I say go with Win2k. I haven't used NT4 myself since I upgraded mine from Win98. But Win2k is basically NT5 using NT engine. I believe Win2k has more multimedia capability than NT4. I might be wrong. If I am someone else will probably correct me. =) But I say, go with Win2k. It rocks.
 
My system spec:
Win2k Server Edition
Abit SA6R w/ PIII-933
512 mb PC-133
Geforce 2 GTS
SB Live! X-Gamer

whoisurdaddy. I spend about 70% of my time using Cad software and the rest surfing and playing the odd game.
 
I say go for NT 4.0 to me it's the ultimate. It has been running ROCK SOLID for me for the last several years. If your not into gamming go with NT 4.O SERVICE PACK 6A.
 
CHEERs
 

I use CAD (Solidworks 2000/2001 w/ Edrawings) software and I game as well. Plus, I do a bunch of other things with my systems, and Win2K works very well for all of the above.

You have a point Clutch. I didn't want my post to sound like Win 2000 should not be used for Cad software,(like it did LOL). I guess I still hear so many people still having problems with Win 2000, thats why I sugessted sticking with NT.
 
I use AutoCad 2000 Mechanical Desktop 5, I deas, and 3D Studio Vis among others. I would like to switch over to win 2000 but lack the guts to install it on my system as the only operating software. That's why I want to have a dual boot with NT/ AND 2000 to see how it dose in the long run.
 
Cheers

If you want an operating system that will make full use of your hardware, ie. have Plug & Play, USB and proper AGP support, and a much greater chance of your programs working, and a kick a$$ gaming experience to boot then go for Win2k. If these things are not your cup of tea, then sure, go ahead and use NT4 ;(

I was informed by someone that AGP is fully supported by NT but USB is not.
 
And I agree if your into games in a big way Win 2000 might be the way to go. But if this board is any indication, you may be visiting it quite often when Win 2000 bites back at you for evry little thing you install on it.
 
Sorry but I read most the posts on this forum and there related to 2000 for the most part.
 
 
Cheers;)

Wow.Thanks for all comments and feedback.Sounds like it's going to
be NT4 for me.

Quote:
Sorry but I read most the posts on this forum and there related to 2000 for the most part.

That's because most of the people on this forum now use NT5 instead of NT4. And with good reason, because there is a lot that you can't do in NT4, and aside from a few badly written programs, nothing that you can do in NT4 that you can't do in W2k. There are far more NT5 compatible programs that NT4 ones.

Many of the other problems mentioned on this forum are from people upgrading from W98 to NT5 who would be having the same problems if they were upgrading to NT4 (NT has always been more picky about hardware).

Take an example of a common problem mentioned on the boards lately. Problems with the KT133 via chipsets. You'll have exactly the same problems on NT4, but are far less likely to find support for it and certainly for any new hardware problems that you may find. Another example, Soundblaster Live crackling, slowing down the computer etc. Well guess what? It'll happen just the same on NT4. Not Win2k's fault at all.

Xiven. Correct me if I'm wrong( and i know you will) what can you do with Win 2000 that you can't do with NT..Besides play more games. What did Microsoft do to Win 2000 that makes it so great.
 
Belive me I'm not the smartest person when it comes to OS it's not what I do, there are a lot of people on this board that know more than I will ever know on this subject, but in general I don't hear a lot of praise for 2000.
 
Im not bad mouthing it just reporting what I hear and see. NT seems to be more stable, and most programs seem to run on it just fine, except for most games.
 
Besides is Microsoft dropping Win 2000 and bringing in another. ???
 
Kind Regards
 
Joe

Quote:
Xiven. Correct me if I'm wrong( and i know you will)



Well, people wouldn't post here if they weren't having problems. "Hi I'm just posting to let you know that I have absolutely no problems with my computer. Thanks for listening" Fact is there are more Win2k users on this board than WinNT users, and those who are using NT probably sorted out all the problems they had with it years ago.

Oh, as for what you can do in Win2k that you can't do in NT4, here's a quick list of little things that make me choose 2k over NT4:

Many many more games work
Support for Plug & Play
Support for ACPI (I like being able to turn off my machine by pressing the power button. Yes I know I lead a sad life.)
Support for USB devices (my keyboard and mouse are USB although they can work on PS/2, I prefer them on USB cos I can plug my mouse into my keyboard then. Also I have a USB scanner.)
Quicklaunch bars (Look I can't live without them! Start menus suck )

And remember it's not just games that use DirectX.

I agree that these things are not essential, BUT if you've got a nice new machine with USB and so on, it's a shame not to use it.

And yes MS is bringing in a new OS (XP) that looks like it could end up being as bloated as WinME is compared to Win98. I may be wrong there though, some people have been saying good things about WinXP.

Regards

Xiven

LOL I to lead a sad life Xiven.
 
I must say the only thing I miss out of your list is USB support. I would like to be able to take advantage of that, but I will get over it.
 
Kind Regards
 
Joe:D

Well at least we agree on something then.
 
Regards
 
Xiven

LOL yes we do.
 
Peace
 
Clutch I'm interested in what graphics card you use to do your cad with.
 
Thanks:D

Win2K has FAR MORE integrated support for enterprise management, especially with respect to using AD. In addition, I have found it to be faster than NT4 on systems that are PII 400 and higher. As a matter of fact, I am running Win2K Server on a Celeron 333 with 128MB RAM and it's doing fine. I am using it as a file server, IIS box, AD controller, Terminal Server, and secondary DNS server. It performs all of these functions very well, and it a good deal quicker than NT4 Server was with half of the functionality. In addition, the Win2K install "feels" faster over the duration of its uptime than NT4 does on the same machine.
 
Another benefit of Win2K over NT4 is better driver functionality for all of our hardware. This is especially noticable in faster machines that use UDMA 33/66 interfaces, as NT never really supported them. Win2K also makes better use of RAM over 256MB than NT4 does (and even at 256MB, I have seen a Win2K install run faster than an equivalent NT install). Also, you don't have to reinstall the SP over and over again after you make any changes since Win2K will protect the files in question, and reload them if needed.
 
Those are what I can come up with at the moment. I manage a domain that was NT4 only until last year when we started bringing in PCs with Win2K on them. I am now bringing in servers with Win2K because I like the increased remote management ability of the systems. As for laptops, the last 4 that we brought in have been Win2K because of its stronger ACPI support along with better peripheral compatibility.
 
I have been a big fan of NT, but with more modern software and hardware coming out, Win2K has been the only choice for myself and my company to take advantage of it. We haven't had any issues using Win2K, and I don't expect to in the future either.

Well the last post from Clutch kind of turns the
tides in W2K's favor.
 
I found out about an advantage W2K holds over NT4:
On W2K,you can change your IP address without having
to reboot your computer(which you have to do on NT4).
 
I think I'm gonna go with W2K after all.
/VOL3

Wise choice that man !!!

Nicely done Clutch

Clutch. When you say functionality, do you mean compatability with hardware. If so I belive that most of the people that post on this forum are having problems in that area. Almost every post I read in this forum is someone having problems with the way Win 2000 is acting when they install eather software or hardware, or just general problems.
 
Like you said, or someone else said in this post, the reason you don't hear of anyone complaining about NT here is most of thoes problems have been sorted out in NT 4.0 already.
 
Why go through that again just for a few additional perks that Win 2000 offers.
 
If a person was a big gammer I can see going to win 2000. I do belive that a major amount of companies didn't bother to switch to 2000 because of all the reported problems it was having. I wonder if thats the reason they are comming out with this new OS. ??????
 
Kind Regards
 
Joe

One other thing VOL3. I would spend a bit of time looking throught this site and see what problems people are having with Win 2000 before you make your mind up.
 
Eather way best of luck with your choice.
 
PS I think you will like this forum there are a lot of smart and very helpfull people in here.
 
Cheers

As far as compatibility with hardware goes, NT "hides" a lot of its issues from you. You see, a great deal of hardware during NT's reign didn't even COME with drivers for NT. That's why you wouldn't see very many problems with NT being able to work with peripherals and add-on cards, because everybody using NT knew it wouldn't anyway. Case in point, a buddy of mine had wireless internet access through a company called "Gain" in Tucson, AZ. He had NT Server setup along with a Win98 Workstation. Now, normally you would want to put the card in the NT box and run some sort of proxy for the other workstation right? Well, he couldn't, because the company that made the card REFUSED to make drivers for NT claiming that it wasn't a consumer OS. Now, they did go on to say that they would make drivers for Win2K (due to the similar driver model base) and as far as I know, they did. As you can see, NT clearly had a compatibility issue, yet it didn't. While it didn't work with the card, it was because nobody wanted to write a driver for it. Most of the problems that you see here, are people having problems with hardware and software functionality/performance because they know that it is SUPPOSED to work with Win2K, but they are having their own problems.
 
I think that some people are confusing compatibility problems with a lack of functionality altogether. I know that at work and home, I have digital cameras that I use. I had to use the crappy software that comes with the camera in order to get the pictures on the PC since that's the ONLY way I could get the pics using NT. Once Win2K was out, I just got a SanDisk reader and "developing" the pics is way faster and much, much easier now. Plus, at times the other software would crash the NT box. I don't have that issue anymore since using Win2K.
 
Researching what the best OS is for you is a great idea, jut make sure that you see the difference between performance issues and a complete lack of compatability. Oh, and BTW, if you are looking for future driver support, count on it going to the XP line since it will be using the same driver model as Win2K and takes less development time.