Early adopter retros

"philo" <philo.RemoveThis@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:uhH5Td%230IHA.4164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.RemoveThis@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1214080697.404460@ftpsrv1...
> > Hi. I've always been an early adopter of new OSs ever since DOS days. As
> > such I have used Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, and finally,
> > Vista. I have a reasonably well spec'ed desktop, and an elderly laptop
> > running W98SE. Just got so fed up with unnecessary OS bloat that I
> > dropped back the desktop to Windows 2000 workstation. To my surprise I
> > found it does everything I want or need. I run MS Office 2000, and do a
> > lot of digital photography, so I need to organise and edit lots of image
> > files. You know, looking at how snappy 2K runs in a Gbyte of RAM really
> > makes me wonder why I ever went beyond it. Should have done my homework
> > first. To all W2K users here, thanks for the help and encouragement I
> > have already gleaned from lurking in this group. I look forward to
> > enjoying the discussions in the future.
>
>
>
> yep!
>
> I have quite a few machines here with removable drives and have something
> like 22 different operating systems
> at my disposal...
> My main machine runs Win2k on an AMD-2800 with 1.5 gigs of RAM. Works
> great!!!!
>
> I actually have all non-server Windows versions (even Windows 1 and NT3.1)
> plus several versions of Linux.
> Os/2, BSD, Plan 9 ...on and on...
> but Win2k does a great job.
>
Wow, you really have tried the lot. So a positive comment re W2K coming from
you has a bit of authority behind it I guess. Thanks for that.

--
Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.DeleteThis@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1214102827.93579@ftpsrv1...
>
> "philo" <philo.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:uhH5Td%230IHA.4164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.DeleteThis@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:1214080697.404460@ftpsrv1...
> > > Hi. I've always been an early adopter of new OSs ever since DOS days.
As
> > > such I have used Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, and finally,
> > > Vista. I have a reasonably well spec'ed desktop, and an elderly laptop
> > > running W98SE. Just got so fed up with unnecessary OS bloat that I
> > > dropped back the desktop to Windows 2000 workstation. To my surprise I
> > > found it does everything I want or need. I run MS Office 2000, and do
a
> > > lot of digital photography, so I need to organise and edit lots of
image
> > > files. You know, looking at how snappy 2K runs in a Gbyte of RAM
really
> > > makes me wonder why I ever went beyond it. Should have done my
homework
> > > first. To all W2K users here, thanks for the help and encouragement I
> > > have already gleaned from lurking in this group. I look forward to
> > > enjoying the discussions in the future.
> >
> >
> >
> > yep!
> >
> > I have quite a few machines here with removable drives and have
something
> > like 22 different operating systems
> > at my disposal...
> > My main machine runs Win2k on an AMD-2800 with 1.5 gigs of RAM. Works
> > great!!!!
> >
> > I actually have all non-server Windows versions (even Windows 1 and
NT3.1)
> > plus several versions of Linux.
> > Os/2, BSD, Plan 9 ...on and on...
> > but Win2k does a great job.
> >
> Wow, you really have tried the lot. So a positive comment re W2K coming
from
> you has a bit of authority behind it I guess. Thanks for that.
>


I am no expert, simply an experimenter...and one who refuses to get caught
in the upgrade game.
All my machines are built from other people's discards.
My friends know that whenever they upgrade, I will buy whatever old stuff
they have.
I don't have to pay much at all for the surplus parts.

The real test came last year when I had a few major projects that required
me to use Publisher
and also to create a video.

Though I had quite a few machines and operating systems at my disposal...I
did not have to think
for more than a second or so...as I went right to my Win2k machine.
Not knocking XP of course, but since Win2k uses less resources...and since
all my applications run on Win2k...
that was my choice.

BTW: My Publisher document ended up being *huge* and though my machine
eventually slowed down toward the end of the project...
Win2k performed flawlessly.

I had also considered using Linux for my projects...but in the real
world...Microsoft software is the standard.
Since I worked at home on my project...but it was final-edited and printed
at an office elsewhere. I had to use the exact version of Publisher
that was being used at the other location. I just wanted to get to work and
have as few distractions as possible...so Win2k came through for me.


Additionally:

I am a Microsoft authorized refurbisher who does volunteer work for a
Non-profit organization.
I can refurbish an older machine such as a P-II or P-III and re-license it
with Win2k. The cost of a legal license is only $5 (USD)
Since all the machines are donated, over the past several years I have fixed
up and put back into service *many* discarded machines.
The fixed income members of the organization can purchase a rebuilt machine
for $10 (USD).

So Win2k is still going strong!

I too was happy with win2k, but recently had to upgrade my production sys to
winxp in order to utilse certain Bus.software

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug DeleteThis @extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1214102827.93579@ftpsrv1...
>
> "philo" <philo DeleteThis @privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:uhH5Td%230IHA.4164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug DeleteThis @extra.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:1214080697.404460@ftpsrv1...
>> > Hi. I've always been an early adopter of new OSs ever since DOS days.
>> > As
>> > such I have used Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, and finally,
>> > Vista. I have a reasonably well spec'ed desktop, and an elderly laptop
>> > running W98SE. Just got so fed up with unnecessary OS bloat that I
>> > dropped back the desktop to Windows 2000 workstation. To my surprise I
>> > found it does everything I want or need. I run MS Office 2000, and do a
>> > lot of digital photography, so I need to organise and edit lots of
>> > image
>> > files. You know, looking at how snappy 2K runs in a Gbyte of RAM really
>> > makes me wonder why I ever went beyond it. Should have done my homework
>> > first. To all W2K users here, thanks for the help and encouragement I
>> > have already gleaned from lurking in this group. I look forward to
>> > enjoying the discussions in the future.
>>
>>
>>
>> yep!
>>
>> I have quite a few machines here with removable drives and have something
>> like 22 different operating systems
>> at my disposal...
>> My main machine runs Win2k on an AMD-2800 with 1.5 gigs of RAM. Works
>> great!!!!
>>
>> I actually have all non-server Windows versions (even Windows 1 and
>> NT3.1)
>> plus several versions of Linux.
>> Os/2, BSD, Plan 9 ...on and on...
>> but Win2k does a great job.
>>
> Wow, you really have tried the lot. So a positive comment re W2K coming
> from
> you has a bit of authority behind it I guess. Thanks for that.
>
> --
> Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)
> Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
> compulsive computer fiddler.
>
>

> So Win2k is still going strong!
>
Brilliant! I applaud your recycling ethic. Yes, W2K is continuing to
prove completely adequate for all my needs. I believe the MS "internal"
name for W2K is NT5.0, and the one for XP is NT5.1, which kind of begs
the question, apart from the eye candy and extra bells and whistles
(nothing wrong with them of course), just what "engine-room" differences
are there between the two?

--
Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.

"Peter in New Zealand" <peterbalplug.TakeThisOut@extra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1214181329.707229@ftpsrv1...
> > So Win2k is still going strong!
> >
> Brilliant! I applaud your recycling ethic. Yes, W2K is continuing to
> prove completely adequate for all my needs. I believe the MS "internal"
> name for W2K is NT5.0, and the one for XP is NT5.1, which kind of begs
> the question, apart from the eye candy and extra bells and whistles
> (nothing wrong with them of course), just what "engine-room" differences
> are there between the two?
>


Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.

When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy
by setting if for best performance.

, just what "engine-room" differences
>> are there between the two?
>>
>
>
> Truth is, there is very little difference between Win2k and XP.
>
> When I setup an XP machine I generally turn off the eye candy
> by setting if for best performance.
>
That being the case then W2K must rank as perhaps the best version of
Windows ever produced.

--
Peter in New Zealand. (Email address is fake)
Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and
compulsive computer fiddler.