HOME
TOPICS
ABOUT ME
MAIL

 
Unlike Windows 95 and 98, Windows 2000 takes control of all operations.
   technofile
Al Fasoldt's reviews and commentaries, continuously available online since 1983

Windows 2000 runs smoothly, with no lockups or crashes on my PC


Jan. 23, 2000

By Al Fasoldt
Copyright ©2000, Al Fasoldt
Copyright ©2000, The Syracuse Newspapers

   Windows 2000 was a surprise the first time I installed it. I expected a serious, heavy-duty operating system to slow my computer down. Instead, everything flew at a pace I had not seen before in any version of Windows.
   You'd expect such a substantial operating system to be slower and clunkier. But Windows 2000 is swift and smooth running -- if your computer has enough memory. And that's going to be a problem for users of older or cheaper PCs when they try to upgrade to Windows 2000 when it officially goes on sale Feb. 17.
   The other problem is cost. As I pointed out last week, Windows 2000 will cost far more than Windows 95 and Windows 98. The full version costs $320. The upgrade version, which I do not recommend because it can't be used to reinstall Windows in some emergencies, costs $220.
   Windows 98 can doodle along with 32 megabytes of memory. But Windows 2000 needs a lot more -- 64 megabytes as a minimum, and 128 megabytes in most cases. I'm running it on a PC with 96 megabytes of RAM without a problem, but I can sense a slowdown when I'm doing a lot of things at the same time.
   What I'm actually running is Windows 2000 Professional. It's the standard version of Windows 2000. There are other versions but they're not what you and I would end up with. (They're server versions and cost more.) Windows 2000 Professional is ideal if you simply want the best possible version of Windows for your home or office PC.
   I installed Windows 2000 professional on a PC that has an AMD K6 processor running at 233 Mhz. That's not a fast chip by current standards, and the PC is obviously slow when it's running Windows 98. Under Windows 2000, this computer is fast enough for all normal operations.
   Although Windows 2000 looks like Windows 95 and 98, it is different in many ways, and you'll see evidence of this the first time a program misbehaves. Unlike Windows 95 and 98, Windows 2000 takes control of all operations. If a program locks up, Windows 2000 will either close down the offending program itself or allow you to do it. (Pressing Ctrl-Alt-Del opens a window that gives you the appropriate choices in this kind of situation.)
   In the two other versions of Windows, a program that is not behaving can lock up the entire computer. So far, I haven't been able to get Windows 2000 to lock up under the same circumstances. I've been able to shoo away the bad program and continue on as if nothing had happened.
   Windows 95 and 98 can run out of "resources" (tiny areas of memory) at any time, but Windows 2000 should not have this problem because it doesn't handle resources the same awkward way. I saw no evidence of this kind of problem in Windows 2000. You should be able to run as many programs as your PC's processing speed can handle and open as many windows as you want without running out of resources. (I had more than 60 Netscape Navigator Web browser windows open at the same time under Windows 2000, each with a different Web page open. I've been able to do this under Linux without a problem, but not under Windows 95 or 98. They crash because Windows 95 and 98 have only 48 kilobytes -- 48 thousandths of a megabyte -- of memory set aside for resources.)
   Another difference in Windows 2000 is a setting for process priority. In the same utility where you can zap a misbehaving program is a function that lets you give more or less processor time to any program. Many programs need only a fraction of the attention of a modern PC's processing chip, but under Windows 95 and 98 there's not much you can do to arrange this. Under Windows 2000 you can change priorities easily.
   Windows 2000 grew out of Windows NT, the big brother of Windows 95 and 98. Microsoft is stopping production of Windows NT in favor of Windows 2000, partly because Windows 2000 is so good -- but also because Windows NT badly needed a lot of the features we're all used to in Windows 95 and Windows 98.
   So Windows 2000, the successor to Windows NT, has the same kind of Start Menu and Taskbar and so on. But most importantly it has the same kind of plug-and-play operation. If you add a modem or printer to your PC under Windows 2000, the operating system should recognize the new device and know how to work with it without a lot of fuss.
   I say it "should" do that, because my Windows 2000 PC was not quite ready to face the world with a straight face. First, my Lexmark Z11 printer would not install. (Windows 2000 refused to let me, telling me that the printer setup program was not designed for Windows 2000. It works fine under Windows 98, however, and Lexmark is working on the Windows 2000 version of the software.)
   Second, my ATI All in Wonder Pro video card has no extra functions under Windows 2000. I mean "no" as in nothing, nada, zip, not a whit. I can't record video on it or display TV signals. It's just an ordinary old video card at this time. No doubt ATI will fix this soon, and I'll keep looking for a proper set of ATI programs.
   But I'm disappointed. Even under Linux I've found software that allowed me to record video and show TV channels on the screen of my ATI-equipped PCs. Is it possible that Microsoft can't match the free programming skills of the teenagers and twentysomethings who create so much of the free software available for Linux? (I doubt it. It's probably just that Microsoft doesn't have the same motivation.)
   But most of my normal software installed without a problem. Microsoft seems to have done a good job making Windows 2000 as compatible as possible with typical Windows 95 and Windows 98 programs. You'll probably find many programs that insist that your PC is running Windows NT. They'll probably install OK, but don't be surprised if you find some glitches at first.
   One pleasant surprise was the disk defragmenter built into Windows 2000. Unlike the badly engineered defragger in Windows 95 and 98, the one in Windows 2000 can run at any time, even when the computer is very busy doing other things. Another nice touch is the system performance meters, which seem to be taken straight from Windows NT. You can find out right away what's going on.
   A modern operating system that takes charge of everything is a welcome change from Microsoft. We already have good operating systems that do that -- Linux is the best example, but there are others -- so the introduction of Windows 2000 probably comes too late to keep Linux from gaining even more of the market. But even Linux fans will have to let Microsoft take a bow for the achievements in Windows 2000. It's a grandly solid operating system that looks slick and acts grown up at last.
   All of us who have important Windows software now need to decide if $320 is too much to pay for Windows 2000. After all, Linux is available free. But if you are in charge of the computers on a corporate network and you're committed to Windows, you'd better add up up how much time and production your company has lost to Windows 95 and Windows 98 over the last few years -- and how much you'd avoid losing if you switched to Windows 2000. A stable computing platform is a very attractive idea, even at such a high initial cost.