Valhalla Legends Archive

Quote from: Tuberload on January 30, 2004, 11:44 PM

Quote from: iago on January 30, 2004, 10:08 PM

Quote from: DVX on January 30, 2004, 07:16 PM
does win2k provide the switch user settings "switch user" and "log off" like xp?  i want to beable to switch to another user account without closing my programs like i can in xp, is that so in 2k?

It has log off, but not switch user.  You have to close your programs on 2k.

There isn't any service packs or anything that might add that?

No, I was using Win2K with SP4, and it didn't.

However, you can create multiple desktops and switch among those.  You can also create multiple window stations, which each contain their own set of desktops.  I don't know that either of those would let you run in separate user contexts, but you could definitely get a significant degree of separation among running programs that way.  (For instance, if you all have one user account and you just want to run different programs per person, this would be acceptable.)

I've never thought fast-user-switching was that great, really.  It only encourages you to share your computer with other people, who ought not be messing with it!

Quote from: Kp on January 31, 2004, 11:07 AM
I've never thought fast-user-switching was that great, really.  It only encourages you to share your computer with other people, who ought not be messing with it!

I have a desktop and a laptop - the desktop uses fast user switching, so I stay logged on 24/7 downloading stuff or processing movies or whatever, while the rest of my family checks their email or whatever.  

Ah...fast user-switching is utterly useless to me. I'm the sole user of both my desktop and my laptop, so I'm the only one with any accounts on either of them.

well, i suppose it doesn't really matter..  the one my family uses anyways allready has win xp pro on it..  and all they need is email, instant messaging, homework, and internet..  so who're they to complain about a low-end system..  since i'm going to be the sole user of this one, and later i am buying a new one, win2k will suit just fine for me..

The drawback of win2k is that you may start seeing hardware incompatibility with it soon. New things you purchase for your computer might not run with win2k because of changes in the kernel making drivers incompatible between win2k and XP. Win2k should also be nearing the end of its life patch-wise, so purchasing win2k today might not be a good idea.

So do you just recomend getting Windows XP and just configuring it how I want it if infact hardware/patches will no longer come for win2k and be compatable...

Quote from: Adron on February 01, 2004, 04:38 AM
The drawback of win2k is that you may start seeing hardware incompatibility with it soon. New things you purchase for your computer might not run with win2k because of changes in the kernel making drivers incompatible between win2k and XP. Win2k should also be nearing the end of its life patch-wise, so purchasing win2k today might not be a good idea.

Am I mistaken that Microsoft has a 10-year product lifetime on most of their products?  NT is an example of a product having reached end of life.  I started using NT in 1994-95 and recently Microsoft stopped offering patches.  They only offered an RPC patch because the Department of Homeland Security ordered them to do so, so I have heard.

Quote from: Grok on February 02, 2004, 07:55 PM

Quote from: Adron on February 01, 2004, 04:38 AM
The drawback of win2k is that you may start seeing hardware incompatibility with it soon. New things you purchase for your computer might not run with win2k because of changes in the kernel making drivers incompatible between win2k and XP. Win2k should also be nearing the end of its life patch-wise, so purchasing win2k today might not be a good idea.

Am I mistaken that Microsoft has a 10-year product lifetime on most of their products?  NT is an example of a product having reached end of life.  I started using NT in 1994-95 and recently Microsoft stopped offering patches.  They only offered an RPC patch because the Department of Homeland Security ordered them to do so, so I have heard.

Microsoft has a 5-year mainstream support lifetime on most their products. You should expect to see support for 2000 start being reduced next year. Yes, you may see security patches for 2 more years, but you won't see fixes for bugs that appear when you try to run new software/hardware on it.

See for example http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/support/lifecycle/ or http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=lifecycle

On my 22nd birthday

i'm pretty much getting at now that windows 2000 is not something i should bother with, and just get windows xp pro?

also, this is kind of off subject of win2k and win xp..  but is windows longhorn based on what microsoft has shown us going to be big?  or just another upgrade off of the nt kernel?

also, i was looking on the web, and i found out that microsoft has windows xp 64-bit version..  what's the buzz on that one?  is it even worth getting?  what does it provide that regular versions of windows xp doesn't..  and is the 64-bit one professional or home versions?

Although I may be wrong, I think that you need a 64-bit processor to use 64-bit windows.

yea, you do..  it only supports intel itanium processors..  as where longhorn will support intel's and amd's 64-bit processors in the 64-bit versions..

Currently getting Windows XP 64-bit edition has no practical purpose. There's very little software out there that supports 64-bit processors, meaning you'll probably just be running a 32-bit program on a 64-bit system. Also, it's expensive. So I'd give it some time. You should just stick with standard Windows XP Pro.

As for longhorn, I think they're building that from scratch.. but I'm not sure.

Longhorn is NT 6.0.