Which is more stable Me or 2000. I do alot of LAN gaming on my machines. They are all running Me and it would be no problem switching to 2000. Reason is I keep getting bogus error every once in a while and the error has to do with KERNEL32.dll.
Me or 2000?
- Thread starter harbinger52
- Start date
Windows 2000 is far more stable and also run most newer games without a problem. For stability I would definitely go with W2K.
ME is based on the W9x kernel and W2K is using NT-kernel.
The NT kernel has far better memory management, and is therefore great when you have a lot of ram (I currently have 384 in my system.
ME is based on the W9x kernel and W2K is using NT-kernel.
The NT kernel has far better memory management, and is therefore great when you have a lot of ram (I currently have 384 in my system.
Go with Win 2K for stability. Just make sure you're up-to-date with the recent drivers to make all your hardware 2000-compatible.
Win2k all the way. I have no problems with win2k. I never have lockups or crashes, it is very stable. I recommend win2k to anyone now days. Just like the other guys said keep it up to date so hardware drivers wont be to much of a problem. Games, pretty much all run ok. I have one game that wont install because, during the install it checks to see if the system is NT. It does this because NT 4.0 couldn't support a high version of DirectX. Anyways it would detect NT and say it couldn't install the game in NT, when it was really win2k which supports DirectX 8a, the highest version right now.
Here is another thread about Win2k vs WinME
It's a landslide in favour of Win2k.
Stability you say? We are talking an OS built from the ground up to run 32bit in applications where stability is the primary concern vs a 32bit extension to a glorified dos shell (win3.11 being the glorified dos shell and Win9x/ME being the 32bit extension). 2000 will wallop ME for stability. That's like a wood shack vs a castle
Plus Windows NT is the way we are going. 2000 = NT5, WinXP = NT5.1.
I do all my stuff, Word, IE, ICQ, Email, Programming, Watching DVDs, Gaming...all of it on Win2k. I used to dual boot Win98SE/Win2k...I don't remember the last time I bothered to boot to Win98SE...I finally purged my system of it, it's more annoying than most viruses after all
The only thing to be weary of is if RAM. You'll want bare minimum 128MB to play games comfortably in Win2k. I would say 192+ or 256+ if you can swing it...(RAM is pretty cheap right now but we don't all have money to burn). A game like Diablo2 takes a little over 100MB of RAM, and Win2k itself is about 65-70...throw in ICQ or something and you can see why you'll want to be above the 192MB mark..
I'll quote myself from that thread:
<< In october I went Win98SE/Win2k dual boot. By the end of novemeber I never bothered with Win98SE anymore. Last week I took it off completely.
Win2k runs all my software....
and games run perfectly fine. If you check out Anand's November2000 budget video card guide, you'll see nVidia's Win2k performance is sometimes better than their Win98 performance.
Win2000 is the core of Windows XP, and Windows XP is going to replace WinME...
I run:
Diablo, D2, Starcraft, Broodwar, Quake3, Soldier of Fortune (Quake2 engien), Dungeon Keeper (DirectX 3!! woot!), War2 BNE, AOE2, EverQuest, Rune (Unreal Engine), halfLife...even Myst and Maabus that are Win3.11 games on the WinG API...
That's OpenGL, DirectX, Glide and WinG games...all work fine.
Win2000 Pro IS the basis for WinXP, just without that horrible Mac-wannabe User Interface. Win2000 Pro simply rocks Win95/98 or ME's world.
I have no regrets for ditching Win98SE compeltely. >>
It's a landslide in favour of Win2k.
Stability you say? We are talking an OS built from the ground up to run 32bit in applications where stability is the primary concern vs a 32bit extension to a glorified dos shell (win3.11 being the glorified dos shell and Win9x/ME being the 32bit extension). 2000 will wallop ME for stability. That's like a wood shack vs a castle
Plus Windows NT is the way we are going. 2000 = NT5, WinXP = NT5.1.
I do all my stuff, Word, IE, ICQ, Email, Programming, Watching DVDs, Gaming...all of it on Win2k. I used to dual boot Win98SE/Win2k...I don't remember the last time I bothered to boot to Win98SE...I finally purged my system of it, it's more annoying than most viruses after all
The only thing to be weary of is if RAM. You'll want bare minimum 128MB to play games comfortably in Win2k. I would say 192+ or 256+ if you can swing it...(RAM is pretty cheap right now but we don't all have money to burn). A game like Diablo2 takes a little over 100MB of RAM, and Win2k itself is about 65-70...throw in ICQ or something and you can see why you'll want to be above the 192MB mark..
I'll quote myself from that thread:
<< In october I went Win98SE/Win2k dual boot. By the end of novemeber I never bothered with Win98SE anymore. Last week I took it off completely.
Win2k runs all my software....
and games run perfectly fine. If you check out Anand's November2000 budget video card guide, you'll see nVidia's Win2k performance is sometimes better than their Win98 performance.
Win2000 is the core of Windows XP, and Windows XP is going to replace WinME...
I run:
Diablo, D2, Starcraft, Broodwar, Quake3, Soldier of Fortune (Quake2 engien), Dungeon Keeper (DirectX 3!! woot!), War2 BNE, AOE2, EverQuest, Rune (Unreal Engine), halfLife...even Myst and Maabus that are Win3.11 games on the WinG API...
That's OpenGL, DirectX, Glide and WinG games...all work fine.
Win2000 Pro IS the basis for WinXP, just without that horrible Mac-wannabe User Interface. Win2000 Pro simply rocks Win95/98 or ME's world.
I have no regrets for ditching Win98SE compeltely. >>
win me sucks..
=I
win 983 SE is better!!
i thought performance wise..
win me is better than win pro 200 tho?
but is win 98 is still better than win me..
=I
win 983 SE is better!!
i thought performance wise..
win me is better than win pro 200 tho?
but is win 98 is still better than win me..
Everybody here is right : Win2K is definitly THE choice.
Before choosing Win2K, I ran 98SE (WinMe is just a waste of time and disk)
and I wanted to go for Win2K but was concerned by the performance problem.
I use NT boxes at work, and I admit NT is sometimes slow.
But MS did a great job opitmizing Win2K. And with the service manager,
you should be able to remove all unneeded services
that might consume CPU and memory.
As stated by Noriaki, keep in mind that Win2K is a full 32bits OS
(but who needs DOS today ?). It's the main reason for stability and
performance of Win2K. 16 bits code sucks because is can crash your machine
so easyly. Most of Disk access and GDI code is still 16 bit in Win9x
(just try to copy from a CD and press "eject" during access). Win2K
doesn't have to swap between 16 bit mode and 32bit mode, which is just
a waste of precious CPU cycles !
Regarding stability, just think about that :
- Win9x as *NO* decent memory protection scheme
- Any application can execute code in ring 0 (most privileged level)
Go for Win2K man !
Gilles
Before choosing Win2K, I ran 98SE (WinMe is just a waste of time and disk)
and I wanted to go for Win2K but was concerned by the performance problem.
I use NT boxes at work, and I admit NT is sometimes slow.
But MS did a great job opitmizing Win2K. And with the service manager,
you should be able to remove all unneeded services
that might consume CPU and memory.
As stated by Noriaki, keep in mind that Win2K is a full 32bits OS
(but who needs DOS today ?). It's the main reason for stability and
performance of Win2K. 16 bits code sucks because is can crash your machine
so easyly. Most of Disk access and GDI code is still 16 bit in Win9x
(just try to copy from a CD and press "eject" during access). Win2K
doesn't have to swap between 16 bit mode and 32bit mode, which is just
a waste of precious CPU cycles !
Regarding stability, just think about that :
- Win9x as *NO* decent memory protection scheme
- Any application can execute code in ring 0 (most privileged level)
Go for Win2K man !
Gilles
<< ME is very,very unstable >>
While I agree that Win2k is more stable, WinMe is actually very good and fast if you know what to tweak and where. I've ran WinMe since sometime in July and never had stability problems with it - the only reason I don't run Win2k primarily is because a lot of my software refuses to run on Win2k but they run great on Me.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter