Yeah, funny too how this is the same generation who got the voting age lowered from 21 to 18.
Everybody seems to be so preoccupied with protecting their children *now*, they don't seem to realize that their children will eventually grow up. And what kind of world will we be leaving our children when they become adults??? A child is vulnerable at a young age, sure... but it usually isn't the greater portion of one's life anyway, assuming we can all accept age 18 as "adult" (I don't think I was any more adult at 18 then 15, but whatever).
It's kind of sickening that our society now thinks this way. We'll do nearly anything to protect the chilren, instead of giving them freedom to live a world they'll be able to enjoy the rest of their lives. Or, at the very least a few rain forests and maybe some clean drinking water.
Most new games I've seen claim to work with 2000 right on the box. Every one I've tried works. Some older games won't install on 2000 (C&C Red Alert is one that comes to mind). It says I need 95 or NT 4.0, strangely enough (I guess it doesn't like the response it gets when it queries the OS name). In spite of this, I've only booted into my Win98 partition once since the install. Windows 2000 gaming support can only get better, and it's pretty close to 98 right now (plus, no crashes!).
Linux has a way to go as far as gaming goes, but that's more of a developer problem than anything (or lack of). I suppose as it continues to gain acceptance as a desktop OS, this will take care of itself.
If you want to play DirectX games, you need a M$ OS. Windows 2000 Pro is far more stable than 95/98, and delivers the same level of DirectX support. But then again, there is the monetary cost involved, right?
As a desktop OS, I'd say Windows 2000 delivers, but then again, Linux does everything else you can ask it to (and more), and at a much lower price tag. Plus, you can get all the services, development software, and applications you need at no additional cost. I don't even want to try adding up the cost of Windows 2000 Advanced Server + Developer Studio + Office 2000 + whatever else you need to get the equivalent of everthing you would from get with most flavors of Linux.
Looking at it from a student's point of view who wants to learn about C++, SQL and whatnot, Linux is a far better choice. Looking at it from a student's point of view who likes to play Half-life and Diablo II without rebooting every 20 minutes, Windows 2000 does the job.:)
I realize I didn't compare the two as production server OSes. I'm sure there's plenty of people willing to debate on that.
Slashdot Mirror
A chain of public bathrooms that happen to serve fries, too. :)
Just what we need, the federal government viewing pr0n sites all day. At least this would give them an excuse.
Yeah, funny too how this is the same generation who got the voting age lowered from 21 to 18.
Everybody seems to be so preoccupied with protecting their children *now*, they don't seem to realize that their children will eventually grow up. And what kind of world will we be leaving our children when they become adults??? A child is vulnerable at a young age, sure... but it usually isn't the greater portion of one's life anyway, assuming we can all accept age 18 as "adult" (I don't think I was any more adult at 18 then 15, but whatever).
It's kind of sickening that our society now thinks this way. We'll do nearly anything to protect the chilren, instead of giving them freedom to live a world they'll be able to enjoy the rest of their lives. Or, at the very least a few rain forests and maybe some clean drinking water.
...will they be able to produce enough to start shipping them?
You're right. I'm using a Number Nine video card though, so support for Windows 2000 drivers is non-existent for me. :(
DirectX acceleration works with the Windows 2000 drivers, but I also get occasional freezes and lockups.
OpenGL works great with the NT 4.0 drivers, however.
Most new games I've seen claim to work with 2000 right on the box. Every one I've tried works. Some older games won't install on 2000 (C&C Red Alert is one that comes to mind). It says I need 95 or NT 4.0, strangely enough (I guess it doesn't like the response it gets when it queries the OS name). In spite of this, I've only booted into my Win98 partition once since the install. Windows 2000 gaming support can only get better, and it's pretty close to 98 right now (plus, no crashes!).
Linux has a way to go as far as gaming goes, but that's more of a developer problem than anything (or lack of). I suppose as it continues to gain acceptance as a desktop OS, this will take care of itself.
If you want to play DirectX games, you need a M$ OS. Windows 2000 Pro is far more stable than 95/98, and delivers the same level of DirectX support. But then again, there is the monetary cost involved, right?
As a desktop OS, I'd say Windows 2000 delivers, but then again, Linux does everything else you can ask it to (and more), and at a much lower price tag. Plus, you can get all the services, development software, and applications you need at no additional cost. I don't even want to try adding up the cost of Windows 2000 Advanced Server + Developer Studio + Office 2000 + whatever else you need to get the equivalent of everthing you would from get with most flavors of Linux.
Looking at it from a student's point of view who wants to learn about C++, SQL and whatnot, Linux is a far better choice. Looking at it from a student's point of view who likes to play Half-life and Diablo II without rebooting every 20 minutes, Windows 2000 does the job. :)
I realize I didn't compare the two as production server OSes. I'm sure there's plenty of people willing to debate on that.