InformationWeek.com

Welcome Guest. | Log In| Register | Membership Benefits

January 26, 2000

Loving/Hating Windows 2000, Part 2

Threads

First impressions are lasting ones: Based on late betas, I've already developed a list of likes and dislikes about Windows 2000. This week I've described what in my opinion are five negative attributes to the upgrade. What's your take? What are the things you most dislike about the new operating system? What are the most welcome (or most needed!) improvements over NT4 and Win9x? Join in the discussion!

Recent Columns

Loving/Hating Windows 2000

Keeping Score

The Coming Plague Year

Hold On To Your Wallets: Here Come The Lawyers

What Would You Do If You Were Bill Gates?

LangaLetter Archives

Bio

Fred Langa is a senior consulting editor and columnist for Windows Magazine. Fred's free weekly newsletter is available via subscribe@langa.com. You can contact him at fred@langa.com or via his website at http://www.langa.com.

By Fred Langa

First impressions are lasting ones: Based on late betas, I've already developed a list of likes and dislikes about Windows 2000. (You probably have too.) My previous column focused on five things I like a lot about the new platform. In this column, I'll tell you the five things I dislike most. As always, I welcome your feedback and input--your likes and dislikes about the upgrade--in the discussion area.

To me, Windows 2000's five greatest negatives are:

1) Windows 2000 Is Too Expensive
Microsoft's pricing is, um, aggressive: It wants $319 for a full copy of the Professional version; $219 for an upgrade from Win9x or $149 for an upgrade from NT4 Workstation. (These are estimated retail prices; actual mail- and Web-order prices are about 15% less.)

The Windows 2000 server prices are even worse: A full copy of Windows 2000 Server with 10 client licenses is $1,200; an upgrade with 10 licenses is $600. The Advanced Server version comes with 25 licenses, but costs $4,000 for the standalone version and $2,000 for the upgrade. In each case with the server versions, the upgrade can be from NT or LAN Manager, or from competing products; from Banyan Vines; IBM's LAN Server, OS/2, or AIX; DEC Pathworks; Artisoft LANtastic; SCO Xenix, Unix OpenServer, or UnixWare; Sun Solaris, Solaris X86, or SunOS; Hewlett-Packard HP-UX; Digital Ultrix, OSF/1, or Unix; or SGI Irix.

Linux is NOT among the qualified upgrades, yet many consider Linux to be the most serious threat to the success of Windows 2000. Given that Linux can be had for anywhere from free to about $80, depending on packaging and support, Microsoft's prices seem unrealistically high to me.

2) Windows Is Not A Giant Step Above Its Siblings
Windows 2000 appears to be the most stable Windows ever--but NT already was pretty good in that regard, and a properly installed and maintained Win98se isn't too bad, either. In fact, Win98 still supports more hardware and software than either NT or Windows 2000, has lower hardware requirements, and is significantly cheaper. A Win98se upgrade costs less than half what a Windows 2000 upgrade costs per seat.

Yes, Windows 2000 is better, but I don't know if it's enough of a step up to warrant an immediate upgrade for in-place and up-to-date Win98 or NT4 installations, especially at the prices Microsoft is demanding.

3) Windows 2000 Is Too Big For Many Notebooks--And Some Desktops
Windows 2000 was supposed to alleviate many of the problems that notebook users had with NT4. But ironically, while it has solved some problems (such as finally offering decent support for aggressive notebook power management), its hardware requirements may cause others. RAM may be an especially thorny issue.

For example, Microsoft's stated minimum requirements for Windows 2000 hardware: 64 Mbytes of RAM, at least a 133-MHz CPU, and a gigabyte of free disk space. But these requirements are true minimums--Windows 2000 will run on hardware at this level, but you won't be happy with the performance.

InformationWeek's sister publication, Winmag.com, conducted performance tests of a Windows 2000 late beta and determined real-world minimums that are significantly higher than Microsoft's and that provide minimally acceptable performance:

Real-world Win2000 System Requirements

Microsoft's Minimum System Requirements Winmag.com
Real-world
Recommendations

WINDOWS 2000 PROFESSIONAL

CPU 133MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU. 200MHz or better Pentium (Pentium Pro or higher preferred).

Memory 64MB of RAM 64MB is OK for light use, but 128MB strongly preferred.

Disk 2GB hard disk; 1GB free disk space. No change.

WINDOWS 2000 SERVER / ADVANCED SERVER

CPU 133MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU. 200MHz or faster Pentium (Pentium II or better preferred).

Memory 128MB RAM minimum; 256MB recommended. Any server running multiple services needs at least 256MB of RAM.

Disk 2GB hard disk with a minimum of 1GB free disk space. We recommend at least 9GB of hard disk with 2GB free for any server.

(For the rest of the Winmag report, see http://www.winmag.com/win2000/gold/)

In new desktop systems, it's fairly easy to find PCs that ship with 128 Mbytes or more RAM as standard gear. But most brand-new notebooks ship with 64 Mbytes of RAM standard, and a significant minority number of notebooks still ship with 32 Mbytes of RAM standard. While these systems are fine for running NT4, they're too RAM-anemic for Windows 2000 without an upgrade to at least 128 Mbytes of RAM.

And that's new hardware. Now think about the notebooks and desktops in use in your company and estimate at how many already have 128 Mbytes or more of RAM--the amount needed for acceptable performance with Windows 2000. In fact, how many even meet the 64 Mbytes minimum? My guess is that many in-place systems lack sufficient RAM to run Windows 2000 well, or at all. Adding in the cost of extra RAM on top of the already high cost of Windows 2000 itself may make an enterprisewide upgrade a very pricey proposition.

4) Windows 2000 Still Has Many Hardware Compatibility Issues
As mentioned above, Windows 2000 finally overcomes NT's problems with power management firmware--but your hardware may require a BIOS update for everything to work properly. (See http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/upgrade/compat/issues.asp. ) BIOS updates are usually free and don't take much time, but if you're talking about an enterprisewide upgrade of many machines, then it's no small matter.

Similarly, you may need new drivers to get the most out of your peripherals. Microsoft says it deliberately limited the number of drivers that ship with Windows 2000: "Drivers must meet a very high standard of quality to be included on the Windows 2000 product CD. To ensure that all components contribute to making Windows 2000 robust and reliable, drivers provided with the product go through exhaustive testing. After talking with customers, Microsoft decided to limit the number of drivers on the product CD rather than risk system stability by including any drivers that do not meet the standard of quality."

That's laudable, and the provided drivers do cover a lot of ground--many peripherals are supported right out of the box, at least at a basic get-it-working level. But a number of advanced peripherals, including CD-ROM burners, cameras, video-capture hardware, TV tuner cards, MPEG decoders, and advanced sound cards, may not work well or at all with Windows 2000 as shipped. You'll have to track down new drivers, device by device. If Windows 2000 drivers aren't available, then you'll have to try NT drivers. If NT drivers aren't available, you'll have to try Win98 drivers--and hope the non-Windows 2000 drivers don't reduce the system stability that was originally the No. 1 reason you tried the upgrade in the first place.

To help you preview what trouble you might run into, you can download and use the free Windows compatibility tool at http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/upgrade/compat/ready.asp.

This small application will sniff your hardware (and software) to tell you what probably will--and won't--work.

Other good pre-install resources are http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/upgrade/compat/search/default.asp and http://www.hardware-update.com/.

5) Windows 2000 Has Myriad Little "Gotchas"
Dynamic Disk and Dynamic Partition are powerful tools for setting up disks and partitions under Windows 2000, but they have some unusual limitations and also can cause unexpected trouble (such as with dual-boot or multiboot systems). I found some Netscape Communicator plug-ins that won't work. On first boot of Windows 2000, Outlook 2000 (alone out of the Office2000 suite) goes through a long automatic reinstall.

These and many more "pebble in the shoe" kinds of small problems are not terrible in themselves, but there are a lot of them. At some level, it's to be expected with a new operating system. But after hearing Microsoft go on about the platform's "three-click install" and such, it's a little disappointing to find there are still a lot of little glitchlets and snags.

In all, and on balance, I'm still quite positive about Windows 2000: It probably is the best Windows ever, and it will improve over time as (say) more original equipment manufacturers ship Windows 2000 drivers.

But what's your take? What are the things you most dislike about the new operating system? What are the most welcome (or most needed!) improvements over NT4 and Win9x? Join in the discussion!

CAREER CENTER

Ready to take that job and shove it?
Open | Close