Why is Windows 2000 pro the best OS choice for Internet user
? Celeron II 566@875 on a Abit BH6 Rev 1. 01, 128 Pc100, Matrox G450 32 DH, SBlive Value, Supra Express 56i ISA, Win98FE.
?
------------------
Celeron II 566@875 on a Abit BH6 Rev 1.01, 128 Pc100, Matrox G450 32 DH,
SBlive Value, Supra Express 56i ISA, Win98FE
------------------
Celeron II 566@875 on a Abit BH6 Rev 1.01, 128 Pc100, Matrox G450 32 DH,
SBlive Value, Supra Express 56i ISA, Win98FE
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
I'm not gonna say linux is the best OS for games...mainly for one reason, the lack of games for linux. Right now whistler runs games faster than win2k or winme. Though the only "pro" linux comment i can make is that the games that are available for linux run faster than they do in Windows. I think this may have something to do with the way linux handles memory, or the fast file system?? All i know is that in quake 3 and unreal tournament i can see a noticible speed increase in linux over win.
Well, Win2k is ok with gaming. It still doesn't work with all the games though. I have problems with Mech Warrior 4 and Need for Speed 5 (only on multiplayer). But I don't care about those games because I only play like Counter-Strike, Quake 3, and AOEII. Just like what jdulmage said, it handles memory much better and more stable than Win9x. Not like I have problems with Win9x, but because of those reasons and Win98SE looks dull are my reasons for using Win2k.
Vampyr: Whistler version you are using would be beta version right not the real retail one? I thought Whistler retail wouldn't be out until like this summer.
[This message has been edited by whoisurdaddy (edited 30 January 2001).]
Vampyr: Whistler version you are using would be beta version right not the real retail one? I thought Whistler retail wouldn't be out until like this summer.
[This message has been edited by whoisurdaddy (edited 30 January 2001).]
Not me. I wouldn't make a swap file larger than 350MB unless there was a specialized need (database, SMS, some 3D app usage, etc). No reason for it with gaming and most applications. Hell, on a default Win2K install with 384MB RAM, I think the swap file goes 576-1184 (or something like that). With several IE sessions and Outlook 2K going, your mem usage wont even register on the bar graph of Task Manager. I try to set my total system memory to 25% more than my max memory usage. I think that I have peaked a workstation to 325MB using Solidworks 2000 (3D modeling app), Outlook 2000, Excel 2000, Word 2000, 3 Windows Explorer sessions, and a couple of IE sessions.
------------------
Regards,
clutch
------------------
Regards,
clutch
My swap file is 512Mb. I have 256Mb RAM and i have peaked 516Mb mem usage. I was running Photoshop, 5 Internet Explorer sessions, one Windows Explorer session, Outlook 2000, CMD, ACDSee 32 and 3D Studio MAX rendering a scene...
Well, it didn't go too fast if I say so, but it was still very usable...
------------------
Marchuz^
UIN: 42900735
marcus@fofso.net
Well, it didn't go too fast if I say so, but it was still very usable...
------------------
Marchuz^
UIN: 42900735
marcus@fofso.net
Ahh, the good ole swap file discussion arises again! I dont know if I'm right or wrong, but this is how I have my swap configured.
I have 256megs of ram, and my swap file is set at 100megs, 50 one drive, 50 on the other.
Aside from an error i get ONCE, telling me that it's not big enough and that Windows will increase the size as needed, my computer runs so incredibly fast, since the system is forced to use RAM.
My start menu doesnt lag anymore (and yes i do have the Max Cached Icons setting in there), window pop up and disappear with speed and silkiness that wouldnt happen when things were constantly being paged.
Anyways.... just my 2 cents worth.
------------------
**********************************************
---Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.---
**********************************************
Pentium II 450@504 4.5X112
256MB PC100 SDRAM
Diamond Viper V770 Ultra
Sound Blaster Live! Value
Seagate 13.6 Gig 7200RPM ATA/66
Western Digital 13.4 Gig 7200RPM ATA/66
Quantum 8.3 Gig
36X Acer CD Rom
Viewsonic PS790 19" Sweet as Heck Monitor
3Com NIC
Lexmark 5700 Printer
http://sandoval.dynip.com
**********************************************
I have 256megs of ram, and my swap file is set at 100megs, 50 one drive, 50 on the other.
Aside from an error i get ONCE, telling me that it's not big enough and that Windows will increase the size as needed, my computer runs so incredibly fast, since the system is forced to use RAM.
My start menu doesnt lag anymore (and yes i do have the Max Cached Icons setting in there), window pop up and disappear with speed and silkiness that wouldnt happen when things were constantly being paged.
Anyways.... just my 2 cents worth.
------------------
**********************************************
---Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.---
**********************************************
Pentium II 450@504 4.5X112
256MB PC100 SDRAM
Diamond Viper V770 Ultra
Sound Blaster Live! Value
Seagate 13.6 Gig 7200RPM ATA/66
Western Digital 13.4 Gig 7200RPM ATA/66
Quantum 8.3 Gig
36X Acer CD Rom
Viewsonic PS790 19" Sweet as Heck Monitor
3Com NIC
Lexmark 5700 Printer
http://sandoval.dynip.com
**********************************************
