W2K is worse than Y2K 1

[PTCruiserII]

Our Help desk has been swamped and needs to hire 10 more staff to handle the burden of Windows 2000 client.

We haven't even left NT4 yet - what will happen then.

I remember the Help Desk gurus telling us that W2K would ease their workload.

Let me give you an analogy - imagine if all new cars contained a chip that kept all cars below the speed limit - would this make the polices' job easier? Odviously not, because every time some had a legitimate need to speed, they would need to contact the maker for override codes. And traffic would grind to a halt. Now imagine that the car also didn't allow tailgating, passing on a double line, braking on black ice, or changing the paint color! Each of these restrictions sound good until you realize that someone has to handle the exceptions.

All these features are touted for W2K - god help us all. I'll have a 20 gig hard drive with a 10 meg limit - and big brother's face will be burned into my wallpaper. Progress.

 

[MasterRacker]

Actually, our NT Workstation to W2K Pro rollout went very well and is seems to run better than NT. Office XP and IE 6 are the ones coughing up hairballs on us.

The sad truth is that MS's code is so intertwined and monolithic that, once you find a configuration that works you don't dare change or upgrade anything for fear of breaking something else.
Jeff
Working in IT is like trying to commit suicide with a very small hammer ....

 

[garwain]

I'll step into the ring and risk saying that W2K is not realy a problem. I work with several w2k machines, and all of them together have not given me the problems that I got from the 1 winXP machine that I set up...

Win98SE is faster than 2k on most of my machines, but I've found 2K to be a lot more stable.

I will agree that it would be nice if everything was seperate. I know the feeling of getting one thing working, just to break another 10... (heck I can do that with one change to a table in MSSQL, where the same change on a postgres server wouldn't do any harm at all!)

 

[rycamor]

Well, I will have to step in, after experiencing the wonder that is Windows 2000 for the past year and a half.

Yes, it is fairly stable, once you get it running. I almost never get the crashes I got with Windows 98, or even Windows NT. The only other positive thing I can say about it is that they did think out the administrative interfaces much better than in Windows NT. (I have no experience with Windows XP, so I won't even go there).

But, these are about the only positive things I can say about it. In practice, it may be fine as a server, but as a workstation, it suffers from even more "performance degeneration over time" (that classic Windows problem) than Windows 98 or NT put together.

For example, take Internet Explorer: when I first installed IE 5.5, it opened just as fast as on my Windows 98 or NT machines. Now, after a year of use, whenever I open IE for the first time, I wait for as long as 40 seconds for it to open a window. And that is with "about:blank" as my home URL!! If I were to use the classic MSN home page, I would wait for over a minute for IE to even allow me to hit the Stop button, so I could go somewhere else. And the more I use IE, the slower it gets. And, of course, once you have about ten IE windows open, each new window takes agonizingly more time to open.

In fact, the more I use Windows2000 in general, the slower it gets. I have at least 3 times the hardware power of my last NT machine, yet it seems I am waiting even longer for my programs to open.

Now Windows 2000 has been stable for me, because I chose my hardware conservatively, and didn't change things once I installed. On the other had, everyone I know who has tried to upgrade or change hardware, etc... has had nothing but nightmares from Win2000. My father, for example. He is not an IT wizard, but he is the typical "power user". He builds his own computers, he installs everything himself, etc... This was generally no problem, when he was using Windows 95 or 98. But since he moved to Windows 2000, I have spent more late nights helping him fix his videoconferencing, or his TV card, or the networking, what-have-you... I would estimate that Windows 2000 has cost more of my time than all the other OS's my father has used in the past, from DOS, Windows 3.1, on up. And, the problems were never as easy or obvious to solve. If anything, the error messages have become even more criptic. So, I can just imagine that for a large IT department, Win2K has been a nightmare.

Of course it is the independent consultant's dream, since it requires so much time-consuming tweaking, updating, rebooting, etc... Independent consultants--don't take offense; I have been one of you many times. But the question you should ask yourself is: are you part of the solution, or part of the problem? For example, do you push for the latest Microsoft products, even when customers don't need them? Many companies have just finally gotten all the kinks ironed out of NT, and they were finally happy. Then they are convinced to upgrade to Windows 2000, and for what purpose? Do you present the alternatives to your customers, even if those alternatives might mean less work for you?

This last one is a sore point with me. I get laughed at by MCSEs for recommending an open source Unix fileserver. But, every time I install FreeBSD running Samba for a windows network, my server runs literally for years without rebooting. And there are absolutely no licensing costs. So, the customer benefits in several ways: stability, lower cost, cheaper hardware, etc... To the short-sighted, this might seem like I am hurting my own business, since it requires less babysitting. But, I take the view that I should provide the best service to my customer, regardless of personal gain. I win in the end, because I provide a solution that keeps them coming back to me. And, I have more time to do work elsewhere.

Take the long view, and both you and your customers can benefit. -------------------------------------------

"Now, this might cause some discomfort..."
(

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51274,00.html)

 

[thelabguy]

My Turn, My Turn!!!

2K is, in my opinion, M$'s best yet. It does have a lot of options for "big brother" to utilize, but in reality that would be at work where many of us in this forum ARE the Big Brother... and of course while at work you really should concede to your companies pc use policy... I guess

Point is: Windows 2000 get's a B+ (higher than any other windows to date) at home or at work.

J. Jarod, The Lab Guy

 

[PTCruiserII]

In my first W2K course, the instructor suggested exactly what RYCAMOR said above - W2K is a consultants dream - good solid work for the next 5 years if your can set up and keep W2K going. The same instructor also said he wouldn't touch it for any real world networking for another 2 service packs...

so it goes

 

[GlenJohnson]

I recieved my certification after taking a class from a guy who was on the team the wrote the W2K platforms. I got a few inside tips, and anytime I can't find an awnser to a problem, I e-mail him and he gets back to me for free. I've only had to e-mail him twice in 1 1/2 years, that's how good his course is. W2K is the best ms ever came up with. There are somethings you have to do to make it work right. IE 6.0, W2K sp2, and get all the latest patches needed. Keep up on the patches. Some problems are caused by hardware or software that's not compatible with w2k, so it's not really a w2k issue. I use ONLY w2k pro for myself and w2k server for our network of 250 users. People love the speed of the network, (Except when they have to get on the AS400 system we've got. They call me and tell me there network connections are slow and I ask them, is it the network or the AS400? I tell them to jump on the internet, and the home page loads in 2 seconds.) Bought a ME laptop once for a user, and it had less drivers than 98 did. W2K = TOPS. Glen A. Johnson
Microsoft Certified Professional
gjohn76351@msn.com
"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest."
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), US statesman, diplomat, inventor.

 

[BDNFLNC]

I have been using W2K since it's inception and find it to be a a great OS. No issue in networking or performance here. I have used in the workplace and in my home network.

I have however just moved over to a Macintosh platform. We'll see how it all goes with OS-X!

 

[gwinn7]

With such diverse hardware platforms, I think we are all going to get hit/miss situations with W2K. In our office, W2K Pro has been pretty decent for the desktops. However, configuring our servers has been a pain in the neck.

Our Terminal Server has to be restarted at least once a week; it does have all its patches and updates. Since we went to W2K, we have had numerous database corruption issues that we did not have under NT4 SP6 that have since been a routine item around here now.

I would have to rate W2K as a "B", but it has issues that keep it from "A" status. However, if possible, any business should consider the cost per benefit of Linux. Its pretty tough to beat and its more stable.

Gary
gwinn7
A+, Network+

 

[gregor weertman]

Since we installed w2k in our plant we had several
problems.
Our terminal emulation program (smartterm) loses sessions.
Profiles (user.dat) get corrupted.
Strange tcpip printer problems
Machines keep going slower #@$%@^!
After inserting more memory it runs faster for a week. Then I notice it slowing down again.
It needs mountains of memory.
The profile of new user is sometimes not correctly added.
When a computer is used for user tasks (start en stop applications often) the machine needs rebooting every day.
Sometimes the machine reboots spontaneously.
(spontaneous is not a good quality for a pc.)
Ms applications behave strange. They hang more often and get corrupted.
The MS document also become corrupted more often.

To my pleasure I find great comfort in the knowledge that M$ won’t charge me extra for these bugs.

( I routed the printers via the Unix machine. The printer problems a gone now.)
This forum is about future.
M$ need a lot of that for even solving the worst bugs.

Regards Gregor.




Gregor.Weertman@mailcity.com

 

[GlenJohnson]

Gregor, what does your event log say? Have you run hfnetchk and installed all the patches? What service pack are you using? Do you have IE6.0? These are all things that have to be done to make W2K a stable platform. It's not good out of the box, it needs maintenance. Once you have taken care of this, you've got a winner. Glen A. Johnson
Microsoft Certified Professional
gjohn76351@msn.com
"Don't take a fence down until you know why it was put up".
Robert Frost (1874 - 1963); U.S. poet.

 

[Tatted]

IMHO, you need to have a grasp of all concepts in networking, at my company we have multi platforms, we run UNIX for the main application, W2K for our Exchange servers, we also carry NOVELL for our bank servers, also we have LINUX running for an old web server. yet when it comes to the application that we are running on the UNIX box, that has down time!!! not alot but its still not 100% up its close 98.2 I believe, my W2k server has 99% up time and thats all on account of the people that run it. I have it up and running as well as it can and I know what fixes work, which ones dont. its all trial and error. people who bash one OS or another either A dont have the patience to learn it, or are so hard headed they refuse to. if you complain about things crashing and rebooting. do you really know what you are doing ? are you ripping apart the issue that came up to hunt up the problem and to fix it so that it does not happen again?? I do. LEARN from that bad boy !!!, heck its only a computer. learn it all, they say ya cant know everything about all OS's they are right, but darn you can come close and if not, you can find people that do know. yeah I have my A+, Network +, SAIR, MCP and MCSE, but the real question is, buddy can you spare a dime?

 

[GlenJohnson]

Tatted is 100% correct. The whole purpose of this web site is knowledge. You gotta problem, post it here, hit the books, go to the search engines, use any means possible to find out what the problem is. A server is nothing more than a computer on steroids! I've used w3x, w9x, 2000 pro, 2000 server, xp and me. W2K pro and server are the best thing MS ever came out with. You do have to baby sit them, make sure you've got IE6 and SP2. Keep up on your patches, take the time to really check this site out, and things will fall into place. Getting rid of our Novell servers, going strictly W2K. There's a forum for W2K pro and server here. Use them. People will be more than glad to help. Glen A. Johnson
Microsoft Certified Professional
gjohn76351@msn.com
"We will either find a way, or make one".
Hannibal (247-183 B.C.); Carthaginian general.

 

[garwain]

yeah, I'll have to agree as well. Some OS's are bad, and when it comes to stability, unix based systems rule, but win2K, as much as it pains me to say it, is a good os, probably the best MS has come out with.

I don't have the certs that Tatted does, but I've spent enough time working with computers and most OSs to know that most issues are with the setup, or poor quality hardware. I have a win95 box that runs a heavy load and only needs a reboot every few days. This can be blamed on the OS's memory management, but it's a very minor annoyance.

I do very few support calls where I can trace the bug to be MS releated, and there is usually a patch available to fix it. Keep your system up to date, run the latest drivers, and don't buy the cheapest hardware. There is good hardware that is cheap, but usually if you pay almost nothing for it, don't expect it to be as good as a leading company's model. You can't expect an omni to run like a porche...

 

[rycamor]

I keep up with all the patches, religiously check for viruses, defrag, etc... so why does my Wind 2K desktop seem to run slower every month?

In the month since I made my post above, it now takes up to 3 minutes to go from CTRL-ALT-DEL login to full availability of my desktop. And then, if I start IE right away, it takes another full minute to 2 min for IE to actually start rendering web pages. And this is on a DSL connection, and I have 512 MB RAM!!

I find my self sneaking over to my wife's older Win98 system to surf the web, because it actually performs better. -------------------------------------------

"Now, this might cause some discomfort..."
(

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51274,00.html)