Software → Re: Windows New OS.

Nevermind. You got the choice though...
Either you stick with DOS or you switch to something that M$ actually does follow up.
Although, Win9x should never have seen the light. Can you imagine they have two different teams? one for Win9x and one for NT... Seems like the 9x dudes are underpaid or just a bunch of bozos.

Win2k is really cool so far. Personally I switched from DOS to WinNT and never looked back. I did not even tried to work on 98 (unless my project had to run on it).
I'd be you I'd just ignore 9x that would be only 2 new OS: 2000 and Whistler

yes, but NT, and 2000 don't support a lot of programs... so I consider 9x to better.

There aren't many newer programs that don't do direct hardware access (like Norton Utilities) that don't work in Windows 2000, even most games that use DirectX work properly. Windows 2000 improved the ability of the NT kernal to run a much wider range of programs.
[text was edited by author 2001-01-26 23:14:41]

I know that most don't have a problem, but I've heard of a few that do. And win2k is so much slower, the stability doesn't seem worth that kind of performance drop... I remember MS admitting its like taking 100Mhz off your processor.

Under heavy loads, it actually runs a bit faster. For me and my parents, NT/2000 actually runs better and faster than Win9x. Other things within it, like the TCP/IP stack, is definitely faster, but it depends on what you are doing. In all likelihood, you wouldn't even notice the difference as long as you have at least 128MB of RAM, and the ability to leave a computer running stabily for days on end without an issue is great.