Europe South Asia Asia Pacific Americas Middle East Africa BBC Homepage World Service Education
BBC Homepagelow graphics version | feedback | help
BBC News Online
 You are in: Talking Point: Debates: Background
Front Page 
UK Politics 
Talking Point 
In Depth 
Thursday, 24 February, 2000, 13:09 GMT
Your experiences of Windows 2000

Have you used Windows 2000? Read your experiences

Microsoft will have to either lower the price or wait until I'd have a spare $160. I'm going to get Linux. Yes, Linux, Linux...
Andrej, Russia

It works very well. Multi language option is very good. Upgrade from win98 went almost perfect.
F Smiles, USA

It's incredible. And it's faster and has a lot of extra features. Amazing! That's the way to do it Bill!
George Tharakan, India
I have used Windows 2000 since the first beta release (when it was still NT5) and have found it to be very stable. Microsoft seem to have improved on the functionality of Windows whilst at the same time making it easier to install and maintain.
James King, UK

If you are currently using NT4, the upgrade to Win2K. It's better by far. If you prefer Linux, UNIX or MacOS, then use them instead. It really doesn't matter who makes a product as long as you are happy with it...
Greg Bloxham, UK

Windows 2000 professional is far superior to any other offering on the business marketplace. The server offerings will have to judged based on this analogy. If you have it properly installed the major issues go away. For the record I belong to a Service Launch Partner (SLP) for Windows 2000.
Sean McGilligan, UK

Just as MS says - it's Windows for grown ups. Robust, functional and secure.
Sandy Miller, Scotland
Just as MS says - it's Windows for grown ups. Robust, functional and secure. Just what the doctor ordered - especially when ADSL and always on services are about to appear - we get a proper, very secure system to help us manage it all. 10/10
Sandy Miller, Scotland

This is the most useful comment column I have read for a while. I WAS going to buy Win 2000, (from the USA to save money over the UK version). Having read all the pros and cons I will wait till the next release before I do. Also thanks for all who highlighted the spontaneous reboots by Win 98, I thought I had a fault in my RAM or PSU and it was driving me crackers.
Steve Foley, England

Gosh.... They have done it again! They've repackaged windows 98, cleaned it up further and called it (purely to look fresh),... Windows 2000! Microsoft have had there day now. Linux will explode. Simply because its free.
Andrew Silvester, England

It's not a bad package overall. The installation is not overly complicated, an improvement on NT. However as mentioned before I did find that it crashed on a couple of occasions, especially when configuring networking. On the whole, I'd rather stick with a tried & tested OS, preferably SCO Unix or free BSD. Oh, for those of you that want an alternative to everything, have you considered BeOS?
Fated, UK

I am a global sales exec. My business infrastructure includes laptop, modem, phone and network. When I installed a trial of Win2000 I found that it was incapable of sustaining the comms necessary for that infrastructure. Drivers were absent or not working for the most common of peripheral technologies. It was disappointing but expected. My recommendation to the company was not to deploy before 18 months of launch.
John Otley, Australia

hmmm.... I thought my hardware was all on the WHCL for Windows NT 4.0... looks like I'll have to ditch a whole swag of hardware until 3rd party manufacturers get round to rewriting their device drivers... its a pity... LINUX here we come!
Oskar Katt, Australia

Nice - but then again so is Linux. And I didn't pay a cent for it. Upgrades come free, fast, and are supported by programmers world-wide.
Terence Parker, Hong Kong

My first experience on 233 Pentium II with 96MB of RAM was a system crash. Giving the benefit of the doubt I rebooted and waited 12 minutes to boot. I know it was a BETA release I tested, but it was very poor. However, after getting over that hurdle, I found the rest of the system took a bit of getting used to. This was eased by the familiar NT4 interface. Overall, it has potential, but I was not initially impressed at the huge amount of resources that are required to run it. Out of 10, I would give it a 3.
Toby Luscher, England, UK

Windows 2000 is nothing but a combination of NT and Windows 98.
Arvind Kumar, UK
Windows 2000 is nothing but a combination of NT and Windows 98. Marketed as being more reliable and scalable and hence suitable for server based applications, it is yet to be a fully functional multi-tasking operating system. Also the TCP/IP protocol stack appears to be still more of an add-on rather than an integral part of the OS. Microsoft's products have a long way to go before coming close to matching the performance, reliability and scalability of UNIX based OS's like Solaris, BSD and Linux. Microsoft's OS's seem more like a mish-mash of patches, patches and more patches - all to try and fix a mediocre and outdated core.
Arvind Kumar, UK

I find it odd that this event has not been covered at all on mainstream TV and media sources. The most important and long-awaited software in the history of mankind seems to be ignored.
Simon John Othen, UK

Some new wallpaper, fading windows and a shadow on the mouse. Is it really worth the change?
Keith Gill, UK
I am a professional software developer. I tried the last beta version. The performance was far superior to NT4 in virtually all areas. The install was absolutely painless. It correctly identified every piece of hardware on my workstation and installed all the necessary drivers with no external disks required. By comparison, an NT installation needs between 4 and 6 CD's other than the main disk for my system. The system administration is greatly improved as a result of consistent use of the Management Console. By far the best product Microsoft has offered.
Curtis Birnbach, USA

For anyone who has had to deal with the many bugs and poor support that the Win9x and NT OSes have had, 2000 will be a breath of fresh air. I have been using it since RC1 and have never had any problems whatsoever! Not only is it stable, but the UI has been tweaked ever so slightly to help make it more accessible. Perhaps the greatest new feature is the MMC, where you can customise administrative control sets to fit individual needs.
Bryan Egan, USA

I have been using versions of RC3 and final Win2k. It is a significant improvement on both Win98 and NT. I particularly like the new style of network options and the management interface. However before it is readily adopted as a server OS it will have to mature.
Ryan Tiplady, England

Average home users probably will not see enough benefit to justify the expense of upgrading
Kris Brekke, Wisconsin USA
I just purchased Win2000 Server & Professional for home use after having been a beta tester for 6 months. It is a very good OS for businesses and home users who need to run many applications at the same time. Average home users probably will not see enough benefit to justify the expense of upgrading, and should wait for the release of Millennium, the successor to Win98. While Win2000 is very stable on most of my PC's, it crashes regularly on one over-clocked PC that is stable with Win98. People who wish to experiment with a truly fast OS should try BeOs, which will be available free by the end of next month.
Kris Brekke, Wisconsin USA

Very nice. I love it. Linux will have to run like hell to catch up.
Isaac Barlow, USA

It was a surprise how well it installed and ran on my laptop - everything worked straight off (including the DVD, and Quake 3!), performance is good and the power management is excellent. It is also very robust. The server software looks more interesting, but the Active Directory will be a big move from the NT4 domain structure that will take time to implement.
Ian Blackburn, UK

Linux is not the only threat to Windows2000. Novell Netware 5 and NDS 8 are also two mature products which Windows 2000 is trying to compete with its "Active Directory" in the Enterprise arena. Too little too late. Mobile computing is wave of the future, Windows 2000 is not even close to compact enough for this kind of application. There are already Linux versions for the up and coming "Web-Pads" that have all the niceties of a GUI (Graphical User Interface). Although there is no "plummet", the spiral is downward.
Waqar Rathore, UK

I think it has big problems with internet, especially if your internet connection is disconnected from your ISP automatically after expiration of time, most of the time you will have to restart the system. Still so many hardware providers don't have drivers in Windows 2000.
Atif, Australia

Windows 2000 has some good features and some new groovy looking icons, the only thing I would warn you all about is the infrared does not work with any mobile phones that I have tried.
John Wilson, United Kingdom

Takes a long time to install, needs to reboot about 5 times (co-incidentally as many times as it crashed during installation), and is still effectively 'bloat-ware'. It does seem a bit more stable, but I wonder at what cost over a long term.
Dragon, Canada

I would hope people judge Windows 2000 on its merits rather than on what they have read on the internet.
Reda Bouchami, UK
I have used W2K and it is far and away the best operating systems I have ever used. I have yet to report one bug after 2 months of use and I certainly think Microsoft have got it right this time.
Instead of following the flock and bashing Microsoft people should thank them! I don't see any other Software company investing $1bn in one piece of software and I would hope people judge Windows 2000 on its merits rather than on what they have read on the internet.
Reda Bouchami, UK

I went on a Windows 2000 overview course and found it to be slightly faster and a little more stable than NT 4.0. On the whole I thought it was a combination 'NT4.0 plus Ghost'. Another gimmick so Microsoft can try to rip-off the user!!!
Shaun Warnock, UK

I have been using an evaluation copy for several weeks.(Notebook PC used on an office network and for home/travel use). I have found it to be more robust/stable than '95 and more tolerant of a notebook set-up than NT
Nick Butler, UK

Windows 2000 does not crash but some applications take ages to load.
Anon, England
Windows 2000 does not crash but some applications take ages to load. The Wintv software from Hauppauge takes about 3 minutes to load. Also Windows 2000 takes a very long time to boot up, and there are still some VERY annoying bugs in it.
Anon, England

I'm running on a laptop with no driver support. I hear nothing and the screen looks terrible. From a user stand point this is just another NT release.
Toby Privett, US/UK

Windows 2000 is really stable but it does place a large demand on the memory side of things. I will not recommend it to anyone with less than 128MB RAM in their machine. Also some of the drivers for devices like webcam and writing pads ain't ready yet. So be prepare to do without the more "special hardwares" should you upgrade.
Hoi, UK

A definite improvement over Windows NT.
Derek Sooman, UK
DVD playback, better utilisation of memory over 128 megabytes, in built encryption - for many reasons I am spending less and less time in Windows 98 and more in Windows 2000. A definite improvement over Windows NT.
Derek Sooman, UK

The o/s looks quite strong, however it still lacks driver support and is resource hungry. Microsoft will have trouble convincing anyone that this will run faster than their previous operating systems.
Jake Gully, UK

The greatest benefit with NT is easily stability. Its memory management ridicules that of Windows 98 and it doesn't need to be rebooted anywhere near as much. It does still crash but I'd rather use it over 98 any day.
There is very little else that the common use will find appealing in 2000 though. The interface has seen hardly any improvement over 98 and most of the changes are aimed more squarely at network administrators such as the Active Directory feature. And at the absurd price of over 200 pounds most non-corporate users will be deterred as will some corporate users for that matter.
Pete Closs, UK

All the development of the Windows OS, and I still have to wait ages to create a new folder in Windows Explorer. Why haven't they put this directly on the menu or at least a keyboard shortcut? Oh well, I'll just shelve Windows 2000, go back to using MS-DOS and wait, with hope, for the first Win2000 Service Pack!
Guy Rinaldi, England

So far so good. It is a lot more stable than 95, but so was a cup coffee on a dashboard 100mph. And the plug n play is a joy.
Pabs, England

I have been using it for a while now as a beta release, I find it runs slow but it does have many new features that make life a lot easier for the average user.
Amit Chandarana, England

It is not an upgrade to Windows 98, and not suited to the average home user.
H Jones, UK
Windows 2000 is a good improvement over Windows NT, and much easier to install. I had trouble getting my scanner and 3D card to work (they still don't), and it does tend to freeze at times. Having said that, it works a treat when installed on a network and used as a workstation. However, it must be stressed that it is not an upgrade to Windows 98, and not suited to the average home user.
H Jones, UK

Win2k is a Linux Wannabe. It's FTP and general IIS services runs at half the speed with twice the memory in comparison. What's worse with Win2k seems to change their standards once again with Windows Networking, hence breaking SAMBA!
Kai Hendry, UK

It is still unstable. There is a problem when adding 2000 server to networks. For instance a consultant with 2000 running on a laptop plugs into a network 2000 can become a PDC.
J Miller, USA

I have to say that I have very mixed feelings about Win2000. Windows products are notoriously buggy, and I have to say I found Win2000 to be no exception. On installing it on my PC, everything seemed to go fine, until for no reason whatsoever my network card stopped working. After fruitless hours of searching and reinstalling we could find nothing wrong, even after reinstalling drivers and changing as many setting as we could find.
The problem, however, was an intermittent one. Sometimes it would work, sometimes it wouldn't. The final remedy was simple. A return to Win98. I won't be trying Win2000 again, not until I have my confidence in their products restored.
Shaun Rodger, UK

I have found virtually no incompatibilities and will have no hesitation in purchasing a copy for home use.
Richard Catterall, UK
I have been using beta versions of Windows 2000 in a professional environment for some time and have found the performance to be outstanding. I have found virtually no incompatibilities and will have no hesitation in purchasing a copy for home use.
Richard Catterall, UK

I think Microsoft should concentrate on getting NT4 to work reliably before forcing a new operating system down our throats.
Andy Alder, England

I've been running Windows 2000 Professional and Server full editions for about 4 weeks now. They are a vast improvement on Windows NT 4.0. It appears stable, is easy to use and has some very nice features. The differences in the domain strategy (Active Directory, etc) is going to fox a large number of NT administrators. All in all, this is a good product, but take up will be slow and the free OS Linux may be a real challenger if businesses can be convinced it is a stable enterprise platform.
Nick Curtis MCSE, England

Seems rock solid! They have obviously learnt that people will accept no less. However, I've not used the Active Directory portion of Win2k. I'm waiting for all the card manufacturers to produce Win2K drivers so I can get rid of the appalling Windows/9x OS.
Toby, UK

I have up to date hardware and installing the beta has been a nightmare, still don't have it working!
H Glynn, UK

Seems more stable than NT (so far). Main problem revolves around getting the drivers to work for certain game packages. Pretty dropshadow effects....
Andy Milford, UK

A few new wallpapers and nice fading menus, apart from that it looks and feels the same.
Keith Gill, UK

I think MS may have dug themselves a big hole here.
Chris Adams, UK
I think there will be a considerable amount of consumer confusion with this. There are likely to be a lot of people running 95/98 who will go to 2000 thinking it's the next step, when a lot of software, particularly games, will just not install. This coupled with the pretty large system requirements will leave a lot of people frustrated and stuck with a new OS that's completely unsuitable for their needs. If they'd kept the name as Windows NT v5 they just wouldn't have this problem. I think MS may have dug themselves a big hole here.
Chris Adams, UK

2000 Server and Professional are both VERY stable - it makes a change to see an OS that doesn't crash every time you reboot, or whenever you log in! Shame it needs such a powerful machine and costs so much though!
Neil Webster, UK

I have installed W2K on a Laptop, the installation was impressive with the only problems being where hardware specific drivers for specialist components were required. It seems to start and run faster with, so far, no bugs.
Robin Hoyle, UK

I wouldn't touch windows 2000 with a barge pole for at least a year! Once the showstopping bugs are fixed, it will be the best OS around.
Our company has been using versions of Windows 2000 for the past year, and we know that there are plenty of scenarios that simply have not been tested properly.
Nigel, Ireland

I have used W2K as part of the Corporate Preview Programme since April 1999. Today I have purchased the shipping product. As a consultant in the oil & gas industry I rely on my notebook computer for everyday business computing. My experiences with W2K are extremely positive. It has the speed of NT 4 running business applications and surpasses Windows 98 in terms of stability, plug and play capability and power management. It is the premier notebook computing OS for the business user. It is a, surprisingly excellent product from Microsoft (at last!)
David Moore, UK

Overall this is by far the best OS that Microsoft have ever produced.
Tim Davie-Baguley, UK
I have been using Windows 2000 for five months and I have no problems at all to report. Normal application crashes are recovered within seconds. Problems with Windows itself are automatically resolved. Full power management works perfectly, including Standby and Hibernate. Network and Internet access is faster. New hardware is installed and configured 'behind the scenes' with no user intervention required. User-friendliness is greatly improved, new functions and old are self-explanatory, errors are described in plain English, and how to solve them. Overall this is by far the best OS that Microsoft have ever produced, if it continues to operate as it has for the last five months there will be a much lower need for technical engineers supporting the OS.
Tim Davie-Baguley, UK

I have been running a Win 2000 network since Christmas. I believe MS at last has a winning operating system with it. It is incredibly stable and the configuration complexity of NT 4.0 has been considerable reduced. It also addresses a host of peripheral issues and accessories that make it a complete tool.
Mike Dunbar, UK

I loaded the RC2 version. No drivers available for my Network card printer or video card. So I went back to 95 and NT
Mike Burton, UK

Keep up the good work Microsoft!
Kenny Brunton, England
Superb! Microsoft seems to have got it right at last. With Windows 9x I was accustomed to at least two or three system freezes, blue screens or spontaneous resets a day. I have had the RTM build of 2000 Pro running continuously on my home PC for two weeks now and despite my best efforts (even going to the extent of over clocking my 300MHz K6 to 375MHz) I have been unable to break it - it just keeps going! Stability doesn't come with a performance cost either - 2000 is between 25% and 50% faster than 98 on everything I have taken the time to benchmark. Installation was slow, but less heavy-handed with my existing Linux and OS/2 partitions than previous Microsoft offerings.
John Stockton, United Kingdom

I have worked with windows 2000. That is very improved server operating system. I hope Microsoft will improve more in operating systems as well as other software programs.
Muhammad Akmal, Pakistan

Despite protestations from Linux/NT/win95/win98 users about the unreliability of Win2000 in certain areas, even in Beta form it is a very stable package. I'm sure any minor problems will be ironed out with the official release and subsequent service packs. I've been using it for several weeks and it's not crashed yet. Anything else is just pants┐as you can imagine!
Andy Labrow, UK

A great improvement from a user standpoint
Mike Penny, UK
A great improvement from a user standpoint, however if you are tasked with administering a WinNT/95/98 network then some of the administration changes may fox you at first.
Mike Penny, UK

I tried Win2k for about 3 days before I put Win98 back on. Some aspects of Win2k simply don't work, others are infected with bugs. I'm going to wait for service pack 1 or 2 to arrive, and only then would I consider re-installing Win2k.

I have been using 2000 beta on and off for almost 2 years now. Currently on RC2 - and have been for 4 months. The OS is totally stable and has not had any major crash outs. Although the printer set-up is a bit annoying though.
Phil Riley, United Kingdom

I have been using it on a daily basis since its early testing and have had few problems with it except poor support from hardware vendors.
Neil Gaskell, UK

Microsoft are not only running a monopoly, but the world's biggest money making scam
Adrian Mann, Birmingham, UK
I haven't used Windows 2000 and don't have the need or desire to. Why? Because I use Macs, which have had everything Win2K has for years... Same old story - PC users get ripped off, for an overpriced, substandard product, which will force them to buy ever more expensive upgrades, and software fixes and updates, and on and on. Microsoft are not only running a monopoly, but the world's biggest money making scam. Do yourselves a favour - if you have a PC - get Linux instead.
Adrian Mann, Birmingham, UK

I have used three different versions of Win2K over the last 6 months you can make it fail, but you have to try real hard. It's a worthy successor to NT4
Michael Coles, Australia

As usual with Microsoft products, most of the media response will be driven more by the desire to give Bill Gates a kicking than by any real deficiencies in the software. I've been using Win2K AS Beta for 6 months on a high-end graphics workstation and it's great. The dual processor support is much better than on NT4 that is really noticeable with multi-threaded apps like PhotoShop and 3D Max.

An expensive upgrade when most of what your getting are start menu items that now fade in and out beautifully (and slowly) instead of scrolling. Plus, it's meant to be more robust. So, no more rebooting - I think not!
Dave Gunthorpe, UK

I think most people will like it, despite the cost!
Neil Webster, UK
Windows 2000 Server and Workstation are far better than previous releases. It looks very similar to Win98, but has Windows NT's greatest characteristic - it doesn't crash all that much! It is also nice to see that you can dual boot 95/98 & 2000 on the same system without having to resort to FAT16. I think most people will like it, despite the cost!
Neil Webster, UK

It's still very early days but my first impression is that it tries to do too much for you. Every time you add something a wizard launches to help you through it. This strikes me as too much hand holding, and seems to restrict your ability to install something your own way. It does seem extremely robust through - no crashes at all so far.
Phil Hudson, UK

When I installed it, my serial mouse wouldn't work! There was an IRQ conflict with another COM port. Luckily I was able to navigate via the keyboard to resolve this issue. On the plus side there are many good features, such as resizable Open/Save dialogue boxes and better Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer interfaces
Daren Pearcy, England

I have been running the full retail version of Win 2k on my machine for just over 48hrs and I have had not on hiccup. Another brilliant product from Microsoft - Well Done!
Dave M. Shell, England

I think there will be a considerable amount of consumer confusion with this. There are likely to be a lot of people running 95/98 who will go to 2000 thinking it's the next step, when a lot of software, particularly games, will just not install. This coupled with the pretty large system requirements will leave a lot of people frustrated and stuck with a new OS that's completely unsuitable for their needs. If they'd kept the name as Windows NT v5 they just wouldn't have this problem. I think MS may have dug themselves a big hole here.
Chris Adams, UK

After suffering the awful stability of Windows 98, which consistently dug its own grave after 2 to 3 days of uptime, Windows 2000 is rock solid in comparison
Ntone, UK
Superb. After suffering the awful stability of Windows 98, which consistently dug its own grave after 2 to 3 days of uptime, Windows 2000 is rock solid in comparison. Additionally, the article on Windows 2000 on your website, which informs people "don't upgrade to Windows 2000 if you want to play games", is simply wrong. Windows 2k has DirectX 7 built in, meaning that games such as Unreal Tournament have been running superbly on my machine. This release sees Microsoft offering by far their best product to date.
Ntone, UK

I have used both Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server. I can say that I am ready to install Professional on my company machines but I will wait a few months before installing server because I want to be sure that Microsoft will support the installation with their MCIS system that I have installed with Win NT 4. The configuration is very strict and before I go any further, they have to support that installation.
Hilary Mathwasa, Botswana

It is slightly slower in places but in return is much more reliable and manageable. It has never crashed in the six months I've been using it and compatibility with ISV software has been excellent. Even games such as Homeworld seem quite happy. A worthwhile upgrade if your computer is fast enough - especially if you have a laptop.
Mark Hirst, United Kingdom

After installing Win2000 over NT at home everything seemed fine. Unfortunately 2000 does not recognise my CD writer or RAS settings to allow access to my firewall at work. As a consequence I have resorted back to NT until such time drivers are available. I have windows 2000 at work and it seems to work a treat but there are signs of weaknesses in compatability with other software such as Lotus Notes.
Simon Davies, England

Its gonna kick some serious Unix butt.
Graham Wright, Netherlands
Win 2000 is has many benefits over the existing Operating Systems that were previously available. They include the Active Directory. The browser has been integrated more into the OS and there is more of a Internet feel to the software. From past experience Microsoft has been very careful about the drivers they include with Win 2000. This means there are a limited number and your hardware may not be supported. I have tested various software packages and the results can be very interesting. Most work normally but the occasional one will produce an error or will simply not start. Overall the Operating System is very good, but only time will tell if it will be enough to keep Microsoft in the Top position, especially with the increased competition from Linux and other 'open source' Operating systems.
Rob Taylor, UK

So far I'm impressed with Windows 2000. But based on Microsoft record in the past. I'm looking for alternatives. It's Linux that's going to be the next big thing.
Mark Ackroyd, UK

I have been using Windows 2000 since Beta 1 - when it was still NT 5.0 - and it's a vast improvement on Microsoft's previous operating system products. It does need up-to-date hardware and plenty of memory, but you could say that about leading-edge software at any time. I'm using Windows 2000 Professional and Server on a variety of machines in my office and on public-facing Web servers, and I'm already more than happy with it. Despite what the BBC story says, Windows 2000 Professional is a suitable operating system for sophisticated home users, and although most existing games won't run on it, most new ones will, thanks to the DirectX support. Sorry if this sounds like a Microsoft commercial - but it honestly is a great product!
Neil Hewitt, UK

Windows 2000 is not all that it cracks up to be, especially when you are installing it on a network server. The security issues and permissions can be more confusing to set than Windows NT, and what do you get? Not a great deal. If I were an NT user then I would purchase the latest service pack and grin for not being ripped off!!
Max Hammond, UK

I've been using Windows 2000 ever since it was in Beta. Previous to that I was used to 5 crashes per day on average when using Windows 98. Even in beta, Windows 2000 hasn't crashed once since I installed it in September. I'm now running the release version and it's stable, fast and secure. I'd only recommend it for business use, since older software and games aren't too happy running on it, and obviously, don't bother unless you've got lots of RAM and a decent processor. I mainly use mine for working with MS Office docs, Visual Studio, and web publishing with IIS5 which comes as part of Windows 2000.
Chris Goode, England

Windows 2000 is the best OS I have used. It gives you all the usual Windows bits with many improvements. It is more stable and user friendly
John, Ireland

It rocks, it supported all my hardware plus its not crashed once in the 2 weeks I have had it.
Jason W, Scotland

I have used Windows 2000 Professional since release candidate 1. I found it to be a stable and speedy platform, despite the fact that it was beta code and was obviously carrying a lot of debugging baggage. I used it to run some applications that we use on NT and I used it on a laptop that I normally run NT on. The plug and play features of W2K are really great, you can pull out a network card and replace it with another PCMCIA card on the fly. This is really useful. I liked the interface, which was more rounded and seemed to be more intuitive, especially in the networking arena.

Having said all this, I'd much rather see the new 2.4 kernel of Linux when that comes out, there will be PNP in that. I have used Linux now for 3 years and it's great. It doesn't crash, it's very cheap, it runs on old slow machines and when the desktop guys get the installation and UI so that it shields the users from command line nightmares then I think there will be a huge uptake of Linux, and I'm all for it.
Jason Pepper, UK

Very impressive. I've been running it as my primary OS at both work and home for the last six months. Infinitely more stable than NT4 and very feature rich. Also runs most of the latest games as well as 98 (probably even better once official drivers are released).
Matt Thurlow, UK

Takes ages to install and once it's up and running is very slow starting up. In addition I have found several problems such as the computer suddenly rebooting, etc. In my opinion it won't be a good OS to use on any machine that has not got at least a Pentium II 400+ - The overall appearance is rather disappointing and not much different from the NT4 Win98 look. A very annoying aspect is the continuing integration of Internet Explorer in the OS which does not allow removal.
Kim Blanchard, UK

After I installed Windows 2000 Professional. I could not use my DVD drive, my modem or my scanner.
Calum Lang, England

Windows 2000 is yet another move towards trying to bring computing to the masses. It is designed to be easier for novice users. Hardcore geeks will object to the size and 'bloatware' in it and I personally would prefer better IT education, than a 'babysitting' OS that becomes huge and thus inherently more bug-prone. New users are often confused by having dozens of ways to achieve the same task - this is true of all Microsoft OS's from 95 onwards. Perhaps a move towards a more simplified OS (i.e. UNIX) but with a well throughout interface (i.e. MACOS) would be the future. I work for a Microsoft Solutions Provider
Ant, UK/Belgium

I haven't used Windows 2000 and I couldn't even if I wanted to. Microsoft have set their sights too high this time - the vast majority of users do not have high spec desktop systems and will undoubtedly, like me, stick to Windows 98.
Adrian Paul Miles, Birmingham, UK

An extremely complex operating system that once understood reduces support costs measurably. An excellent suite of products.
Lee Dumbarton, England

Great! - Oh, except my network adapters don't work and my laptop screen won't display anything (despite allegedly being compatible. Needless to say I have heard nothing from Microsoft or the hardware manufacturer since reporting this issue two months ago....
Andy Turner, UK

Search BBC News Online

Advanced search options
Launch console

Comprehensive coverage of Windows 2000
Windows 2000 launch

Internet links:

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Links to other Background stories are at the foot of the page.

Links to other Background stories