Windows 2000 Vs. 98

[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'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's a pretty fuckin low performance user in my opinion.

It only takes 5 gig or so to run an OS. Ideally, you'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's no reason not to run alternate systems.

Get with the times, get some experience. Get some flexibility and use outta your machine!!

That'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'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'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't support Firewire hard drives, so they're useless to me. No OS that can't access a firewire hard drive will ever be used on my system! It's just impossible.

I think from a stability standpoint it'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'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'll do it.... but I don'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' (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! In XP anyway. Sadly 2000 is not so good for games. That is its weakness. Gaming support. It doesn't like the old DOS games. Windows XP offers a compatibility mode, so that helps...sometimes.

[boyzeee]

Originally posted by ck-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! forgot the filename has the key in it, damn i losin it big time today. I should know better. cheers for pointing it out

[balamm]

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

That'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'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!
I've done it with an amd k6-2

500mgh! and 128ram. 4 OS's on an 8 gig drive.

Quit making excuses and figure out what you're doing wrong.

There is absolutely no difference in stability running 1 OS or 20. It makes no diiference at all! 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're still around, PM me and I'll see what I can arrange.

[sch777]

First of all The os doesn't mean shit if the computer you are putting it on isn'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'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't mean shit if the computer you are putting it on isn'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'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'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's the ram that counts and you have plenty.

As for your CD rom, get the damn drivers for it. If you can't work it out from a manufacturer name, just install generic OAK dos mode drivers to the root drive.

Very unlikely there wouldn'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's nothing wrong with 98SE, I still use it my self sometimes. You'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