shnaggletooth wrote:

I've got Windows 2000, though I'd really like to get XP,
b/c WIN2000 seems really slow

Yes, things seem to run faster under windows me, I have tried both on a
dual booter.

and does not prevent system crashes like it's advertized.

I don't know how it is advertized over your way, if at all, but windows
2000 is very stable, and usually only the crashing application software
will crash. To bring windows 2000, or nt4 or XP down, you need to have a
crash that has some affiliation to a faulty hardware driver, they can
handle applications that suffer from untrapped divisions by zero, but a
driver with an untrapped division by zero will cause a blue screen. A
probable cause for a driver division by zero is faulty hardware.

Windows 2000 SP4 is imo their new "98SE".

Shnaggletooth


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Peter Larsen wrote:
shnaggletooth wrote:

I've got Windows 2000, though I'd really like to get XP,
b/c WIN2000 seems really slow

Yes, things seem to run faster under windows me, I have tried both on
a dual booter.

As usual, the NT OSs are faster for some things, slower for others, compared
to the win95-based systems. However by the time you get to the
highly-bloated Win98ME. it seems like Win2k which is still pretty lean
compared to XP, should fare even better.

and does not prevent system crashes like it's advertised.

Even with the latest Service Pack and Windows updates?

Let me say this about that. Win2K did make a fair number of changes to the
Windows API and while the base OS seems solid, I did see a lot of
applications crashes with it. One conspicuous victim was the then-current
version of CEP. I think that it might be fair to call CEP 2.1 and Audition
"The windows 2K and XP update versions of CEP".

I don't know how it is advertized over your way, if at all, but
windows 2000 is very stable, and usually only the crashing
application software will crash.

Agreed.

To bring windows 2000, or nt4 or XP
down, you need to have a crash that has some affiliation to a faulty
hardware driver, they can handle applications that suffer from
untrapped divisions by zero, but a driver with an untrapped division
by zero will cause a blue screen. A probable cause for a driver
division by zero is faulty hardware.

IME most blue screens in Win2K net out to being bad hardware or drivers.

Windows 2000 SP4 is imo their new "98SE".

Yes. I recently built up a SP/4 system after being away from it for a long
time (running XP). I was pleasantly surprised. I kinda think that Win2K SP4
turns out to be the high-performance, lower-flab and flash version of XP.
But, it won't fix applications that run afoul of some of the hidden API
changes.

Peter Larsen wrote:
shnaggletooth wrote:

I've got Windows 2000, though I'd really like to get XP,
b/c WIN2000 seems really slow

Yes, things seem to run faster under windows me, I have tried both on
a dual booter.

As usual, the NT OSs are faster for some things, slower for others, compared
to the win95-based systems. However by the time you get to the
highly-bloated Win98ME. it seems like Win2k which is still pretty lean
compared to XP, should fare even better.

and does not prevent system crashes like it's advertised.

Even with the latest Service Pack and Windows updates?

Let me say this about that. Win2K did make a fair number of changes to the
Windows API and while the base OS seems solid, I did see a lot of
applications crashes with it. One conspicuous victim was the then-current
version of CEP. I think that it might be fair to call CEP 2.1 and Audition
"The windows 2K and XP update versions of CEP".

I don't know how it is advertized over your way, if at all, but
windows 2000 is very stable, and usually only the crashing
application software will crash.

Agreed.

To bring windows 2000, or nt4 or XP
down, you need to have a crash that has some affiliation to a faulty
hardware driver, they can handle applications that suffer from
untrapped divisions by zero, but a driver with an untrapped division
by zero will cause a blue screen. A probable cause for a driver
division by zero is faulty hardware.

IME most blue screens in Win2K net out to being bad hardware or drivers.

Windows 2000 SP4 is imo their new "98SE".

Yes. I recently built up a SP/4 system after being away from it for a long
time (running XP). I was pleasantly surprised. I kinda think that Win2K SP4
turns out to be the high-performance, lower-flab and flash version of XP.
But, it won't fix applications that run afoul of some of the hidden API
changes.