There are plenty of legal ways to be running Windows 2000 now. I am on MSDN, the full (non time bombed) version was released to us on the 20th. The corporate preview program has the time bombed version out for nearly a month.
As far as D3D and OpenGL not being as fast on Windows 2000, that it is utter rubbish, it has been refuted too many times to bother doing it again. Without any doubt it should be faster, NT has always been faster at OpenGL (poor drivers excepted) and D3D will be the same. Win2k uses a similiar implementation to the dreamcast, MS's most efficient version of DX yet.
I have no idea what game the marketing people at MS are playing, but provided you can find the drivers, I can't see any good reason why somebody should prefer to run Win98SE over Win2000. Possible not enough memory or HD space, but that would about it.
Paul
As far as D3D and OpenGL not being as fast on Windows 2000, that it is utter rubbish, it has been refuted too many times to bother doing it again. Without any doubt it should be faster, NT has always been faster at OpenGL (poor drivers excepted) and D3D will be the same. Win2k uses a similiar implementation to the dreamcast, MS's most efficient version of DX yet.
I have no idea what game the marketing people at MS are playing, but provided you can find the drivers, I can't see any good reason why somebody should prefer to run Win98SE over Win2000. Possible not enough memory or HD space, but that would about it.
Paul
Comment