Windows 2000 Officially Ships Today

[Jerry Jones]

http://www.digitalproducer.com/aHTM/...indows2000.htm

[gibverse]

Now if only we had VideoTools for Win2K, that would rock.

John

[frankie]

it's going to be even more fun getting 'new' video tools running in win2k with the 63,000 potential bugs

frankie

[coolfish]

*sigh* win2k is pretty damn solid, and by the *very* broad definition they used to define "bugs" then Linux probably has well over 100,000 of 'em.

IE "bugs" - something not aethetically pleasing, something that could have been made simpler for the user, something that could have been coded differently, something that *may* affect system performance if user is running AAA hardware with BBB software whilst running CCC program, something that *might* crash the system if the user has these 14 different things going on.

[Clegg]

Any word on when the tools and some marvel centric drivers will be released for 2000??

I am trying to get to 2000 because its MUCH more stable then 98SE, and much more feature rich then NT v4

But I am dissapointed to not see any Video Tools even.. betas for 2000 yet.

Anyone know?

------------------
C-ya
Joe "Clegg"

[DrMordrid]

Yup. Windows2000 is so stable that the market research firms are recommending their clients hold off on upgrading to it until Service Pack 2. Wonderful....

Dr. Mordrid

[jeff b]

Yes, here it is, folks! Yet another release of a Microsoft product full of patchwork code stitched together by hundreds of cubicled bug people working with partially licensed, extorted, and outright stolen code from all over the world! Be the first one on your block to get this fabulously hyped software and spend the next five months taking the NT/2000 challenge!

[Brian Ellis]

To put it frankly: anyone converting today to W2000 to do serious work needs his head examining. If he doesn't, he will do in less than a month.

I have given strict instructions throughout my companies that no-one will install 2000, on even a stand-alone computer, on pain of being sacked, until I give the green light personally. The thought of all the time wasted even installing and getting applications to work on it sends shivers down my spine. We tried one of the latest betas (read alphas) on a clean stand-alone machine just to see. This took 7 hours to install more or less as we wanted it. The only app that worked well without any problems, first time, was a 3rd party CAD system which is designed not to write anything to the registry. Office 97 was a catastrophe and took nearly 4 hours before we had a semblance of a working system. Our standard Office Suite, Corel, was somewhat better. I foresee that installing it on top of an existing system would be fraught with problems. My IT expert and myself worked together for 2 days on it and we both turned white: hence the decision. We shall let all the others do the debugging before we spend our corporate cash on the required number of licences, plus having to replace half our park of machines - yes, some of them are three years old, the one I'm writing this on is a P100MMX with ISA-only bus, for example, with 32 Mb RAM, quite inadequate for a stable use of 2000.

------------------
Brian (the terrible)

[jeff b]

Here it is! The source code for windows 2000!


//********************************
//*Windows 2000 <public release>*
//********************************
#include dos.h
#include conio.h
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
#include 2millionw2klinesofcode.h

void win2kscreen (void);
void userinterface (void);

void main (void)
{
do
{
userinterface();
}while(1);
}

void win2kscreen (void)
{
nt4screen();
}

void userinterface (void)
{
win2kscreen();
nt4();
}

[This message has been edited by jeff b (edited 19 February 2000).]