With that update to tutorial 1, I tried it out under win2k and it seems to be using about 99% cpu all the time, even when minimised. Is this because of win2k?

I tested out Win2k

then, I saw it sucked and put back 98 ... forget about 2k

i''ve yet to mess with the graphic stuff on 2k, so this isn''t a truly educated comment.

that said, it runs flawlessly otherwise (after 2nd service pack though) and is extremely robust. maybe it''s quite a shock to people who are used to desktops on 98 / 95 / 3.1, but i''ve been on NT for years.

can hardly wait to set up a development environment on win2k to see what i can do now that i''m not stuck with directx 3!

as for processor usage, you may want to make sure the drivers are correct. i think tutorial 1 does nothing but draw a black screen right? well even so it is in a loop until you leave it.

most animations are very processor intensive. if you''re interested enough check out any director / flash animation. my processor is 99-100 anytime one of these stupid things is in the browser even if it''s an inch big.

I thought that originally too. Check out the kernel times in the cpu graph, you''ll see they are normal. I''m not sure what the green line indicates & what the difference in kernel cpu times is.

Oh, and Windows 2000 kicks 9x''s arse into yesterday.

Oh yeah, right,
2k is better cuz it have everything more :
more BUGS
more CRASHES
more RAM needed
more CPU usage
Yeah, 98 is alot inferior, it doesn''t have all that ...

Erm have you actually used Win2k to develop on?

If you have then you will realise that what you say is very biased towards an *inferior* OS -> Win98.

Developing on Win2k is very comfortable assuming you are using the right machine for the job. I have been developing on Win2k for some months now and I can honestly say, there is nothing wrong with it at all. In fact I quite like stability, speed and performance of it. Every OpenGL game/app I have runs up to 10% faster on Win2k than Win98. My net download speed is almost doubled compared to Win98. I enjoy not having to REBOOT every 6 or 7 hours because the system gets bogged down like Win98. In fact the only reason I would even entertain the idea of using Win98, and the reason I have to, is to check that code/apps I develop in Win2k are running as expected on Win98 to accomodate for a typical PC setup.

Perhaps if you a) upgraded your machine b) stopped believing all the negative hype and c) actually developed on Win2k with an open mind, you might come to a point further than ''ooo win2k is shit, it has bugs........''

Win98 is one of the buggiest currently used OS''s on the market, so I don''t know where you are coming from with your argument.

Dont be put off Win2k people, as long as you have half a clue on how to set it up correctly, its a dream development platform.

Cel

Here is somthing completly unrelated and very funny:

In a M$ for WindowsME add in some mag that I have it says:

"All with one system that''s so
smart it''ll prevent problem
before they become a problem"

Yeah, I can see it now:

WindowsMe install complete...
Note WindowsMe has detected a posible problem
Now taking preventitive measures...
WindowsMe uninstall complete

Andrew

Well, upgrading ...

It''s quite annoying to have a
PIII 500
64 Mo Ram
GeforceDDR

and everything runs fine under 98, 2k is laggish with 64RAM. (I did not use 2k to develop, I just like used it for common task)

Well, yeah, I never liked windows, I always preffered linux, but ... I can''t hide from the trush, everyone uses Windows (which I consider inferior to linux). And ... err, I think windows programming is easier than linux one...

I had W2k on my old system with a dual boot(98/W2k). It ran pretty well I thought, but then again I had 128megs RAM. Just got my new sys, having gotten around loading it. One thing I notice about W2k is an increase in speed on some 3D programs, with updated driver that is (DeusEX runs about 20% faster). I also noticed internet speed boost. Overall I''d say W2k is pretty good development system. But one thing for sure sure tho Microsoft still suck big time...

No offense, but they are different worlds.

Windows 98 (or 95)... is the OS to use to get the best price/performance out of a lower level machine for normal desktop use (IF you need to run Windows programs).

Windows 2000 (or NT4) ... the NT line of OS''s has MUCH better seperation between subsystems, therefore (or at least in general) better stability. It also inforces more rules on APPs that keep them from bringing down other applications collaterally when they crash ... therefore it makes by far the best development platform .. ASSUMING you have the resources ... AND that you have a 98 box to actually perform the running / testing of the application on.

DO NOT assume a program that runs right on one will work on the other .. due both to API behavior differences, lack of MSDOS on NT, and Driver differrences, all programs that need to run on both systems, need to be tested on both systems, and the easiest time to do this is to unit test both, when you unit test the first.

I think this post qualifies as subjective, and not a rant ... give me your feedback.