Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
A quick question.
Stick with windows Me or go with windows 2000? I am thinking about formating my hard drive anyways. Which operating system should I pick? Windows Me or Windows 2000?
Consider the clock speed of my cpu and how much memory I have in my pc in making your recommendations to me.
TheOneRM2, ME suffers from a bad rap IMHO. It has lots of problems unless it's been tweaked. I now run XP and it is sweeter than ME, but that said, ME can be tweaked into a sweet OS. Never used 2000 so can't say for sure. Suspect that 2000 is sweet as it uses the same basic format as XP. There're advantages to each system and the critical thing to consider is whether or not ME has been 'improved'. If so, a tossup IMHO. I wouldn't be upset if I had to go back to ME exclusively so long as I could apply the tweaks found in 'Trev's tweaks ...' found @:
http://www.burzurq.com/forum/trevtweak.html
HTH.
Ed in Texas.
0 
Stick with ME as you do meet minimum specs for 2000 but it would be slower simply tweak your ME isntall like Ed in Texas said.
0
2000 is better in every way.
As indicated, Me can be passable if you "fix" it. But you probably want to "use" the OS, not fix it.
If at first you don't succeed, you're about average.M2
0
As most recent software is not written for W9x/ME, W2K would be the better proposition, in terms of security and future M$ updates W2K is still supported.
Another 128MB Memory would help though to run W2K.
0
2K Pro hands down, not even close. ME does have a bad rep and it can run well if setup correctly but, there is NO comparison at all when talking about 2K Pro. It will run fine on that system and is light years ahead of ME.
0
My personal opinion. Microshaft is pushing hard to dump support for 98 and ME, as well as W2K.
THEY WILL dump 98 and ME, done.
However, it is my belief that the outcry of business and other users with W2k will force Microsh.. to "rethink" dumping support for awhile longer.
Additionally, W2K is "closer" in form and function to XP, and whatever the "newest best" that is to come, whether Vista, Sunset, or ........
0
I agree with name, Microsoft is finished with Win98/ME, but from what I've read, there is a remote possiblity of some 3rd party picking up the ball & running some sort of "unofficial support"...I wouldn't bank on it though. MS is planning to drop support for Win2K soon too, but as name pointed out, business outcry will probably delay that decision.
Your system exceeds the requirements for 2K Pro, but I think you'd find it would run better with more RAM. Also, if you have a small HDD, FAT32 would probably be better than NTFS.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/sysreqs/default.asp
http://aumha.org/win5/a/ntfs.htm
BTW, Win2K & WinXP are "cousins"...2K is NT 5.0, XP is NT 5.1
0
on that machine, 233 with 128mb of ram, ME will run fine. windows 2000 will suffer. it wont be able to run to its full potential and youll eventually get tired with the lack of speed and revert back to ME anyway. i say, load up 2000, see how it runs and make a decision based on that. i run ME on a PII 233 with 64mb of ram and it runs great. just like 98 except not as crappy. yes IMHO i like ME better than 98/98se. its just personal preference. all my hardware works better on ME than it does under 98. so go from there. load 2000 see what its like, then do what you want.
Laptop : DELL Inspiron 7000, ATi Rage Pro 8MB, 256MB, PII 400Mhz, 40gb HDD, 15'' display.
Desktop : AMD Athlon 1800+, 640MB SD-RAM, 80GB HDD, ATi Radeon 9200 SE 128MB.
0
windows 2000 runs perfect on my computer. Windows Me Crashed the first few minutes of a fresh installation but I restarted it and then it ran without error.
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
