you have and you have problems you can't resolve.

There is little XP Pro will do that Win 2kPro won't other than more automatic networking, remote desktop capability and possibly better security which you can get from 3rd party freeware for Win 2k.

There are still many Win 95 systems in operation and doing fine.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users