Windows 2000 vs. Windows 98

[Jeff7181]

Which one would be faster on a 400 Mhz Pentium 2 laptop with 128 MB of RAM and a 4200 RPM 6 GB hard drive? I have both... Win2000 and Win98... I have Win98 SE also, but I don't have the CD key for it.

 

[Budman]

probably 98se would be a tad faster but for stability's sake I think you should install Win2k.

 

[Macro2]

I'd put Win 2000 on it before I put 98 non-SE on it.

 

[Jeff7181]

Ok... that's what I thought too... but... I'm only going to use the computer for web browsing, e-mail, chatting, and I'm gonna put MS Money on it to keep track of my finances. I'll probably also do my taxes on it.

 

[IsOs]

I think your find Windows 98 running faster in that computer. Make sure you don't load a lot of fonts, just the basic that you'll need.

 

[vegetation]

Win98 will run more smoothly on that setup; 128mb isn't something win2k is happy with. It wont be as stable, but if you're just turning it on then off for a few hours in between then it doesn't matter.

 

[Zucarita9000]

98SE will be faster and smoother. 2k will be much more stable and reliable.

 

[Jeff7181]

I think I'll try 2k and see how it is first... I like the security of NTFS, especially since I'll be doing finance and tax stuff on it. May end up switching to 98 if it's too slow for me. Oh, by the way... is there THAT much difference between 98 and 98 SE? What are the major differences?

 

[Matt84]

Windows 98SE would be better if you intend to play older games on that system.
Windows 2000 will run best for business applications, slightly faster (provided you have enough RAM) and more stable.

 

[spanky]

get an extra 128mb dimm and load w2k 🙂

 

[CTho9305]

128 is FINE for 2k. My brother used XP with 128 for a while and it really wasn't a big deal.

 

[Matt84]

128Mb RAM on XP is fine for using Notepad or maybe solitaire, word chugged very badly. Added another 128MB stick on my old P3 733 and everything ran fine.

 

[pitupepito2000]

I would say add more ram if you want to use Windows 2k, or install Windows 98. Because 98 needs less ram than windows 2k.

Another option that you can try is that when you install windows 2k, do a minimal installation meaning don't install extra stuff that you don't need. And also disable some of the useless services that come up at startup. If you do this you won't need to buy an extra stick of ram.

I hope this helps,
pitupepito

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Zucarita9000
98SE will be faster and smoother. 2k will be much more stable and reliable.

Windows 98 SE would be marginally faster for office tasks, but Windows 2000 will be "smoother" in multitasking though slightly slower. It will definitely be more stable and secure than 98SE, of course. Before you accuse me of ignorance, I've run both on a desktop with 128MB of RAM and a slow (older 5400RPM) hard disk. My opinion is to try Win2k (even without adding RAM), and see if you like it. If it's a little too slow for your taste, try to add some more RAM. But by all means, stay away from Win9x. 🙂

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: SpeedKing
128Mb RAM on XP is fine for using Notepad or maybe solitaire, word chugged very badly. Added another 128MB stick on my old P3 733 and everything ran fine.

Anandtech members tend to overstate requirements of everything. According to them, you need a 1ghz PC with a GeForce2 to play the original halflife

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: SpeedKing
128Mb RAM on XP is fine for using Notepad or maybe solitaire, word chugged very badly. Added another 128MB stick on my old P3 733 and everything ran fine.

Anandtech members tend to overstate requirements of everything. According to them, you need a 1ghz PC with a GeForce2 to play the original halflife

LOL! 😀