On 09:50 PM 2/13/01 +1000, Robi Bittler said:
>Hi guys -
>Hi a.j. -
>yes It's me, again - "Robi is doing the upgrade dance" - that's what you called it, 
>didn't you, a.j.?

Yes. No offense intended, of course. As always, just trying to keep some humor alive.

>Anyway -
>you guys only ever talk about the good things of W2k as an operating system.
>Could someone please give me the down-sides of it, as well.

It's more complex than W9x, in that one must be a little more intelligent in the 
management of said W2k system than a w9x system. It's an issue which is much too 
complex to discuss in a few sentences. O/S management is something you'll have to do 
your own home work on, though finding info is as easy as typing "windows 2000 
management" into your favorite search engine...

Games generally aren't supported by their mfg.s within the W2k environment 

W2k doesn't really like obsolete equipment. The same can be said for all flavors of 
W9x though, so I'm not sure that it's a valid downside. You be the judge.

>, couple of questions -
>Will W2k tolerate modem-sharing?

yes. see http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/guide/server/features/networking.asp,
sub category "Getting connected to the internet"

>Will W2k tolerate dual screen-setup with totally independent screen-settings?

Of course, it's important to say up-front that dual monitor support for W95/98/ME 
already provides independent resolutions for each monitor in current product offerings 
of nearly every kind, including all of the flavors listed in the next paragraph...

Assuming that your asking whether W2k will allow separate resolutions within a single 
desktop (Horizontal or Veritcal span, as opposed to clone mode (duplication of one 
monitor's view on another), then:

If we are discussing either Matrox's G400 or 450, NVidia's GF2MX, or any other 
single-chip, dual monitor solution, the answer is a resounding NO!. Not at this 
juncture, to the best of my knowledge. From what I've read, the problem has to do with 
"limitations of W2k's inherent multi-monitor support", whose architecture clearly 
predates the more recent advances in peripheral hardware/software design, "and its 
undesirable impact upon third party multi-monitor solutions":.. IMO, it's a problem 
which Mickey really needs to address...As I've noted to them on several occasions... 
This is a shortcoming I'm willing to accept as a tradeoff for the capabilities that my 
particular configuration offers to me. You may or may not make that same choice, 
depending on your desires and requirements. 

If you're talking about using two distinct video cards, or a single card solution like 
the Matrox G200 Multimonitor, then yes, as then we are talking about two independent 
video controllers, which W2k DOES accept as true independence. In terms of the 
specific Matrox model, call them for the answer. Note that for true independent 
operation under Win2k, the G400 and G450 are not suitable, as they suffer the same 
basic limitations as the NVidia MX solutions, ie, they run from a single chip, and 
therefore are seen as a single video card by W2k. Matrox suggests that the G200 will 
remain in production for some time, and that it is possible that an advanced model 
based on the G200 might be developed at some time in the future...whatever that 
means...(Basically, they realize the commercial threat that NVidia presents, and 
therefore have concentrated on the consumer-grade product-line opposing NVidia's 

According to the video card mfgs I've spoken with, Win2k has a max viewport of 

Wish I had a PCI graphics card at my disposal. I still have an old 15" and a couple 
edges of the IRQ at my disposal...Three monitors! ooh, how cool!!!

>Will W2k tolerate a DOS-Shell?

If by DOS-Shell, you mean the mainstay of "museum" applications, written using Turbo 
Pascal and the like, waaaaaaaaay back in the "old days" of the last century, <g> it's 
hit & miss at best. As I suggested in almost every earlier email on the subject of 
pro-level systems, Dual-Boot is really not an option for a professional, it is a 
requirement. And this is one of the reasons. On a related note, legacy support is one 
of the primary hobblings of the NT platform. Because so many potential business users 
expect the Windows NT kernel to provide support for every possible application they 
want to run (unlike their expectations of every other O/S), Microsoft has been bullied 
into limiting the abilities of the more modern and advanced architecture by dragging 
around a bevy of obsolete 16-bit subsystems, subsequently crippliing or altogether 
killing many planned features in deference to the might of the old and dilapidated 
applications of 10 years ago...(Win2k was never meant to have any level 
   of legacy support for
 16-bit processes, but their marketing folk changed the rules after -IMO- listening to 
the wrong group of customers. Ah well...it's the dawn of a new Amerika for an 
old-breed of users, if you know what I mean...)

Point? Dual-boot for legacy support is a MUST, just as you might willingly dual-boot 
in Linux for whatever it brings to the table, or alternatively to DOS3.3 for some 
archaic DOS games that just won't run within the W9x environment...Just because an 
application isn't a game doesn't mean that it isn't subject to the same rules of 
engagement...And that includes TurboCv2 and all of its brothers, sisters, cousins, 
aunts, uncles, sons, daughters, best-buds, worst-buds, etc, and almost anyone else 
except, possibly a few Futurists from its era. 

Since I have found that many questions regarding legacy support come from 
user-intimidation at the NT environment and the concepts of dual-booting, 
mutli-threading, and like ideas as the sole domain of super-users, I have to say the 

Hype about the difficulties of creating a dual-boot environment are just that, hype, 
usually fostered by those who often have to struggle with specification sheets 
outlining simple differences between one product and another, or who have heard that 
it's difficult, in fact even impossible (and will make your finger fall off and your 
girlfriend run away with another guy) from a friend (gamer) who heard it from a friend 
(gamer), who heard it from a friend (gamer) who...The process of installation of a 
dual-boot system is nothing to worry about, in fact, it's easy, as long as you have 
suitable hardware and execute the installation in the following order

1. Install oldest O/S(s)
2. Install next oldest O/S(s)
Oh...and pay attention to the fact the O/Ses based on the same kernel do not get along 
together. Of course, for the specifics, you can do a quick web search to determine the 
correct step-by-step for installing a dual-boot. Again, this stuff is off-topic enough 

For good legacy support, I recommend the following:

1. DOS 6
2. Windows 9x (the choice is up to you here. I'm not going to launch into a three page 
paper about the merits and shortcomings of each version and sub-version of this O/S 
subset. That's your job. 
3. Win2k

This means that you'll install DOS6, then a dual-boot to W9x (there are limits on 
versions to which you can attach DOS 6, btw: see net for more info)

Then install dual boot between W9x and W2k.

When you first boot the system after installation, dual-boot between W9x and W2k is 
available (if you've configured for dual boot...)

Then, if you choose W9x, you'll be presented with another choice, including DOS 6. You 
won't get to DOS6 directly from the first dual-boot screen...

One last point of note. The ONLY reason I graduated from Omation's Schema III (Sch) 
and Protel Autotrax (PCB) to P9x is that neither ran correctly within the 32-bit O/S 
environs I was migrating into, of any flavor, and I was concerned that my now ten 
year-old 486 was soon going to bite the bullet, leaving me with a defunct design 
platform and hundreds of designs which were useless and unviewable. That I've become 
happier with the 32-bit versions over time isn't salient. Recognizing that I could be 
stubborn or grow with the changing world was.... 


There is a distinct difference between slow & deliberate and deliberately slow

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  This message sent by: PROTEL EDA USERS MAILING LIST
*  Use the "reply" command in your email program to
*  respond to this message.
*  To unsubscribe from this mailing list use the form at
*  the Association web site. You will need to give the same
*  email address you originally used to subscribe (do not
*  give an alias unless it was used to subscribe).
*  Visit http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/subscrib.html
*  to unsubscribe or to subscribe a new email address.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


To leave the EDAFORUM discussion list, send a email with
'leave edaforum' in the body to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'

More Information : http://www.dolist.net

Reply via email to