Windows 2000 Vs. 98

[Global Media Trader]

I have 98 on my PC now. i also have a copy of 2000 pro. i have heard 2000 is a lot more stable. but that could be hearsay. is it worth the upgrade. and can i update my 2000 pro on the microsoft update page as easy as i can 98 with any serial number. or is 2000 like XP in which you have to change your key to update

[muchspl2]

if it was any one else I would tell them to upgread asap, but since it's you, I think you should get windows ME are stay at 98 :D

[Global Media Trader]

Originally posted by muchspl2@11 December 2003 - 11:23
if it was any one else I would tell them to upgread asap, but since it's you, I think you should get windows ME are stay at 98 :D
lol .. relax muchspl2 and untie your underware

[camille]

98 is better than 2000 for me.

[chinook_apache]

definitley win2k with sp4 installed. it works very stable on a recent upgrade i did for a friend of mine
he had a 350 mhz processer
128 ram
10 gig hdd

worked very stable!

[Kunal]

Originally posted by camille@11 December 2003 - 14:18
98 is better than 2000 for me.
did you use the NTFS file system with win 2k? did you do a clean install? if not i think you try it, win 2k is a very stable os

[imported_uncle_cracker]

Originally posted by Kunal+11 December 2003 - 16:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kunal &#064; 11 December 2003 - 16:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-camille@11 December 2003 - 14:18
98 is better than 2000 for me.
did you use the NTFS file system with win 2k? did you do a clean install? if not i think you try it, win 2k is a very stable os[/b][/quote]
i agree ...

i run a w2k (ntfs) network in school and it works very stable, e.g. never ever we had a crash or other malfunctions

but at home i run win98se (with the latest updates) and this for me does also a good job though i had tons of software installed :lol:

but now maybe i upgrade to win2k cause the klr from rocko doesn&#39;t match my "old" love win98se :o

greetings @all kpp_user

cu uncle_cracker

[Livy]

depending on whether you need the stability, eg if you keep your computer on for long times etc. 2k will run alot better, but it will take longer to boot.

[boyzeee]

yeh go with 2000 its a nice stable os that uses less resources than xp making it ideal for lower spec pc&#39;s, win98,98se and me are based on the win95 platform with IMO 98se being the most stable and winme being the most unstable (ok if you like the colour blue ;) ) and i heard a while back that microsoft is going to stop supporting 98 in the near future (how true that is i&#39;m not sure ;) ). if you want near xp stability then win2000 is for you. save anything important you have on your hard drive to disc and download the latest win2000 drivers for your hardware and put them on a disc, ie modem, graphics sound etc and do a clean installation ie boot from win2000 disc, format your hard drive and then install. ;)

[DWk]

Originally posted by boyzeee@11 December 2003 - 12:10
i heard a while back that microsoft is going to stop supporting 98 in the near future
near future? lol u outdated....this has been "true" for like more than 6 months....

[imported_uncle_cracker]

Originally posted by DWk+11 December 2003 - 20:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DWk &#064; 11 December 2003 - 20:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-boyzeee@11 December 2003 - 12:10
i heard a while back that microsoft is going to stop supporting 98 in the near future
near future? lol u outdated....this has been "true" for like more than 6 months....[/b][/quote]
:( so it is

and there are more and more applications needed win2k or xp, for example adobe photoshop cs and random nuts klr.exe :)

so i let my 98se like it is (never touch a running system :P ) and build up a new machine with win2k next year.

then i will be able to run random nuts klr.exe :lol:

by the way: do not use winme.
and last but not least: in strict definitions win98 isn&#39;t an operating system, you can say it is a package of applications put over msdos.
but that&#39;s why i love it :rolleyes:

cu uncle_cracker

[boyzeee]

Originally posted by DWk+11 December 2003 - 19:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DWk @ 11 December 2003 - 19:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-boyzeee@11 December 2003 - 12:10
i heard a while back that microsoft is going to stop supporting 98 in the near future
near future? lol u outdated....this has been "true" for like more than 6 months.... [/b][/quote]
yeh LOL :D i dont really have any interest in 98/me etc anymore so when i heard that they were gonna stop support i didnt even bother to check it out coz i really couldnt care&#33; if i have to work on a 98/se/me based pc now ive got discs with most of the updates on or i upgrade them to xp or 2000. note to self....must try harder :D

[balamm]

Sorry, I still can&#39;t understand this "which is best" bullshit. You all claim to have 160gb hard dives and 1 gig of ram and all the other crap.

Why do you only have one installed operating system? That&#39;s a pretty fuckin low performance user in my opinion.

It only takes 5 gig or so to run an OS. Ideally, you&#39;d want to allocate about 10 to 20 gig for each to have independent programs installed for each OS.

Even with a 40 gig drive, 4 operating systems is easily done.

I have run 7 hosts on one drive in the past along with many other virtual installs.

Now with VMware and VPC getting more stable and more accessible, there&#39;s no reason not to run alternate systems.

Get with the times, get some experience. Get some flexibility and use outta your machine&#33;&#33;

[Kunal]

i run win xp, 2k3 server and 2k pro, as hosts and win 98 in VMware, so i dont think im doing to bad

[Global Media Trader]

Ok it seems that there is an agreement that 2000 is more stable. and thats what drving this decision because i have so much garbage on my 98. its becoming very unstable with constant crashes and blue screens.

And i figure to reformat soon anyway. but the other question i had was.

I can change my key in registry with 98 to what ever i want. i can change my key to "Bill Gates is a idiot" and still get all my updates on the windows update page.

How does 2000 work, is it like XP in which you have to go through the process of dialing in, using a keygen etc... does 2000 use key authentication. like XP

Or does it work like 98 in which it make no difference what the key it named.i dont want to have problems getting updates for 2000

[DWk]

sry to be intrusive.... but why not use xp? i mean....for games its better... its extremely stable...

[LTJBukem]

I really don&#39;t see the point of running multiple versions of Windows. Windows and a Linux distro i myself run, but multiple Windows installations are pointless, aside maybe from playing really old games.

That&#39;s not to say that i disagree with you Balamm, it is good to gain experience of setting up OS&#39;s, and then of tuning and maintainance, if you are enough of a geek :P . But at the end of all that, we all settle for our personal favourite, and are left with nothing more than wasted disk space. Most people are perfectly happy if their computer allows them to play games, media, and to p2p.

[Global Media Trader]

Originally posted by DWk@11 December 2003 - 22:16
sry to be intrusive.... but why not use xp? i mean....for games its better... its extremely stable...
Because im putting it on a 400Mhz 96 MB Ram 4 year old Compaq Presario

[Kunal]

does win 2k even run on a system that cra.... i mean good?

[DWk]

ah ok LOL...didnt read that.... k then i think 2k is the way to go :)

[Explosive]

My old 433 MHz Celeron was running on Windows XP and experienced no problems. Of course, i had to change some preformance settings (like disabling smooth edges of fonts, shadows and so on). But it wasn&#39;t any slower than Win 98 (except the boot time).

Edit: Windows 2000 is much better then 98&#33;&#33;&#33;

[balamm]

2000 will run fine on 96 mb ram and a 500mgh CPU

IF you leave SP4 out of it. Just go with SP3 and the blaster patch and sift through any other critical updates.


SP4 will bog down even the best machine when it fucks up.

[Global Media Trader]

Originally posted by DWk@11 December 2003 - 22:32
ah ok LOL...didnt read that.... k then i think 2k is the way to go :)

balamm said: "IF you leave SP4 out of it. Just go with SP3 and the blaster patch and sift through any other critical updates"
You didnt read it because i didnt post my specs for this PC.

And to respond to balamm.

Excuse my ignorance but can you chose what service pack you want when you go to the MS update page. i just scan for updates and take critical.

[balamm]

Aviod MS update like the plague&#33;&#33;&#33; You can choose what you want at the MS download center.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search....?displaylang=en (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.aspx?displaylang=en)

Search by OS or product. Download everything you need before you do the install so that your new OS isn&#39;t hacked or corrupted before/during updating.

The less you leave up to windows update and their activex crap, the better your system will be.

Grab directX, Windows media player and any service packs you want first. Then look through the list by OS and see what other essentials they list.

[camille]

Originally posted by Kunal+11 December 2003 - 22:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kunal @ 11 December 2003 - 22:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-camille@11 December 2003 - 14:18
98 is better than 2000 for me.
did you use the NTFS file system with win 2k? did you do a clean install? if not i think you try it, win 2k is a very stable os [/b][/quote]
I didn&#39;t use NTFS (New Technology File System) in fact I&#39;m contented with my OS not SE.

[skelley521]

Before I switched to XP Pro Corporate I did a little searching on XP and read somewhere that M&#036; took the &#39;best ideas&#39; of 98SE and 2000 and combined them to get the &#39;base&#39; for Windows XP.
I preferred 2000 over 98se, I wouldn&#39;t even consider using 98.
If you are running 98 or 98SE I would recommend using the defrag off of Windows ME as it is 4X faster than the 98 defrag.


Edit: Try them all and stick with the one that works best for you and your system.

[DWk]

Originally posted by Global Media Trader@11 December 2003 - 15:45
You didnt read it because i didnt post my specs for this PC.
of course thats what im saying :P :D :lol:

[Global Media Trader]

Originally posted by balamm@11 December 2003 - 17:10
Aviod MS update like the plague&#33;&#33;&#33; You can choose what you want at the MS download center.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search....?displaylang=en (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.aspx?displaylang=en)

Search by OS or product. Download everything you need before you do the install so that your new OS isn&#39;t hacked or corrupted before/during updating.

The less you leave up to windows update and their activex crap, the better your system will be.

Grab directX, Windows media player and any service packs you want first. Then look through the list by OS and see what other essentials they list.
Excellent. :D i did not know this page existed. took 4 years on the net

[Global Media Trader]

Now all i have to do it find a clean version of 2000 with out the service packs included. all the ones on sharereactor have SPs

[boyzeee]

post removed, hash had cd key in filename. :blink:

[ck-uk]

Mate thats the sp4 version ...is it? same key anyway and aorund same size.

Keys arent aloud on the board too mate. :)

[DarkReality]

Originally posted by balamm@11 December 2003 - 13:42
Sorry, I still can&#39;t understand this "which is best" bullshit. You all claim to have 160gb hard dives and 1 gig of ram and all the other crap.

Why do you only have one installed operating system? That&#39;s a pretty fuckin low performance user in my opinion.

It only takes 5 gig or so to run an OS. Ideally, you&#39;d want to allocate about 10 to 20 gig for each to have independent programs installed for each OS.

Even with a 40 gig drive, 4 operating systems is easily done.

I have run 7 hosts on one drive in the past along with many other virtual installs.

Now with VMware and VPC getting more stable and more accessible, there&#39;s no reason not to run alternate systems.

Get with the times, get some experience. Get some flexibility and use outta your machine&#33;&#33;
That&#39;s silly. I have a P3 - 1200MHz, 768MB RAM, I think 133MHz frontside bus, 80GB 7200RPM internal drive and 120GB 7200 RPM external Firewire drive... I have never had any luck with dual booting. I&#39;ve ran Windows 2000 Server and Red Hat 9, Windows XP Pro and LindowsOS 4, and I think Windows 2000 Server and Windows XP Pro. I&#39;ve also had Windows XP Pro with Windows 2003 Standard in VMWare... Dual booting and partitioning is unstable and VMWare is slow. Plus the virtual machines don&#39;t support Firewire hard drives, so they&#39;re useless to me. No OS that can&#39;t access a firewire hard drive will ever be used on my system&#33; It&#39;s just impossible.

I think from a stability standpoint it&#39;s important to keep only 1 OS on a hard drive. I wonder what it would be like to have 2 small hard drives, and have an OS on each one, how that would affect things.

I think for my next system, if possible, I will RAID 2 40GB hard drives and install XP Pro, and have a 300GB disk just for data.

But we&#39;re getting off topic.


I personally think Windows 2000 Server is the most stable OS Microsoft has ever released. Windows 2000 Pro is OK, but not as good as Server. I would recommend Windows 2000 Server, and then upgrade via Windows Update to Service Pack 4. There is no Windows 2000 Server Service Pack 4 slipstream on K-Lite, yet. If I can slipstream it, I&#39;ll do it.... but I don&#39;t know that much. LOL.

I like Windows 98, but it so slow and unstable and it really does crappy under pressure. And since it can decide not to respond to Ctrl+Alt+Delete, I hate that. The NT based Windows&#39; (NT, 2000, XP)... you have them by the balls with C+A+D. Even in a game, you hit C+A+D and it comes up. And most games will resume fine if you do that&#33; In XP anyway. Sadly 2000 is not so good for games. That is its weakness. Gaming support. It doesn&#39;t like the old DOS games. Windows XP offers a compatibility mode, so that helps...sometimes.

[boyzeee]

Originally posted by ck&#045;uk@12 December 2003 - 10:10
Mate thats the sp4 version ...is it? same key anyway and aorund same size.

Keys arent aloud on the board too mate. :)
yeh shit man&#33; forgot the filename has the key in it, damn i losin it big time today. I should know better. cheers for pointing it out :wacko:

[balamm]

Originally posted by DarkReality@12 December 2003 - 03:13

That&#39;s silly. I have a P3 - 1200MHz, 768MB RAM, I think 133MHz frontside bus, 80GB 7200RPM internal drive and 120GB 7200 RPM external Firewire drive... I have never had any luck with dual booting.
Probably because you&#39;ve never done it the right way. Oldest to newest, linux last. Install the next windows OS from the last installed windows system each time, No third party crap&#33;
I&#39;ve done it with an amd k6-2

500mgh&#33; and 128ram. 4 OS&#39;s on an 8 gig drive.

Quit making excuses and figure out what you&#39;re doing wrong.

There is absolutely no difference in stability running 1 OS or 20. It makes no diiference at all&#33; the only drawback is with XP installed because it takes over and puts shit files everywhere. Thumbs, system info, system restore, gotta go through your folders and delete that crap once in a while.



@ Global Media Trader, If you&#39;re still around, PM me and I&#39;ll see what I can arrange.

[sch777]

First of all The os doesn&#39;t mean shit if the computer you are putting it on isn&#39;t up to snuff. Tell me where is the flexibilities in windows2000 and windowsXp. 566mgh with a front end bus speed of 64mb and to boot 384mb of sdrram 133; no OS is going to run worth a shit. Will would much rather stay with win98se. Because 99% of the software out on the market today is config and base on win98se and works the best with it. Microsoft needs to get their head out of their ass and bring back win98se. I have played around with all their OS and i think win98se is the best. Where is the msconfig.exe in windows2000? And why didn&#39;t microsoft keep the advance tab in the msconfig.exe in winXp? My CD-rom is supported on win98se, but not on win2000 nor winXP. CD-Rom, built in 2001. Both win2000 and winXP added a bunch of crap that i could careless for. Stick with win98se

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally posted by sch777@22 December 2003 - 08:15
566mgh with a front end bus speed of 64mb
Wow. Just... wow.

[balamm]

Originally posted by sch777@22 December 2003 - 00:15
First of all The os doesn&#39;t mean shit if the computer you are putting it on isn&#39;t up to snuff. Tell me where is the flexibilities in windows2000 and windowsXp. 566mgh with a front end bus speed of 64mb and to boot 384mb of sdrram 133; no OS is going to run worth a shit. Will would much rather stay with win98se. Because 99% of the software out on the market today is config and base on win98se and works the best with it. Microsoft needs to get their head out of their ass and bring back win98se. I have played around with all their OS and i think win98se is the best. Where is the msconfig.exe in windows2000? And why didn&#39;t microsoft keep the advance tab in the msconfig.exe in winXp? My CD-rom is supported on win98se, but not on win2000 nor winXP. CD-Rom, built in 2001. Both win2000 and winXP added a bunch of crap that i could careless for. Stick with win98se
You&#39;re highly confused.

I really doubt some of the numbers you claim. 64mgh front "end" bus? it might be 66 MGH FRONT SIDE BUS but I doubt it with the rest of the specs you list.
Even so, win2k will run fine on those specs. It&#39;s the ram that counts and you have plenty.

As for your CD rom, get the damn drivers for it. If you can&#39;t work it out from a manufacturer name, just install generic OAK dos mode drivers to the root drive.

Very unlikely there wouldn&#39;t be a driver for it. In most cases, the NT drivers will work fine.

msconfig was replaced by services.msc in win2k , a better way to load and unload services.

Both services.msc and msconfig were included in XP.

There&#39;s nothing wrong with 98SE, I still use it my self sometimes. You&#39;re just out of touch with the facts on win2k.

[muchspl2]

Both win2000 and winXP added a bunch of crap that i could careless for. Stick with win98se

worst.advice.ever