WIN2000 vs Win98

[d4n13l]

Swings and roundabouts...

[mysticgohan17]

2000 is better, more stable, has its problems though.

[mrtristan]

I like Windows 2000 more. I installed it just to see what it was like and didn't ever go back. It's stable, and a little bit more responsive.

[Faustus]

98 was a good OS but its a little outdated. 2k is the MOST stable MS OS I've ever used. Currently I'm using XP, and it has alot of potential for the future, but for now 2k is the best.

[devinemi83]

I have win98SE running now but I got a pal and she sent me all the files from her win2000 disc so I could install it anytime I want. I have so much stuff to backup first though LOL But from what I hear about 2000 its a sweet OS. I just need something stable and safe.I never cared for the look of XP.

[filefeeder]

I never cared for the look of XP.

The looks can be changed There is no comparison, XP rox

[ChrisX]

Windows 2000 is so far much better and superior than Windows 98.

As a plus on Win2000 you get NTFS and you can't get on a Win98 computer using only FAT32. So, big files as no good on Win98, such as captured videos on the computer.

So, why ask? What are you doing? Upgrading on an old computer or what?

[devinemi83]

I never cared for the look of XP.

The looks can be changed There is no comparison, XP rox

True, but alot of the stuff that everyone feels makes XP better than 2000 I dont want or need. I dont do much video work now so the windows movie maker is useless to me, I HATE the new versions of WMP player(i still use good ol 6.4 ), it uses to much system power for my current machine to take it, I mostly program now so all I need is a machine that I can trust and enjoy using.

[vitualis]

Win98SE was the best of the Win9x series. Probably the most stable (as Win9x goes) and had excellent hardware support. A little bit outdated now though in terms of USB2.0 and Firewire.

Win2k is in many ways superior to Win98SE especially in terms of stability. However, IMHO, hardware support is definitely inferior -- especially if you have off-beat hardware.

WinXP is IMHO, very good. It is based on the NT core and is VERY similar to Win2k underneath the GUI (of which all the elements you can turn off if you don't like it). Hardware and driver support is now EXCELLENT. And one thing that should prevent the requirement of re-installations -- System Restore. Use it properly and you can keep your PC in excellent shape WITHOUT needing the occasional total reinstallation of the PC.

However, if Win2k does everything you need it to, you probably don't need WinXP. However, for the general PC user, I definitely recommend WinXP (if you are going to use a PC of course -- and why would you want to treat down the OTHER path anyway... :P )

Regards.

[ChrisX]

However, if Win2k does everything you need it to, you probably don't need WinXP. However, for the general PC user, I definitely recommend WinXP (if you are going to use a PC of course -- and why would you want to treat down the OTHER path anyway... :P )

Regards.

I know your point and this is why I am on Win2000, it is due to compatibility issues on WinXP. The printer wouldn't work on WinXP is an example of this problem and some programs won't work either.

Win2000 can do anything for me and problem free and so why go back to WinXP again. No offense to anybody using WinXP, if someone is happy with the OS is fine with me.

[vitualis]

I'm slightly curious as to why the printer didn't work... as WinXP can use Win2K drivers...

Regards.

[freak_in_cage_10k]

summary

win 98- faster, getting out of date (cant handle big file sizes as fat 32),highly compatable with games/software etc
win 200- very stable, predictable etc, poss less compatable
WinXP- combines both of the above, takes the best of both OS, slower than 98, less stable than 2K,highly compatable,easy to use interface, but still fast & stable! Also lots of security updates avaliable

[themichael]

The near funal word from an expert (Certified computer and network support technician):

Win 98SE is great is you have an older/slower machine ( less than 1 GHz).

If your machine can support it, I would recommend upgrading to Win2K
and get all the benifits the NTFS has to offer. Security, Terabyte file size (I
think the limit is 16TB), and a wide compatability with lots of hardware.

I would avoid XP if you want to do things and use software other than Microsoft's. XP doesn't run very well on machines under 2GHz with less
than 512M. It is bloated/bundled almost to death. If the machine didn't come with XP, good luck finding drivers. Win2K drivers might or might not work. More often not. XP also doen't like to play with third party software.

The plus side of XP (I'm not a basher) is for the new computer user who can get along just fine with the included software and doesn't need to do complicated things with files, software, content creation, etc. Things work just fine. XP is as secure as 2K but only if you enable it. (Everybody is root/admin).

The general concensus in the IT departments is if they have NT and it works - leave it alone. If they need USB support then upgrade to Win2K. Most workplaces don't have the latest/fastest machines so they can't upgrade. Most IT guys I know will refuse to upgrade because of the support/maintenence nightmare they will face. Let alone the cost in cash they will have to lose from their budgets.

Taping mouth shut - rambling


Mike

[Ducatti20]

The near funal word from an expert (Certified computer and network support technician):

I would avoid XP if you want to do things and use software other than Microsoft's. XP doesn't run very well on machines under 2GHz with less
than 512M. It is bloated/bundled almost to death. If the machine didn't come with XP, good luck finding drivers. Win2K drivers might or might not work. More often not. XP also doen't like to play with third party software.

Mike

Have to disagree there... I have been building custom computers for over 4 years now, and have stopped putting any version of windows other than XP on customers systems, no matter what they are used for. I have performed 20+ software upgrades on 2-3 year old systems (380 mhz k6-2 - 1 ghz athlon, 64mb-1gb ram, old motherboards and components) and have yet to have an issue. Granted, XP is considerably slower on the 64MB machines, and I usually talk the customer into at least more ram (128 MB min is what I recommend, 256 mb is preferable) but with the right install and limited tweaking a 380 mhz system runs XP just fine. XP initially had some driver issues with older equipment, but I haven't run into a driver problem in over a year. Rule of thumb is that if a company doesn't have a released XP driver, do a search!! [http://www.driverguide.com/indexddc.htm] is a great place to start.

As to not running "well" on less than 2 ghz?? Ran XP on my 800 mhz P3 for a year with no issues until I upgraded, and that was because like most people I'm a glutton for horsepower!

But, like some great once said, opinions are like a-holes, everyones got one.

Including me... [/url]

[Faustus]

I have to disagree also, my secondary machine is a 1ghz and it runs XP and all software I throw at it perfectly. My brothers does also, its a Athlon 750, and so does my mom's Celeron 700.

No offence to you or your certifications, but I personally don't put much stock in the things, I personally knew an MCSE who spend 2 hours trying to force a serial driver on a PS2 mouse.

[VideoTechMan]

I installed XP on my laptop because i was too pissed off with the preinstalled Windows ME (which was a supposed enchancement of Win98) because it was full of error messages and too many blue death screens. On my new computer i built a few months ago I installed XP Pro, simply because I wanted the best. Only down side to it was that it wont run my Sonic CD game (which was written for Win 95) but it ran fine on 98SE. I think when I upgrade a few components in my system I will make a seperate partition and install 98SE so that I can run my Sonic CD.

VTM

[EddyH]

why do i need >4gb file support when almost all programs that use such big files have the ability to split them?

terabyte files...

hrm. i dunno. any OS that could prevent the supposedly bitwizard guy who sold me my soundblaster from installing a hard disk deserves a cautious eye (2000)

98 does the job fine. if only those GDI/User resource stacks could be expanded a little though...

[ChrisX]

I would have to agree partly on what 'themicheal' has said.

The OS WinXP isn't suitable as an upgrade on an old computer, especially so on a slower 1 Ghz or less and performance may be an issue on some computers just above 1 Ghz as well depending on the type of processor used. It is better for these computers to remain as they are, Win98, WinME and so on. WinXP is best on a new computer with a high amount of RAM and processor performance such as Pentium 4 or whatever.

I did find a new 1.1 Ghz Celeron computer having problems with performance on WinXP, the computer was slow and couldn't cope with demands of the OS. The RAM was too low at 128 MB and now reverted back to Win2000.

The computer manufacturer, Compaq who included the factory WinXP OS on a minimim computer weren't very good, so I'm not impressed with them. The consumer has to pay extra for better performace by upgrading it. It is recommended the RAM to be at 256 MB or more to perform well.

The Compaq computer is since much better on Win2000 and also the RAM doubled. No more problems now and a plus anything works with it without compatibility issues. I am much happier with this OS.

I only have the WinXP on a new computer very much able to cope with it and to make sure of compatibility of everything I got. Printer driver, programs, the scanner, the anti virus and so on.

So, I will have to disagree with Ducatti20 and flaystus as not all computers would agree with WinXP and some wouldn't work out having problems. Not all Win2000 drivers would work on WinXP. I know not all drivers would work from Win98 to Win2000. However, a computer on Win98 would have a better chance of upgrading to Win2000 than WinXP with a minimum of problem.

It isn't advisable on an old computer such the one I got as Win98 on 380 Mhz. I'd rather have the old thing as Win98 than to find problems using WinXP.

If someone is very happy with WinXP, good O. I'm never happy with WinXP, so I am very much on Win2000.

[Ducatti20]

There are always going to be one or two systems that are not completely compatible with certain versions of software. I've seen systems that ran Win ME with no issues, but that can't run Win 2000 worth a damn, or machines that can run 2000 but not 98SE. Every hardware setup is different, and each user has to make his or her own choice.

[Faustus]

In the situation listed above, I'mwilling to bet the RAM was more to blame then the CPU, XP is kinda ram hungry, I refuse to run it on less then 256mb, at least 512mb prefered.

[pacmania_2001]

I have seen/installed/ran WinXP on systems running CPU's as low as P3 450mhz chips. That said I wouldn't run it on less than 256MB of RAM.

For the home user with a computer that matches or exceed the specs of P3 600mhz, 256MB RAM and a video card then XP is the perfect (okay, the best option) OS for them.

Less than that and Win98SE is the best option. On a side note it took my cousin 4 re-formats(various errors) before I could convince him that WinME is not better than 98SE just because it is the newer of the two.

[mrtristan]

Just a little analogy... sort of.

I compare win2k and xp to the same version of a car. 2k is the stick version and xp is the automatic version with tiptronic shifting.

Overall, I'd say the user has better control over the OS with 2000. I don't like our new laptop at work that came with xp installed. It's a little too intuitive for my liking. Although the driver support seems to be better, in the case of a conflict, I don't really know how to fix the bugs. This is partially due to my inexperience with xp, but also because it tries to do everything for you.

Even the most sophisticated automatic cars aren't able to detect and shift the transmission the same way that each individual driver is able to. Granted they're fine for people who don't like to drive stick and people who don't desire that much control over the vehicle. You can turn off a lot of the features in xp, but that's similar to tiptronic shifting in an automatic car. It something like real stick shift, but not exactly the same.

[vitualis]

If you are getting poor performance on WinXP when compared to Win2k on the same PC, then turn off the GUI enhancements!!

If you turn most of them off (and go back to the "Classic GUI"), you basically have Win2K with better driver/hardware support...

All my PCs run on 1 GHz and below and then all run WinXP just fine. I completely dispute the "driver support" thing. WinXP has excellent driver support -- definitely better than Win2K. Sure, you have some limitations if you want MS certified drivers only, but if you don't you are in a much better situation than Win2K.

BTW, my home server is a Pentium MMX at 200 MHz and it runs WinXP... and it does so just fine.

If you don't like the GUI enhancements in WinXP and you find that it affects the performance of your machine to a level you don't like, then TURN THEM OFF.

Regards.

[energy80s]

I have all 3 OS's running (98, 2000 & XP) and I have to say that XP is the worst of the lot. I can't get it to run right at all - most programmes crash and it even blue screens - yet 98 and 2000 run flawlessly. I've spoken to people who've had problems with XP and they all say it is to do with memory, or plug-n-play BIOS, or poor software, or the state of the stock market!! As both 98 and 2000 will quite happily run I don't believe it to be hardware related, but rather a software problem. But I'm not willing to invest my time into fixing Microsoft's problems!

[ChrisX]

If you are getting poor performance on WinXP when compared to Win2k on the same PC, [b]then turn off the GUI enhancements!!

I remember doing this before using the OS WinXP, to turn off nearly all the enhancements and this did help improve performance. THis made a difference.

This is one of the ways if performance is a problem. I mentioned earlier, turn off any unnecessary things running in the system.

Not everything works using WinXP and the same goes for Win2000 on drivers. Driver support on WinXP is far worse than Win2000 in my experience.

Searching for WinXP compatible drivers is much harder than Win2000 and lucky to have something to work with this OS. It is difficult using something which was designed for Win98 or Win2000 and an updated driver and program isn't always possible.

I will have to buy updated equipment for a new WinXP computer such as new printer/scanner/fax unit, new TV/video card so it will work. I would very much prefer to use WinXp Pro, not the Home Edition.

I just seen a very nice computer, however expensive, 120GB HD, 512 MB RAM and a 128 MB NVIDIA GeForce graphics card with a firewire connection. 2 USB ports as well on the front.

I think this particular retailer sells it as WinXP Home, this is not what I want. I want the Pro. The brand is HP, what do you think?

[Northstar]

I have installed all 3 o/s at sometime and have to say Win2000 stands head and shoulders abouve the rest.

They have all been installed on this computer AthlonXP 1.8, 512 meg, Gforce4 TI 4200.

Now i play a lot of games and emulators on my pc, i dont just use it for video and the thing ive noticed is that win98 is still unstable no matter what your gonna get the odd BSOD, but runs games much faster than the other 2 systems, Win2k is somewhere inbetween the 2, running games well and very very stable, winXP is very stable and runs games worst of the 3 and im going by checking framerate of the game im running and theres a definate drop in framerate compared to the other 2, and i mean a big drop in some cases, you dont even need to look at the framerate as its so easy to tell just by looking how the game runs.

At the end of the day its what you use your system for, if its for games and you have a similar spec pc to me then use 2k, forget XP if you have anything lower, win98 is old hat now, so 2k wins... well for me anyway

[themichael]

XP is NT 5.1
2000 is NT 5.0

Turn off the media awareness and the GUI and you have 2000 (almost).
These two things are the ones that cause problems.

http://www.blackviper.com is a good site to see all the useless services XP runs by default.

Sometimes it just the combination of the hardware that makes the OS not work. Spent 3 days with manufacturers trying to discover why a new computer would install and boot XP but not 2000. Finally changed out all the hardware to different manufacturers and it finally worked. Still don't know why.

As to the original post:
If you go with XP use the Pro version and get several books on configuring and "hacking" the OS. Make sure you are hooked to a broadband connection for downloading the first service pack and all the updates (>200M). And lastly, don't change any of your hardware without permission from Microsoft.

Mike

[EddyH]

You had troubles just with the OPERATING SYSTEM with a 1.1ghz machine? Jeeeez-us.. if CPUs were engines and systems were motorbikes (or cars) that must make XP the Honda Goldwing (or perhaps the cadillac, hummer) of the OS world.. you stick a 1100cc (or hell, 1100ci) engine under it that would make most other, lighter models fly, and you still sit there waiting for a half-mile gap just to pass slow trucks. While the guy with the ol' Kawasaki Ninja (or Golf MkII) has a mere 600 or 1800cc's and zips right past the two of you as soon as there's a hint of a space (win98 ).

That they slip off into the ditch futher on is an entierly different matter I suppose, but why go from a Golf to a Caddy or Hummer when adding an ABS system would do the job much better?

I had three different encode jobs and two burners (doing VCDs in sequence - one parsing the MPGs while the other burned) going on here earlier along with the internet, paintshop and a telnet session. No problems. I did try to open up a few more progs (cooledit, musicmatch, winamp, MSN, works) all at once to get a show-off screengrab of severe overload ("this is why i dont run seti@home"), whereupon it got uppity, Winamp being the last of those opened and just-about the final straw... it had a really messed up display... but still, after closing a few, it recovered and the encodes are still going. It's OK for stability so long as the running code is OK really, and you dont go mad like that.

Oddly enough it's Internet Explorer, and to a lesser extent Windows Explorer that cause the majority of crashes (explorer being the main all-out system nuker) through resource overuse, followed by Virtual Dub having some kind of access error. Hmm. So if someone could just give me patched copies of those three this PC would probably run happy to the end of time on Win98.
A recent period of outstanding wierdness was, after all, found to be hardware (PSU) not software based..

[MOVIEGEEK]

Ahhh guys.......this topic was posted on July 6,2001.
Talk about raising the dead.

BTW...XP beats Win98 and is a draw with 2000.

[Ducatti20]

Haha.. just noticed that myself!!