• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Convince my dad to let me upgrade to Windows 2000 Server

M

MrCodeDude

Lifer
Alright, so my dad's friend had a spare copy of Windows 2000 Server and let me have it. All in basically it's original packaging, he's using XP now, so no worries.. I think. Anyways, my dad said that I shouldn't upgrade from Windows 98 to 2000, when 98 runs fine. I need some reasons why I should be allowed to upgrade. I mean it's free and all, but other than that, all I can think of is stabability. But are there any more reasons to upgrade?

And put it in simple terms, seeing how if you say it has the NTFS filing system, I have no clue what that means but I know it's better than Win9x's filing system..
-- mrcodedude
 


<< shouldn't upgrade from Windows 98 to 2000, when 98 runs fine. >>


Your dad is very wise. You should take his advice and leave the system alone. Win2000 requires hardware that is supported to benefit from the stability... Install Win2000 on your next computer system.


<< it has the NTFS filing system, I have no clue what that means but I know it's better than Win9x's filing system. >>


NTFS isn?t necessarily better, I can tell you that it?s 1) offers additional security (that you don?t need) and is 2) slower then FAT32 (because of the overhead involved in maintaining all that security!).

I can't give you reasons to upgrade to Win200 , but I can give you some reasons why you should stick with Win98... it supports a wide variety of hardware and software packages that won't run under Win2000.

If you're *really* intent on installing Win2000, then at the very least, run the upgrade advisor (it's in the install CD, but download the latest version from the MicroSoft web site) to see if you'll have any compatibilty problems with your hardware or software packages.
 
Another reason why I want to upgrade to 2000. To run my own HTTP server off my computer rather than have these free hosts crash and take all my files along with them.
-- mrcodedude
 
Well depending on the sort of machine you have. Bear in mind that Server version do have more background services running than Pro which would require more memory. Also many utilities software ie Antivirus, Diskeeper won't work on Server you will need the Server version.

Other than that I would say that W2k is much more stable than 98SE anyday.

I didn't notice much of a performance hit when using NTFS compared to FAT32. Isn't NTFS less prone to file corruption and fragmentation than FAT32?

It seemed that I am all for w2k but I think I would still advice against using the Server version as a desktop operating system.
 

You edit your HTML file on your local system right? What are you losing then the server crashes? Do you use the ?send to web publish wizard? to upload your file to the web hosting service? Web publishing wizard is part of Windows, you might need to install it, if its not listed in the ?send to? list when you right-click on an HTML file.

Also you don?t have to install Win2000 to do what you?re want to do -- you can run Apache web server on Win98, not the best solution, but it does work...
http://httpd.apache.org/

But, hosting you own web site is much more than just installing software... there are a number of security issues that need to be addressed, BEFORE you go online, and afterwards it becomes a maintenance problem keeping it up-to-date will all the patches.

 
a) best not to upgrade, but rather to reinstall
b) put on 2k pro not server.
c) NTFS is faster for most hard drives these days (5-10gb+)
d) If all you want is webhosting, either put apache on the 98 box or get 2k pro, patch it up then use IIS.
 


<< d) If all you want is webhosting, either put apache on the 98 box or get 2k pro, patch it up then use IIS. >>



OR

Get Win2K, put Apache on it, and don't touch IIS at all.
 
OR

dont host your own web site because it will probably be very slow. If you REALLY INSIST on hosting your own site you need a more secure OS like BSD or linux even.

On another note...i tried upgrading to 2000 pro and only had problems...my modem didnt work, my network card didnt work, and not only that, it doesnt support all the games i play.

98 is a good OS. Right now i am triple booting Mandrake 8.1, Windows XP, and windows 98...guess which one i am writing this with and which one i use most often...98.

My friend had alot of luck with 2000 pro though and i envy his system because it is probably more stable than mine, although i turn off my computer daily so memory usage degredation isnt really a concern to me.
 
I'm all for ditching the POS Win9X, but I think Win2K server is overkill, I mean they called it "server" for a reason.

And you can't upgrade Win98 -> Win2K server, you have to format/reinstall. You can upgrade Win9X -> Win2K Pro though.

NTFS isn?t necessarily better, I can tell you that it?s 1) offers additional security (that you don?t need) and is 2) slower then FAT32 (because of the overhead involved in maintaining all that security!).

Actually it is better, the only thing FAT has for it is compatibility, in all other areas it sucks. And NTFS is generally faster because contrary to it's name FAT isn't really a table, its a huge linked list of files, searching for a particular file on the disk can take a long time (in computer time that is) while NTFS uses a table similar to that of unix superblocks which is quite quick for searching. The only time you might see slight dely is in the initial opening of a file when the ACLs are checked, everything else is faster.

 


<< I'm all for ditching the POS Win9X, but I think Win2K server is overkill, I mean they called it "server" for a reason.

And you can't upgrade Win98 -> Win2K server, you have to format/reinstall. You can upgrade Win9X -> Win2K Pro though.

NTFS isn?t necessarily better, I can tell you that it?s 1) offers additional security (that you don?t need) and is 2) slower then FAT32 (because of the overhead involved in maintaining all that security!).

Actually it is better, the only thing FAT has for it is compatibility, in all other areas it sucks. And NTFS is generally faster because contrary to it's name FAT isn't really a table, its a huge linked list of files, searching for a particular file on the disk can take a long time (in computer time that is) while NTFS uses a table similar to that of unix superblocks which is quite quick for searching. The only time you might see slight dely is in the initial opening of a file when the ACLs are checked, everything else is faster. >>



uhh..what he said...


peace
sean
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top