windows 2000

  • Thread starter Thread starter Janice
  • Start date Start date
J

Janice

I have just purchased a PC with windows 200 pro as an
operating system for my son. It has office 2000 for
software and Norton 2004. I am used to XP. If I help
him, are there any major things I should notice different
or watch out for? I have set it up for auto windows
updates and anti virus updates. Need I do anything else?
 
Janice said:
I have just purchased a PC with windows 200 pro as an
operating system for my son. It has office 2000 for
software and Norton 2004. I am used to XP. If I help
him, are there any major things I should notice different
or watch out for?
Click to expand...


There are only minor differences, for the most part, and most of them
are either cosmetic, or related to multi-media uses. Windows 2000 is
the marketing name for Windows version 5.0, and Windows XP is the
marketing name for Windows version 5.1.


I have set it up for auto windows
updates and anti virus updates. Need I do anything else?
Click to expand...


It's also important to have a reliable firewall in place.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
 
thank You..It has only 256 RAM but I was told that should
be enough if I stay with the Windows 2000 and not upgrade
to XP. Do you agree or is it worth the $100 to add more
memory? He will connecting to the internet by cable modem
and uses it mostly for fun and emailing and some pictures.
 
Bruce said:
Windows 2000 is
the marketing name for Windows version 5.0, and Windows XP is the
marketing name for Windows version 5.1.
Click to expand...

Surely there's a couple of NT's missing in there?
 
Janice said:
thank You..It has only 256 RAM but I was told that should
be enough if I stay with the Windows 2000 and not upgrade
to XP. Do you agree or is it worth the $100 to add more
memory? He will connecting to the internet by cable modem
and uses it mostly for fun and emailing and some pictures.
Click to expand...

For the purposes you've described, 256 Mb of RAM should be fine. If
you do decide to upgrade to WinXP, then you might want to think about
also upgrading the amount of RAM.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
 
André Gulliksen said:
Surely there's a couple of NT's missing in there?
Click to expand...

Well, the nature of the question didn't seem to warrant mentioning the
older versions.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
 
In
Janice said:
thank You..It has only 256 RAM but I was told that should
be enough if I stay with the Windows 2000 and not upgrade
to XP. Do you agree or is it worth the $100 to add more
memory? He will connecting to the internet by cable modem
and uses it mostly for fun and emailing and some pictures.
Click to expand...


It depends on what apps he runs, but 256MB is usually enough for
most people running either XP or 2000.
You get good performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you
from using the page file, and that depends on what apps you run.
Most people running a typical range of business applications find
that somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others need 512MB.
Some people, particularly those doing things like editing large
photographic images can see a performance boost by adding even
more--sometimes much more.


--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup





 
André Gulliksen said:
Well, I was under the impression that Windows 2000 and XP were marketing
names for Windows _NT_ 5.0 and 5.1. Especially since the Windows non-NT
product line effectively was discontinued after ME.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows#History_of_the_Operating_Systems
Click to expand...


Even "Windows NT" was a little more than marketting name for a
different (from the old DOS-based) version of Windows. Of course, it's
done nothing to ease the confusion when Microsoft often tends to assign
names and verions in what seems to be a quite arbitrary manner.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
 
I'm going to tag onto this post with another question about Win 2000 which I
have never used. Went from 98SE to XP.

Does Win 2000 have the Classic Interface as 98SE had?

Thanks, Gord
 
In
Gord Dibben said:
I'm going to tag onto this post with another question about Win
2000
which I have never used. Went from 98SE to XP.

Does Win 2000 have the Classic Interface as 98SE had?
Click to expand...


Yes, it's very similar to Windows 98's interface.

But it the future, if you have a different question, it's better
to start a new thread rather than tag on to an existing one.
 
Gord said:
I'm going to tag onto this post with another question about Win 2000 which I
have never used. Went from 98SE to XP.

Does Win 2000 have the Classic Interface as 98SE had?
Click to expand...


Yes, although it wasn't called "Classic" back then. It was the normal
- and only - interface.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
 
Thanks Ken

Point taken about tagging on.

As an experienced poster I should know better.

Gord
 
Yes, although it wasn't called "Classic" back then. It was the normal
- and only - interface.
Click to expand...

Well, actually it was not the only. The Program Manager, which was the
normal interface in Windows 3.x, still resides in most other Windows
versions. Even my current XP Pro installation has a progman.exe, but for
some reason nothing happens when I run it.

However I don't think that interface is very sorely missed. I know of nobody
who ever actually preferred this to the interface introduced with Windows
95.
 
André Gulliksen said:
Well, actually it was not the only. The Program Manager, which was the
normal interface in Windows 3.x, still resides in most other Windows
versions. Even my current XP Pro installation has a progman.exe, but for
some reason nothing happens when I run it.
Click to expand...


Interesting. I'd known that Progman was available with WinNT, but it
had never occured to me to look for it in Win2K.

However I don't think that interface is very sorely missed. I know of nobody
who ever actually preferred this to the interface introduced with Windows
95.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was one who preferred Progman to Win95's shell. It took me
quite a while to accept Win95's "My Computer," "My Documents," etc. I
thought that the interface to be dumbed-down to the point of being
outright insulting. I've since learned to let go of some of my old
ways. ;-}




--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
 
Windows 2000 is really "NT 5.0" and Windows XP is "NT 5.1" from a certain
point of view,since they are based on the NT system kernel.
 
???

Yes Windows 2000 is much like Windows ME or 95 or 98 in general terms of GUI
looks (behind the scenes is a different kettle of fish) but for the most it
still looks like Windows 98 as its default interface.
 
Back
Top