View Full Version : Whats windows 2000 like?

02-16-2002, 03:01 AM
Just wanna know whats it like can someone post some screen shots of a few places such as the start menu control panel etc ctrl + alt + del screen just really wanna know what it looks like and if its worth the me upgrade?


02-17-2002, 05:39 AM
Imagine Windows ME crossed with XP (if you have XP) it basically looks a bit like ME, and XP is based on 2000 so has the same file system/compatibility probs. Otherwise just imagine a less happy looking ME....

02-17-2002, 06:46 AM
Erm.... Windows ME SUCKS @$$

It is the WORST OS in the WORLD Even Windows 3.1 is better!

Sammy : peace:

02-17-2002, 08:52 AM
ME was a poor OS, but the point he was making was to have a look at the design concept of ME and then add in the stability of an NT shell. Win2k was Microsoft's attempt at making the business NT shell more user friendly... and it was also a failed attempt at an OS like WinXP. They had been promising an NT based OS for the general public for a number of years. Win2k was originally supposed to be it, but they discovered just how big a bite they had chewed off when they tried to make it a reality. So Win2k ended up being a more user friendly version of WindowsNT.

02-17-2002, 09:03 AM
Yup, i just wanna know were i can see some screenshots of it etc options u know :) infor bout it thakns n e way


02-17-2002, 10:26 AM
OK - Screenshot #1 - Start Menu

02-17-2002, 10:27 AM
Screenshot #2 - Control Panel

02-17-2002, 10:31 AM
The Ctrl+Alt+Del screen is camera shy, this has something to do with system security.

My opinion of Windows 2000 Professional?

Well with Windows 98SE I was always rebooting at least 3 times a day - with Windows 2000 I last all day, turn my computer off at night - no rebooting needed. I like that a lot. :)

Also, Applications run faster on Windows 2000 due to better memory management, and more stably (due to programs having their own memory space - no sharing like Win98SE)

Windows XP is still a little on the unstable and incompatible side ATM - I'm waiting for at least the first service pack before trying it again ;)

So Windows 2000 Professional gets the nod from me :thumb:

Bahamut Zer0
02-17-2002, 11:06 AM
Win2k is definatly better.
hell, Win98 would be a step in the right direction.

With MS unoficially dropping all support from WinME (read an article a while back stating that MS plans on never releasing updates/bug fixes for winme) id definatly jump ship and grab win2k. Itll keep you afloat.

02-17-2002, 02:24 PM
Agree with the above
W2K is the most stable at present.
XP looks good and is probably a step up again but u have to have new hardware to make the most of it.
I have XP Pro running on a Celeron 500 with 96Mb & 8mb shared video.
It goes OK for one app at a time but desperately needs 256mb Ram & 32Mb + video.

Product activation is also a problem for some people with W XP.
I have heard mention that people will hold onto their W2K discs for quite awhile as theoretically (as opposed to legalyy) there is no problem reinstalling form the same discs many many times.

Anyhoo if u are gunna spend hard earned $$$ i would go for XP but only if ur system can handle it. Otherwise why not just "borrow" a W2K disc from a friend.

I'd suggest loading it as a dual boot with ME for a while to test it out. U will soon decided to can ME!

02-17-2002, 05:59 PM
Well that is what i wanted to here even my uncle said Win2k was very good the best MS os i reckon (Gets WinME cd a bites it) :)

Now no more pain from WinME :o) i'll go get meself a copy of the pro edition cause i like windows 2000 by the looks and sound of things so it cant really be bad can it? :)

Thanks everyone

Albunius>> Thanks for SS :)


02-17-2002, 06:08 PM
No problems Sammy..... I'm sure you'll enjoy Windows 2000 :)

02-17-2002, 06:39 PM
YUP! Sure will!!! :D : one eye: