Windows 2000 - Why not stick with what is working?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TBerk
  • Start date Start date
T

TBerk

Can _any_ case be made for upgrading besides:

1. Vista (or XP for that matter) is the OS the new system came with OR

2. "I want the newest and latest despite not having anyother
reason...."



TBerk
 
Simple.

I like playing games and some games that are coming out will require DirectX
10 support and that's only possible in Vista.
 
That's an open-ended question - better known as "loaded".

Tell us what your application will be and you could get perhaps some real
insight from knowledgeable users here that have experience with your
particular applications.

If it's just a general off-the-wall inquiry, then no, there is no case for
your upgrading and why would we want to waste our time telling you what you
could care less to know?

If you're serious - then provide some details about what you plan to use
Vista for (home entertainment system, home PC, business use, CAD
workstation, Scientific, medical, engineering applications and what your
hardware setup is.

Bob S.
 
Why do people buy new cars when their old one is perfectly serviceable.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User
 
Oh trust me I'm fully aware of how big gaming sales are ;)

That's part of why I was saying sticking with Win2k or XP wouldn't work.

Games, plain and simple.
 
Because Windows 2000 is EOL as of 6/30/2005 with no more SP's, its code base
is 11 years old and does not support the newest hardware...

Jeff
 
TBerk said:
Can _any_ case be made for upgrading besides:

1. Vista (or XP for that matter) is the OS the new system came with OR

2. "I want the newest and latest despite not having anyother
reason...."



TBerk
Click to expand...


If you're still running W2K then your hardware probably needs too much
updating to run Vista acceptably... I think one would get more bang for
one's buck by buying a new system than trying to upgrade a system that's 3
years old or older... Unless, of course, you have a new PC on which you've
installed W2K.

As another poster pointed out... W2K is EOL (End of Life). Many new devices
won't even have W2K drivers. It'll be XP or Vista or Linux or some platform
for which there -are- drivers.

And... if you're still running W2K, then you're going to want to verify that
there -are- XP or Vista drivers for your hardware. No guarantee for either
OS, especially with W2K era hw.

Lang
 
Can _any_ case be made for upgrading besides:

1. Vista (or XP for that matter) is the OS the new system came with OR

2. "I want the newest and latest despite not having anyother
reason...."



TBerk
Click to expand...

I installed Vista for the free chess game. I still have XP installed too -
best of both worlds.
 
Win2000 was young simple. Good hearted but a bit naive...

Xp was grown up, strong, yet flexible....beauty and elegance...
It did have some signs of what it was growing up to be though...

Vista is an old grumpy fat hag, that wears a lot of makeup in order to catch
a user. Mosty she is forced upon a newcomer without him knowing what he will
find. :-)
 
Can _any_ case be made for upgrading besides:
Click to expand...
1. Vista (or XP for that matter) is the OS the new system came with OR
Click to expand...
2. "I want the newest and latest despite not having anyother
reason...."
Click to expand...

Upgrading existing (therefore "old" <g> ) PCs to newer OSs is rarely
worthwhile, IMO, but Win2000 is becoming a death trap for users who:
- always "just" wipe and re-install for *everything*
- are too clueless to add a firewall before going online

I rarely if ever re-install the OS, so this doesn't matter to me; once
set up and protected, Win2000 is OK.

But it is a pain having to wade through SPs and new IE versions and
adding 3rd-party firewall when building a "new" Win2000 installation.


--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Click to expand...
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
 
Back
Top