win2k BSOD's

[Chris S]

Did you install this from a clean HD or upgrade from Windows 98?

Also - do you have a reason to be using 2000 over 98? I didn't install 2k
until recently because I didn't need it (I need it now to access my office's
NT admin tools from home). If you're a gamer 98 would be a much easier
choice.

Chris S

"Fatty C" <phat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8NPK6.34$5J2...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Hey everyone. Sorry for the massive cross-post but i'm super stuck and
not
> sure where i should be directing my inquiry.
>
> I have installed windows2000 a number of times on my home computer. I
have
> yet to run an installation without one problem or another. My latest
> install was the least problematic but i get a number of BSOD's each time i
> start the computer after it has been off for some time (say, overnight).
I
> don't get them when i restart the machine once it has been running.
Here's
> some examples of what i'm going through. I have to push reset after each
> step i've listed below:
>
> Yesterday's bootup:
> 1) Unable to load device driver - nv4_mini.sys (related to my video card)
> 2) Unable to load device driver - cdr4_2K.sys (apparently something for
CDR,
> but i don't have one)
> 3) computer resets itself just before the login screen.
> 4) finally works fine.
>
> Today's bootup:
> 1) Unable to load device driver - nv4_mini.sys
> 2) Unknown hard error - ntdll.dll
> 3) Unable to load device driver - parport.sys
> 4) Unable to load device driver - ndiswan.sys
> 5) hung at login
> 6) computer reset itself just before the login screen.
> 5) finally booted up ok.
>
> I'm going crazy. I really like the win2k OS (when it's working) and i'm
> dreading going back to win98. Does anyone have any ideas? See the
attached
> file for my system specs.
>
> Sorry for the size of this post. Wanted to make sure that i provided as
> much info as possible. Thanks to everyone in advance.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
>
>

[Da Wrecka]

"Chris S" <news.ev1.net> wrote in message news:3b053573$1...@newsa.ev1.net...

> Also - do you have a reason to be using 2000 over 98? I didn't install 2k
> until recently because I didn't need it (I need it now to access my
office's
> NT admin tools from home). If you're a gamer 98 would be a much easier
> choice.

I can think of a reason straight away: Win98's speed varies from adequate,
to a rate comparable to a slug on tranquilisers. Win2K maintains a
consistent speed from boot-up to shutdown.

Plus, Win2K supports multiple CPUs. While some games (such as Unreal
Tournament) don't see much improvement, since Win2K can stack all of the
other processes on the second CPU the improvement is there, plus there's a
speed increase in any multithreaded application. Whereas Win98 is slug-slow
whether you have 1 CPU or 10.

There's any number of reasons for using Win2K over Win98. You just have to
know what you're looking for. Personally I'd take Win2K over Win98 any day
of the week.

--
From Da Wrecka
--------------------------------
MoonieCode(1.12.05) SM:7m+ F:sVe>++Me>+++:aNa+ D:sCh---Ta--- X:**:a48s++
O:d--:s-:o++:a--:h+:x? P:a17:s-:w+:f-:eGg:hBr+:t-:cWh:bO:*Gm:y
MinakoCode(1.0.0) SV:8[7] F:sVe>++ X:** O:d++:o+:a--:h---
AmiCode(1.0.0) MA:8[7] F:sMe>+++ X:** O:d--:hk--:o[++]:a--:h+:u--:
CRfH Code: F-- U? IRC-- R+ RM--- H- PSL FW--- S !FR WB-- GN--- AI++ D&M ---
BR? RPG- FDS-- BSL-- N? P+++ W++++ I+ E+++
BMC (01.05.07) SMP:6 X:** V:***** P:s:m:g--:f++:c++:t+++:o+++:l:d+:a++:y+++
O:h:r++:w+++
ICQ: 55173450