Ready for Windows 2000?
By MIKE REVERS
Access Denied
Well, in a word, no. The fact is that the leap into the new millennium is not one that requires a change in your computer's operating system. For those who are unfamiliar with computers, an operating system, or OS, is the software that helps to run your computer's functions. The "Windows Family" of products from Microsoft has been and still is the most successful operating system in the world. The beauty of the OS is that it runs on virtually any machine, which makes it a very versatile operating system. This has helped strengthen its popularity.
However, this aside, the world is not necessarily going to embrace Windows 2000 right away.
Amid rumors of bad programming, software bugs and the tremendous delay in the release of this latest version of Windows, the public has a tarnished view of the once mighty Microsoft. The current anti-trust case pending in the courts also is not helping the public relations of the company. With this anti-Microsoft feeling emerging, others have begun to penetrate further into the operating system market share. Chiefly, the rise of Linux as an alternative OS has caused quite a stir, driving the stock prices of companies like Red Hat, who specialize in the Linux product, to soaring heights on Wall Street.
But wait a minute: Am I being too hard on the new Windows 2000 product? Perhaps, but some of my criticism is well placed. The first thing to attack would be its price, which is expensive to say the least — approximately $170 for the upgrade to win2k, or $250 for the full version. This alone is astonishing, especially when you consider that for the price, there are very limited new features.
The most noticeable benefit is that they decided to build it upon the Windows NT technology, which means that it is expected to be much more reliable (i.e. it will not crash as much). But, the newest features are really not that new, or needed. Things like fading menus when you right click on things or click the start button are nice, but not really practical. There are a few more options for people who love to mount hard drives over the network, or really like to fully integrate their desktop with the internet, but mostly these functions are for the techno savvy.
Microsoft says that win2k it is more secure then Windows 98, but with the vicious rumors of bug problems, I personally don't feel too secure with it running on my system. The real problem for most people is that if you want to run the new OS, you will probably need to upgrade your system again. The minimum requirements will make your machine crawl, and therefore I would personally recommend running win2k on a machine with nothing less than 128mb of RAM, and a 300mHz processor.
However, in Microsoft's defense, it is claiming that this release is only for businesses, and that the individual user should wait on upgrading until the new Windows Millennium product arrives in the fourth quarter of this year.
But, I believe many home users will buy this blindly due to the naming convention that was used. Consumers may think that they are supposed to buy it for their home, because they bought win95 and win98 already. If I were you though, I would probably stick with your current OS, because it is not necessary to upgrade now. Bottom line: If the only thing you get for the upgrade is a more stable operating system, it is really not worth your 170 bucks.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Scene Stories for Monday, February 28, 2000
