Win2000 or 98?

[andreadebiase]

ok I apologize immediately for asking something I could look by my self but I am very lazy lately. Can someone explain me what is that Win2000 does that Win98 doesn`t? (and viceversa!) (The question raises from wakeing up this morning and thinking to install Win2000!). thanks

------------------
#!@$*%.....just format the damn C:

[uncle_bent]

On the topic of Windows 9x vs NT/2000 I can only say that for me it's a driver thing. The windows 9x and other "home" operating systems tend to have better and more extensive driver support from the various peripheral manufacturers out there. This is also true of non-business application software in a general sense. I use Windows 98/se at home and have seen no compelling reason thus far to switch to anything else.

[sleddog]

Windows 2000 is the latest evolution of Windows NT (some call it NT5), a 32-bit from-the-ground-up operating system that is NOT based on MS-DOS. Windows 98 is a later release of Windows 95, which is a graphical shell which depends on the MS-DOS core. Just as did Windows 3.1, and just as does Windows Millennium (ME).

Windows 2000 and Windows 95/98/ME are fundamentally different. They share a similar-looking user interface, but that's about it.

------------------
sleddog
[sleddog.f2s.com] (http://www.sleddog.f2s.com)

[Randy_tx]

In a nutshell......It depends on what you are doing or WANT to do . If bulletproof operation is of vital importance and you have some really vanilla (for the most part) devices and no real fancy(DirectX oriented for example) programs...go with Win 2000. If you like gaming, java, the latest devices, internet chat, PC cameras, napster etc......you might be a lot better off with Win98 SE.

------------------
I have answers for ALL questions...Correct Answers are another matter.....

[hiredgoonz]

In all fairness to Windows 2000, which I have been running for over 6 months now, I haven't had any real problems with compatibility...on my main system I use Napster, ICQ, an older (1999) Logitech Quick Cam Home...Voodoo5 and ATI All in Wonder 128 PCI version, D-Link NIC, US Robotics 56K Modem, ATA-100 controller card (which was a huge pain in the a** to get working in 98, but easy in 2000) an Adaptoid (USB device that lets you use an N64 controller on your PC)...two Iomega CDRWs, a Hitachi DVD drive, Diamond MX400 sound card...and so many programs that at 1024X768, when I open the Programs menu it has to list them in two columns...

Many of the above listed items are not officially supported by 2000, but they all work just fine...

I have no doubt that people have compat. issues with W2000...if you're building a new computer with mostly new parts and do some homework first, you, IMHO, would be foolish to go with 98 since it is essentially phased out when XP is released...

I know I'm going to get hatemail and people telling me how they still use Windows 3.1 (or earlier), but the fact of the matter is that compatibility problems people have with 2000 when using hardware and software designed for 9x are to be expected...try to run windows software on a mac or linux machine...it's essentially the same thing...98 and 2000(NT) are based on totally different kernels and it's pretty amazing how much stuff runs on 2000 that was made for 9x.

And as far as cutting edge...once XP comes out, developers will have no choice but to make compatible drivers and software for the NT kernel...9x is on the way out...and I have thoroughly enjoyed the ENORMOUS stability increase with 2000...

[sea69]

in answer to the original question I would suggest to wait- until XP is out and all the bugs are out of it.

I see no reason unless you are having problems to change from one older system to another. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

for hired- I'm interested in the comparison you make regarding stability. I have win98 and stay on 24/7, except once a week to scan disk and defragg. I have been up and running since July 2000, and had less than 10 BSOD's since the 1st day, 22 freezeup's, and thats a pretty good run for win98. What could I expect in the way of improvement on that with win2k??

------------------
**puff**.. "Put that thing out boy.. the Sheriff's a comin'!!"

[This message has been edited by sea69 (edited 04-04-2001).]

[Randy_tx]

I fully intend to install XP when it comes out......the NT kernal is far superior to a kernal sitting on top of Dos.....My belief is that MS will make a MUCH better effort to round up the various vendors and have good to excellent driver support for XP as compared to Win2000. Win 2000 can get pretty expensive (if you have to change a bunch of devices) for an upgrade, but as Hired said.....if you are going with a new system and plan well and dont want to wait for XP....and can afford to buy 2000 and then XP when it comes out......"GO FOR IT"....sounds a bit impractical to me though.

------------------
I have answers for ALL questions...Correct Answers are another matter.....

[sea69]

agreed Randy, they would just about HAVE to.. after the ME fiasco and many problems eveident (for some) with win2k.

I have- usa-build-2428 (whistler).. and am about to install it on an extra HD I have. Will advise.

------------------
**puff**.. "Put that thing out boy.. the Sheriff's a comin'!!"

[Randy_tx]

I should have said .......as soon as they issue the first XP Service pack.

------------------
Always wondered where Silicone:D Valley was...saw a pic of Pamela Anderson...now I know

[hiredgoonz]

I installed 6 or 7 months ago, it runs constantly and have crashed it twice...(both my fault using Soft FSB)...no lockups to speak of...

It could just be that I am extremely bad at using W98, but with the number of applications (emulators, vid. editing etc.) W98 just kept dying...

[sea69]

thanks for replying HIRED,

was just thinking.. ALL of the BSOD's were a result of new software installations, and most of the 22 freeze's as well http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

but I try things all the time......so that's to be expected.

glad I found out about "Test Run".. hee

that sounds good, my next question would be what do you use- it for ??

Me, I do allot of video / Cam, work and music, as well as running several small servers. (at times), not a 'gamer', never got too much into that (yet)...allot of communication tools going too here all the time, security cams and constantly up and downloading something....

------------------
**puff**.. "Put that thing out boy.. the Sheriff's a comin'!!"

[This message has been edited by sea69 (edited 04-04-2001).]

[hiredgoonz]

DivX Encoding/playback...some gaming, Atari/Sega/NES/SNES/N64 emulators...some server-type things, video/photo editing...music mixing editing...

And then just the usual web-browsing and such...one of the biggest things from 2000 that I like is that when a program dies, it doesn't take the OS with it (like some other windows I could mention http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif )

Have you ever recovered from a bsod without restarting, even when it says "press enter to return to windows" ?

The way 2000 handles memory allocation is far better than 98, no matter how you look at it, you need to restart 98 from time to time just to get back system resources...

98 is fine for most users, but when it comes down to it, I KNOW that my 2000 system is gonna work when I need to get an article or a paper done...and since I'm usually running over deadline anyway, I don't need "explorer has caused an error in some such dll and will be shut down", followed by a bsod and then the accusatory "you didn't shut down windows right, so now I have to scan disk"

Sound familiar? http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

[sea69]

no I do not recall ever recovering from a BSOD, without rebooting.

I am very fortunate with this- system most of the problems I used to have allot are no longer an issue.

I'm interested in the better memory management part...

as for the last part, I have memories of system breakdowns as you describe...mostly from prior experience with either 'used' (previously owned..lol) or just inferior systems.... that's where the problems were.. with pre-owned systems that someone else has decided to alter.... well you get my point http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

guess I'm currently in win98 elation mode, as it is working VERY well, completely dependable, to do anything I want it to... whenever.

who knows what may- come along to 'burst my bubble'.. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/eek.gif



------------------
**puff**.. "Put that thing out boy.. the Sheriff's a comin'!!"



[This message has been edited by sea69 (edited 04-04-2001).]

[hiredgoonz]

Like I said...I must just not be 98 compatible...did you know there's a bug in 9x that will cause the system to crash if left running for some # of days?

I forget how long it is, but when I read about it, I was thinking I'd be happy if my 98 systems ever ran that long...

I'm not a 98 hater...it served me well on my gateway and compaq systems, but when I built my first one, I tried 98, 98se, and ME, 2000 was the only one that ran everything just right...

I hope you never have any trouble with 98, my dad has been running it without a reinstall for over a year...he seems happy...

But for me, 2000 has been a huge improvement over 98...

[Paleo Pete]

I've run win98 since just before SE was released, still running the same copy in fact, and have been pretty satisfied with it. It's not even close to as stable as NT, but I've never had any serious problems, until recently, and after some digging found out my problem was bad memory, rather than a flaky install.

I'm with Randy and Hiredgoonz, the NT kernel is much more stable than win 98, and memory management is practically bulletproof. Even though I haven't had any major problems with 98, I have to realize, I've been working with various computer help forums for more than a year and have seen very few "NT Crashed" topics. Very few NT problems at all really... I've also seen Server and Workstation 4.0 brought back from crashes without rebooting, and after running nonstop for 3 months without rebooting. Try that with 98...

Memory Management: Here's what the Course Technologies A+ training manual says. (©1998 so it's not exactly up to date)

Memory mapping for NT is one continuous, linear, 32-bit address space that allows each program and driver access to any part of this memory. It works similar to the way DOS accesses expanded memory using page frames.

The application or driver says "I want memory". It cannot say which memory address it wants, or even the range of addresses it wants to fall within, it can only say "I want memory". NT uses its Virtual Memory Manager to interface between the application and the physical memory. Memory is allocated in 4K segmants called pages[/b. Applications know only how many pages they have, the VMM takes care of the rest. It is free to store the information in RAM or the swap file (Pagefile.sys) and only runs out of memory when both are full. Memory is only limited by the amount of physical memory available and the number of memory addresses NT can use, which is 4GB.

The italicized text is my comment, not directly from the book. The rest is an almost exact quote.

------------------
So many idiots, and only six bullets...
[b]Note: Please post your questions on the forums, not in my email.

Computer Information Links (http://www.geocities.com/paleopete/)

[sea69]

good Point Pete.. I hadn't put that together.. but there aren't many posts anywhere- asking for help on NT systems.. now for the inevitable question: If NT is so great why doesn't everyone use it and abandon win95 98 or ME ??

edit: a very- UNUSUAL thing just occured immediately after -I tryped "NT" in here.. I didn't type it in the browser address bar, or ANYWHERE except as in reply to this topic.. now this is STRANGE. almost as soon as I typed "NT" in this reply, I got a pop up from ZoneAlarm : devel-iis.netsitepro.com- Date: 4/5/01
Time: 9:07:56 AM -4:00 GMT
Transport: UDP
From: 195.224.47.30 (devel-iis.netsitepro.com)
Source Port: 137
To: 141.157.106.***
Destination Port: 137 (NetBIOS, name service, nbtsta)

try it: http://195.224.47.30

takes you to a Micr$oft NT website!!!

THAT I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO.

is this just a coincidence????????????
pretty strange one if it is!!!

------------------
*another 'toaster' bites the dust*



[This message has been edited by sea69 (edited 04-05-2001).]

[Randy_tx]

That is EXACTLY why I lament the introduction of XP......my workload will fall off to nothing http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Always wondered where Silicone Valley was...saw a pic of Pamela Anderson...now I know

[hiredgoonz]

Why people haven't abandoned 9x is the same reason everybody seems to jump on me when I suggest 2000...compatibility and ease of use...I only have a little experience with NT (and don't care much for it) as far as 2000...it's actually easier in some respects than 9x...but it has alot of features and functions that can be very tricky and are not needed by the majority of home users...

Compatibility is another reason, NT/2000 is simply not compatible with alot of hardware and software that's out there...if you'll notice, I only suggest 2000 with the caveat of "new system" or one that's been checked against the HCL on the Micro$oft site...

Another reason is cost...2000 is expensive and most systems come preinstalled with 9x, so who wants to spend another $200 on an OS when the one they got with their system will work with their modem and 2000 won't (not that that happened to me on a compaq laptop or anything http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif )

[Paleo Pete]

hiredgoonz summed it up pretty well. I've used NT before and liked it pretty well, but don't have any experience dealing with it in depth, like 95 and 98. I'd like to get a copy someday, and build a system to fit it mainly to learn it much better. The only things I don't like about NT, and probably 2000 as well, are hardware compatibility, more difficult installation, and cost. After those obstacles are surpassed, NT is an almost bulletproof OS, even when it does crash, which is not often, it can be brought back to life. Can't beat that...I hope 2000 and the upcoming XP can come close to matching the NT stability.

Sea: I watch things like that. After working in a computer shop for about 6 months, trying to learn all this, I recommended Dell or Gateway for a long time, those were the only two brands we didn't see. One of each came in for memory upgrades, and one Dell for a new modem. (Upgrade to 56K). Everything else you can think of was in for repairs of some kind. But what OS did we not see? You guessed it, NT. Same here, we almost never see NT, and usually it's how to do something, not how to fix a problem.

I've noticed the same thing about some hardware. How many questions have we seen concerning geForce (nvidia?) video cards, compared to Matrox, Trident or ATI? That might not tell me what video card is actually better, but it tells me which ones I'll be wary of...

------------------
So many idiots, and only six bullets...
Note: Please post your questions on the forums, not in my email.

Computer Information Links (http://www.geocities.com/paleopete/)

[JellyBelly]

Win2K is stable, stable, stable. I have run every Microsoft OS from 3.1-Win2K, and I won't run anything other than Win2K now. I have not had any compatability problems except for my HP scanner, but they are sending me a driver disc for free. There used to be quite a difference in gaming performance between 9X and Win2K, but with the latest Detenator Drivers from Nvidia that has changed. I personally wouldn't touch ME with a 10 foot pole. Nothing but bugs and frequent system lockups. If you are overwhelmed by Win2K go for 98SE, or better yet dual boot 98SE and Win2K.
Then you can partition your hard drive and format a partition NFTS(Win2K), and format the other partition Fat32(98SE). NFTS is stable and secure.