I've been debating upgrading to 2000 from 98 but have a few concerns. Primarily is 2000 a memory / processor hog? My concern is being able to run programs like AutoCAD 2000 and
Photoshop 6.0 without having any decrease in performance. Both programs utilize alot of everything and I'm leary about going through the update process unless it's worth it.
As a side note, I've noticed in comparing similar systems that Nero indicates much more processor usage when audio extracting in 2000 than what occurs in Win 98.
768 PC 133 ram (I've had to adjust the vcache settings to get this to run in 98)
Western Dig 20 gig ATA 100 hd
Asus V7002VD Vid Card.
Tbird 900 (No o.c. yet)
Upgrading to Windows 2000 from Windows 98 is the best thing you could possibly do for your computer. Period.
I use Photoshop extensively. There is no performance decrease. Photoshop is so much more stable in a true 32-bit platform, the difference is like night and day. The operating system memory management is far superior, and you will no longer need to worry about a lack of system resources as filters and layers are added to an image.
Win2K does have slightly higher system requirements than Win9x, and it also needs more disk space. But the operating system, correctly configured, is by no means a memory or a processor "hog". If anything, it is the complete reverse of that statement.
I <i>would</i> suggest adding a second disk, as Photoshop will run best with the scratch disk and the virtual memory on different hard drives.
And if you ever intend to upgrade your system and add a mainboard that supports multiple processors, you'll need Win2K or WinXP Pro. That can add a considerable performance increase to newer versions of AutoCad.
I expect you'll hear a similar sentiment echoed by many other experienced users who like to use heavy-duty applications, prefer a more stable operating system, and have a need to run more memory and graphic intensive programs.
You're going to kick yourself for having waited so long!
Here is a portion of a letter I wrote recently to a user who was curious about upgrading to Win2K. If I may paraphrase myself:
<i>"1.) Win2K is a true 32-bit operating system. This means that the OS fully supports multi-threading, multi-tasking and multi-processing. Most well-written programs for the GUI support multi-threading.
2.) Win2K supports what is called Process Separation. This means that an errant program will not bring down the entire system if a problem occurs, unlike Win9x.
3.) Win2K supports Side-by-Side components, which allows multiple versions of .dlls with the same name to exist for separate applications. With the addition of Window File Protection, I think this is a major accomplishment, as Win9x cannot offer protection for the core system files in this manner, resulting in the familiar "DLL Hell" when programs are installed that overwrite or replace those same files.
4.) Win2K has a Protected Kernel Mode Architecture, which prevents kernel mode operation of code such as drivers, thereby improving system reliability. The Kernel is smaller, and more efficient at delegating tasks.
5.) Win2K has far better Memory and System Resource management than Win9x. This in itself may be the single best reason to upgrade. Win9x Memory Management is, to put it simply ... lousy. Memory & System Resources used by applications in a 16-bit environment could often not be reclaimed without rebooting the system, as a best case scenario. In the worst, caused the system to become highly unstable or crash.
Extensive testing has shown that as physical memory is added to a Win9x system, the performance benefits decrease exponentially. And there is a problem with Win95/98/ME after adding more 512MB of RAM. The Vcache, which contains the memory addresses for the disk-caching driver, can increase to 800MB. This bug causes conflicts with other hardware, such as the AGP port ... not to mention using up all the memory in the system. A user must manually change the settings in the system.ini file, or the system will display errors messages, refuse to boot, or even crash..
Win9x has a priority issue with memory ... it uses the virtual memory first, and the physical memory second. With a Win9x managed swap file, hard disk paging can occur frequently when an intensive application is used. Again, in order to manage these events, a user must create a custom swap file, and manually adjust the system.ini file.
It has been shown that Win9x has little use for additional blocks of RAM beyond 64MB.
None of these issues occur in Win2K. Windows 2000 can work efficiently with up to 4GBs of RAM.
6.) Win2K has a vastly improved TCP/IP stack, which results in higher download speeds. I have found a twenty percent increase in speeds with my ADSL modem vs Win9x, with a similar driver set.
7.) Win2K supports more efficient file systems, such as NTFS.
FAT32 has some limitations. It cannot support files over 4GB in size, which is something to be taken in account if you wish to work with large video files. FAT32 cluster sizes are much larger than in NTFS, which increases the hard disk slack space. NTFS is a journaling file system, and FAT32 is not. NTFS writes a log of changes being made, which offers a significant benefit in cases where a system loses power, experiences an unexpected reset, or crashes. NTFS can quickly return the disk to a consistent state with running CHKDSK (the replacement for SCANDISK) ... FAT systems cannot do this. Furthermore, NTFS performs well when reading, writing, and mounting large volume sizes. FAT32 performance is reduced for volumes larger than 32GB in two areas:
A.) Boot time with FAT32 is increased because of the time required to read all of the FAT structure. This must be done to calculate the amount of free space when the volume is mounted.
B.) Read/write performance with FAT32 is affected because the file system must determine the free space on the disk through the small views of the massive FAT structure. This leads to inefficiencies in file allocation.
Win9x can only use FAT16 or FAT32 file systems.
To summarize, use of Win2K, even on a home desktop, means better speed and stability for programs, better memory management, true multi-tasking, easier recovery if the system crashes, no more problems with over-written .dlls, protection for the system core files, efficient use of larger amounts of memory, better file allocation, and support for larger hard drives with less loss of space. It's an overall faster, far more stable operating system.
There is one caveat. Win2K must be installed correctly in order to function optimally, and it must have well-written drivers for the hardware. But afterwards, it is difficult to crash the system, and reboots become unnecessary in most situations. For example, my system has been running for a month without shutting down, and it would have been even longer ... but I replaced my mouse, and rebooted after updating the drivers.
There are other benefits, I thought that might be enough for one email!"</i>
That's my two cents. I hope you consider the above while making your choice.
Toey, that was more like five bucks... A truely thorough explanation. I don't even use any intensive apps, but the stability alone and not having to worry about "running out of resources" was the good enough reason for me to switch operating systems.
And one more thing: <font color=red>Rams, you stink!</font color=red>