Windows 2000 Problems

[1L]

I just installed 2000 over the weekend as an upgrade over NT. No real problems (minor modem trouble, fixed, and irritating settings and sounds, fixed) except that the computer will not restart. Yes, I can reset it with the button on the box, but the OS won't auto restart the system. It shuts down, then I get an aqua/green screen that stays there indefinitely. What can I do?

[Buckeroo]

Let's see, now.... So you enjoy BUGS, do you? Time after time you hear about some sort of BUG with MS products. BUGS so terrifying that the FBI is called in because of MSOutlook or MSOffice macros. BUGS scouring the internet.

You never hear about BUGS with Linux other than minor nuisances ( all applications have minor nuisances, don't they? ).

Why in the world would you pay for BUGS when you can have a first class OS for free?

[Michael Barnes]

I have a couple Compaqs that had the same setups..I blew away the partitions on them because you can download the rompaq's from compaq's site and expand them to 4 floppies for later configuration of the machine without the 2mb partition.

[Blennos]

I had the very same problem when I first installed Win2k. It was indeed a BIOS problem. I went into the BIOS, turned off or disabled anything not absolutely essential and magically the machine booted up into Win2K. Then I went back into the BIOS, turned on items one at a time. Now all is well.

It is a good idea to write down what you are changing in the BIOS for later use.

Good Luck.

[HiTech RedNeck]

An out of the download/box Linux is usually not secure either; it has to be patched. In that respect it and Windows are in the same boat. In another respect, however, it is in a far better position than Windows: anybody who wishes can look at the source code. It would be very difficult for a mole to smuggle anything into Linux.

[Still Using Air]

Win2K APM and Shutdown Issues I don't know if this is your answer, but it's another place to look.
I recently upgraded to Win2000 Pro, and I most definately love it. I have a 3 month old computer, lots of good ram, and Win2K is the fastest O/S I've ever used, and the most stable.
Before the penguin people jump on me, I'm also running Mandrake Linux 8.1 on two other partitions of this drive, and I have to agree with the pro-Win2K people. Sure, Linux is relatively stable, and not prone to a lot of internet virii, but the lack of quality graphics/web design apps keep me rebooting to Windows.
After finally taking the plunge to upgrade from Win98SE, I find I am hardly ever in Linux anymore. With a good up-to-date virus program, and Zone Alarm, internet security is no longer much of an issue in Windows. IMHO.

[Still Using Air]

Obviously, I haven't learned the correct html for linking. Sorry:
Copy and Paste, I guess. http://is-it-true.org/nt/nt2000/atips/atips42.shtml

[Buckeroo]

I agree with you. But I think you are emphasizing internet access such as your various ports about the TCP/IP stack. To me, this is easily fixed with an inexpensive external hardware firewall or router.

For those folks wanting to be on the internet with their computers it is important to secure your computer independent of any configuration model that the OS may provide ... otherwise, all you have is a toy.

[bigcheese]

I run 2000 servers and 2000 workstations. Runs like charm. But keep up on the patches ;-)

BUT, and this is a biggie, me and my guys could not get a machine to install over an existing NT install. We would even delete NT programs files all together, leaving just an NTFS disk with some unimportant (= to the install) data, .... still no go.

we did have one or two desktops we got working but there has been mystery problems ever since. But I would never ever try to upgrade a server in any manner. The last thing I need is more problems with IIS than just keeping up with the patches and the ASP cowboy newbies who host with us.

I believe it has something to do with data in the boot sector. Been noticing this type of problem with MS since Win 98.

Clean your disk... not FDISK, but if it is IDE, get a low level formatter (back up your data, of course). Low level formatting is a *must* to clean the boot sector. If SCSI, the built-in SCSI bios should do the trick (usually can be entered right after BIOS on boot. Then let 2000 do the partitioning and formatting (another thing I found out!)... It doesn't seem to like you doing the partitioning yourself beforehand.

I have been running MS servers and workstations since NT 3.51.... since before ASP (I belive it was IIS 2).... And after this last go around with 2000, I swore what I have swore a dozen times before.... slave the data disks, copy the data over, and do a low level and do a clean install.

In fact, in my 6-7 years of running MS OS's in production enviroments.... I have found the easiest way to fix any *system* problem is low level format and re-install.

pathetic in a way, but once you have 2000 operating, you will love it.

[Wingy]

Ummm, I hesitate to ask this, but I just (two months ago) got a Dell Inspiron 8100 with W2K Pro installed. It works like a champ, but I just received my upgrade to XP Pro. In light of the above, not to mention the hoops you have to jump through, is the upgrade worth it? I'm not a geek, but I do know my way around.

Any advice?

Merry Christmas to all!!

[bigcheese]

We have only ventured to install XP on one workstation. Actually, it was a Dell that came pre-installed with XP. There was some fuss with some programs at the beginning (and I think you'll find public opinion on XP evenly split, possibly tilted slightly to the hate it crowd), but it seems to be stable and working now.

HOWEVER, the damn machine is a 1.4 Ghz with 512 (I believe) of RAM. And to me it is slower than snot on a freezing doorknob. BH (the employee) thinks it is great because of what I see as some minor faetures, but there is no way on this world that I would put up with that slowness. Then again, I am not a "have a thousand windows" open person. I might have five at the most, and not for any length of time. BH will have a bagillion gagillion open, and with XP you really cant tell, because one IE browser will show in the task bar, but you may have 20 instances of it open. You click on that one (or mouse over it, not for sure) and a window pops up that shows all the instances. So, my data with XP might be skewed as I havent really told her to get off her workstation and let me test it out.

Regarding a clean install on an older machine, dunno. But my experience says never try an upgrade.

What kind of processor / ram? Also, 10k disks are not?

[general_re]

Any advice?

Personally, I'd only do it if I knew that a major problem I was having under win2k was only fixed under XP, or some program I needed to run would run under XP but not win2k - other than that, why bother? Upgrade installations suck, as has been noted, and a clean install means reinstalling all your software and moving all your data files over.

Unless there's a compelling reason, I generally don't bother. And for me, eye candy is not particularly compelling ;)

[Paulus Invictus]

An iMAC and OS 10.1 will clear that right up for you! (and hackers won't be able to access and wreck your hard drive either).

[bigcheese]

Anybody know if XP is supposed to replace 2000 server? iow, are they coming out with XP Server?

I swear if they pull that one, Im porting all my web apps over to PHP and running linux. Im already POed about their new pricing structure for sql server 2000 (nearly 6-8 g's for a dual processor running web clients!!!!). MySQL here i come!

[Wingy]

This is a PIII mobile at 1.13gig. 256 meg ram. Just two months old. I'm not having any problems, and I don't really know what the advantages would be with the upgrade. Just from reading the install instructions it seems to be an involved process, so I know I'm letting myself in for a day of tweaking.

Since the box is so new, installed software is no problem, and I plan to save all my data to zips. The question again is are the advantages in xp worth it?

Thanks and Be well...

[tacticalogic]

Yes and no. The server version of XP will has been dubbed .net. Beta 3 has just been released.

[bigcheese]

I really cant answer that one. I kind of tune out anything that doesn't involve application hosting or file server features. The only new features I saw was the multi-button in one button, IE6 will define a word for you from the web if you highlight and thats about it. Im sure there are many more... someone else here should be able to say what the other new features are. And hopefully they can answer whether or not it really is as doggish as it seems.

sorry couldnt be more help!

[bigcheese]

Hmmm..... I was thinking ASPX was going to come out for 2000 as well. Lemme guess. It will be available for 2000, but the XP Server will be more stable/more functionality/more etc. I think I hear PHP calling me...

[DCPatriot]

I let my friend convince me to upgrade one of my workstations from WIN98 to Windows ME.

When I complained that my HP scanjet and PhotoDelux 2.0 is not being recognized by the harddrive, his response was, "...scanners only cost a little of $100 these days....."

I like your commandment better. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Should have let it alone.

[tacticalogic]

I'm not sure how all the pieces fit together yet. I do know that .net is supposed to use a completely re-written IIS, and Java gets the boot and will be replaced by C# (C-sharp), which is supposed to be much faster to execute.

[usconservative]

I could be wrong (sure wouldn't be the first time), but I *think* it's better to do a clean install of operating systems.

You are absolutely 100% correct.

A fresh load of the OS is in order. Microsoft provided an upgrade path from NT4 to W2K *but* even they say that it's much better to do a fresh install of W2K vs. upgrading.