|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I just upgraded from W98 to W2K. Same machine, but everything
is running much faster. W98 was crashing a lot, I have W2K
also on my laptop and it has not crashed since I bought it
3 months ago.
I have heard that XP is a much bigger resource hog than W2K,
but I have not used XP so I can't say firsthand.
Be careful though, I did have several problems when I upgraded
(all related to drivers for hardware):
1. internal modem was not recognized, W2k did not even see
COM3 - fix: was able to locate modem driver on a website
2. sound did not work - fix: located sound card driver on a website
3. I have a special multimedia keyboard, none of the special
function keys work - fix: NONE, the keyboard manufacturer has not
yet released a W2K driver... but this isn't a serious issue
Jeff
Henry Amand wrote:
>> Am planning to upgrade from Windows 98. Someone on this
>> list suggested upgrading to Windows 2000 instead of XP as
>> the former is more stable.
>>
>> My question : Windows 2000 or Windows Milleneum Edition?
>
>For sure not Millenium.
>
>W2K has alway's served me very good. But when people say that
>XP is not as stable, i have my own idea's.
>
>I had some compatability issues with some software (not trading
>related, it whas when installing a machine for a friend of mine),
>but on W2K there seem to be compatability issues aswell so
>i would not take that as "important".
>
>Some of the people i know have stepped over to XP and i must say,
>i hear very few complaints.
>
>Therefore, if i were to choose an operating system today, i would go
>for XP. It will have a longer life cycle anyway i guess because XP
>will be the platform to develop for if you are a developer. XP is
>for home and office machine's so i think the day's of W2K are
>"over".
>
|