Windows 2000 vs. Windows ME

The only downside I have experienced as far as Win 2000 goes is that most of my games don't work on it. But since you said you aren't much of a gamer, I guess that doesn't really matter.

 

I would recommend without a doubt windows 2000. I have been running win200 since January 2000, and I cant remembering locking up more than twice (once was when I opened every single program on my computer and had about 25 IE browsers opened at the same time, wanted to test out my computer ). I have only used winME for about a week when it first came out last year. I notice some things running slower than win98se on that box, so reformat my computer and reinstalled win98se on there. From your post, win2000 with that computer config would be a better experience with the programs you’re planning to use.

 

http://www.ntcompatible.com/ will show you what apps and games will work with win2000 and also list directions for possible work arounds to make the games work

 

JR, if you've never used NT technolgy, don't buy win2000. There is no point unless you want to relearn stuff you took for granted in windows 9x. win2000 is way more complicated than Windows ME. The question you must asked yourself is, can I do what I need to do with window ME? If the answer's yes, then by all means, use it. If you can't, then go with win2000.

Now, if you are strickly asking which OS is better, win2000 is. It offers more in security, networking, and such. But you have to understand those features take time to learn, so if you could really care less about that sort of stuff, leave that OS alone.

The same is true with Unix. Unix in most respects is better than win2000, but that system takes time to learn and most home users won't use the features that system offers anyway.

Finally lockups, for the most part, have little to do with windows ME, or any windows 9x flavor. Most lockups are due to insufficient (sp?) hardware not bloated software. The rap on windows 9x OS's is that it develops what's called "windows rot" which means the register in the os increases without a managable way to clean it up. There are some utilities that help, but still the register gets bloated. Then you almost have to reformat your harddrive. NOTE: This is not comprehensive, just want to give you an idea. And surprise, win2000 doesn't solve the problem of windows rot either, so I really don't understand the reasoning that win2000 doesn't lockup while windows ME does. Both have the same chances to lockup. I have ran windows 98 first edition lockup-free for years. The reason is that I have very good hardware that runs it.

Forget win2000!

 

kbm,

You're so off base, you're not even in the game...

Johny Rocket,

Can you wait? I ask because my suggestion is to wait and get Windows XP. It's already being shipped in low quantities and the last I heard will be officially launched on October 25th. If you're buying from companies such as Dell, Gateway, etc., they probably will have it in the next couple of weeks. Windows XP will give you the best of Win 2k (more reliability, less crashes, fewer random re-boots) with the best of Win98/ME (more app support, made for the home user, better multimedia support).

 

ME sucks it does not even load all the drivers that some Motherboards need.

I still use W98 SE, no reason to change at all.

DaDakota

 

Actully DoD, I was just answering the question. I know little about XP except that it is the new flavor of windows. Please tell me what is so great about windows 2000 or XP for the HOME USER? As far as I'm concerned, there isn't anything great about them. But that is prolly becasue I care more about simpicity than I do about features. In fact, as far as I'm concerned any version after windows 95 is just another way for microsoft to overwork hardware. I respect your knowledge of computers DoD, so I could care less to debate you. I just want to tell you where I'm coming from. Why buy a dell or a gateway with inferior hardware, which includes most of their systems, then run the latest version of windows? That's stupid. Now I know JR didn't specify his computer, but I want to make sure he has a purpose before he buys a more bloated, and complicated, system if another will suit his purposes.

 

One thing more JR. I noticed that you gave your processor speed and the amount of ram you'll run on this system. Did you know that those components, while they are important, don't necessarily mean you'll be able to run even windows 98, let alone XP or windows 2000? Every component on the inside of your computer affects the speed of your system. I myself advocate power supplies. You need a good one! If you don't know what kind of power supply you have, chances are you need to upgrade. If you are buying a new computer from a mass market computer co., chances are you'll need to upgrade. The point is don't look at your computer in terms of a single component, look at it as a whole - you'll be much happy that you did.

 

JR,

You should be able to run windows 2000, and since you are already used to that OS, buy it. The setup will be harder than ME in terms of windows 2000s advanced features, like security, but both install drivers similar. I still think 2000 is unnecessary for your purposes, but hey, it's the better OS, so go with it.

As per your power supply, it's standard. What I mean is you need to upgrade it. The power supply shipped with that case is an add in. It is not meant to be the be all and end all of power supplies, just one that does the job. I would seriously consider an upgrade to a power supply at www.pcpowerandcooling.com. Any one of them there will be better than the one you have. I recommend the turbo cool 300 or 350 ATX/ATX12V. In addition, i'd say upgrade your nic card to a 3com product. It will serve you well, especially on the internet. Those two upgrades will run you between 150 to 200 dollars, well worth the price! Other than that, your geforce card could use more ram, especially since you're going to run photoshop, dreamweaver, etc, but that would just make the programs a little smoother so I say don't upgrade it. And no, you can't add ram to a video card, at least not in any cheap fashion, you'd have to buy the whole card. That's why I would hold off on that purchase.

I hope this helps JR.

 

KBM is right about the cooling and power supply. my video is a Geforce with 64ram and that hardly gets the job done.
I have an Athlon 1300 and have had to add more coolin for it. Added two more case fans and better power supply then the 300 watt one that came with it. I keep my house at 72 degrees but still need more cooling.
It had Win me in it but I went back to Win 98se.
Good luck and enjoy your new system!

 

I ask this

which is better for playing games?
i have Windows 2000 and never tried ME
i have Counter-Strike and Quake 2 and it works all fine

anyone wanna tell me whats better for gaming?

 

2000 rocks, WinME sucks.

 

Without a doubt, WinMe.

 

For multi-threading applications and multi-tasking, Win2k will blow Win9x and its derivatives out of the water. The other thing you perhaps could look into is the fact that Win2k supports multiple processors which can be a God-send for Photoshop users. Of course you'd have to upgrade your motherboard to take 2 processors, but Win9x and its variants do not support multiple processors at all.

Oh, and speaking for deanbcurtis and Jeff, get a Mac.

 

I have heard that windows 2k needs more memory will 512 be enough for him?

 

If this is a personal computer for personal use, then you should be using Windows ME...

 

Hmm... 512 MBshould be more than enough for ANY operating system by itself. What you use on top of that is what gobbles up even more memory. From what I've heard, if you're using Photoshop, the more the merrier, but I'll leave that to Photoshop users to answer.