Would Win2000 increase my system performance compared to Win98Se?

[Trader05]

Right now i'm running:
P3 500
256mbs ram Pc-100
14gig ata/33 hd
Plextor 8/4/32 ide
TNT2 Ultra Video card
Sblive! Mp3+ Sound card
Cable Modem/Ethernet
I'm running Win98Se, fully updated, and was wondering if I should run win2000 for not only stableness but to try to get the most out of my Ram mostly...Is it worth the hassel of a clean boot of Win2000 w/ or w/out NTFS?

 

[GopherMobile]

Overall performance would be better, and the memory management is much better in Windows 2000 I find, I have 256MB also. Some games run faster I find, others about the same though.

 

[Trader05]

Thanks for your input...

 

[Tominator]

W2k seems a little faster in normal use, but unless you are able to use a second processor, I'd say stick with '98. I dual boot and 3D Mark 2000 gives the nod to '98 as well. For 99% of us there is no need for W2K. Btw, I use it, but see little difference.

 

[Doh!]

I need stability....

 

[Soccerman]

well it really depends on your system alot more then 98. I mean ALOT. with your computer you probably won't see too much of a difference at all, but it is there. Win2K is alot more bloated then the 9x kernel (though that's because they added extra stability and features, as well as their ever so charming EXTRA Bloat to make people need faster computers.. what a bunch of crap, I wouldn't doubt you can make that OS more efficient then it already is), so in reality, you'll be seeing a performance Decrease overall becuase it utilizes more CPU time, and takes more RAM.

 

[Workin']

Win 2k seems quite a bit slower than 98SE on my computer. Which isn't much of a computer, but it used to be good.

Celly 300A @ 464
Abit BH6
128 MB PC100
Diamond Viper 550 (TNT)
Diamond MX300
Maxtor 20 GB 7200 RPM

 

[Reggae4k]

windows 2000 would run smoother on regular apps because you have so much ram. but as for games i find windows 98se is still faster because it seems to handle opengl a bit better. but as for stablity, windows 2000 is second to none. windows 98se with about 5-7 apps and 3-4 games installed crashes at least 2-3 times a day. windows 2000, maybe if you are unlucky would crash once.
my setup is:
tekram via 133
p3 600eb oc to 675
128 pc133 ram @ 112mhz
wd 20 gig and conner 1.2 gigs
sb live
ati rage 128
3com 10/100
3com webcam
intellimouse explorer
acer scanner
cl fps1000 speakers
and none other but windows 2000

 

[urbantechie]

Windows 2000 likes RAM, and you have plenty of it. It's pretty fast and stable. I like it much better than 98SE or ME. I haven't rebooted my machine in a long long time.

 

[davieboynj]

forget both of them... windows 3.11 msdos 6.22

dam, those were the good days...

anyone wanna play star controller?

ddd

 

[ButanGas]

You got a lot of RAM..so upgrading to win 2000 will boost the performance (not game performance of course..)

Also, If i were you I would doa clean install regardless of FAT32 or NTFS.

 

[hogger]

For me at least 2000 has improved my hard drive performance pretty dramatically here are Wintune results for cached and uncached speeds. All the other results show only slight differences.
Win98:Cached Disk 127.3979 MB/s Uncached Disk 4.404872 MB/s
2000 :Cached Disk 448.5551 MB/ Uncached Disk 5.559103 MB/s
System: 700 Athlon -AsusK7v -Maxtor 54098U8 40 gig 7200
Matrox G400DH - 256MB Mushkin PC133 -SBLive
The 98 results are after every tweak I can find, the 2000 results are after a single reg tweak to enable UDMA66.

 

[Akkan]

Win2K is a lot more stable than Win98SE ever was for me. I have about 1/3 the crashes, and the performance with my comp, almost identical with yours (P3-500, 128 meg RAM, 13.6 gig Maxtor HDD, TNT Ultra, Cable modem, SBlive X-gamer), was the same if not better with Win2K. Your RAM shoud make up the difference.