I have read alot of studies, reports, and articles comparing these two operating systems. I'm looking for comments from users about which they think is better and why.
Windows2000 vs. Windows98. Which is better?
- Thread starter Ayla
- Start date
Windows 2000 by far. How often do you have to reboot running Win9x? Too many times I'm sure. How about going for a month or more of gaming, surfing, programming and the like without rebooting due to a mysterious system crash of some kind. That in itself is the only reason to own Win2k.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 41
- 91
Depends on what you want. If gaming is a be all and end all, then you're probably better off with 98 or Me, but remember you'll need to reboot daily. Win 2K is great, I love it myself, but you absolutely cannot count on getting games to run on it. I have had problems getting several games to run on it, upon asking others, about 50% have the same problems with the same games, and 50% have the games running fine, which leads me to believe that Win 2K has a lack of suitable drivers for certain equipment. Certainly that is not the OS's fault, but it will be some time before it is fully reconciled, and is definitely worth considering. That said, Win 2K has never crashed for me so far, and that is worth far more than being able to play a game or two.
Zenmervolt
Zenmervolt
I would have to agree with rogue that Win2000 is the far superior OS. Put simply, its better at this, that, and the next thing. BUT, its still got its faults (Win2k groupies, please dont hurt me, it was an error in judgement
).
Id suggest doing a search on the subject, im sure youll find a lot of interesting threads about it, and you will get a wider idea of peoples thoughts and experiences with it, then you can make your idea up as to what suits you and your needs.
).Id suggest doing a search on the subject, im sure youll find a lot of interesting threads about it, and you will get a wider idea of peoples thoughts and experiences with it, then you can make your idea up as to what suits you and your needs.
Definitely Windows 2000. More stable, excellent user and security options. Can't wait to see what Whistler will bring!
Win2k seems to be the way to go. Just make sure your hardware and drivers are Win2k friendly.
Work: Excellent and stable.
Games: Last month I ran a few games on it at a LAN party without even a hitch. Actually I was having more luck (zero reboots for the afternoon) than my friends using win98.
-Reader
Work: Excellent and stable.
Games: Last month I ran a few games on it at a LAN party without even a hitch. Actually I was having more luck (zero reboots for the afternoon) than my friends using win98.
-Reader
hmm.... sorry to oppose, but.. for me.. win98se rocks..!
uptime can be as much as i want i gues.. cuz i only shut it down at night and it doesn't crash the whole day..
if you tweak 98se, don't run too many beta or unstable or bugridden software. Install stable and solid apps.. and soon it'll be as stable as it gets...
I use an occasional beta program too or some cheap freeware program, but it never gives me any trouble...
And the best thing is that win98se gives a much more 'snappier' performance compared to win2k. I have 128 RAM and most of the time 50+ ram is free and most of my programs load quickly since they are already loaded into memory...
Simply Put.. me thinks win98se rocks...
uptime can be as much as i want i gues.. cuz i only shut it down at night and it doesn't crash the whole day..
if you tweak 98se, don't run too many beta or unstable or bugridden software. Install stable and solid apps.. and soon it'll be as stable as it gets...
I use an occasional beta program too or some cheap freeware program, but it never gives me any trouble...
And the best thing is that win98se gives a much more 'snappier' performance compared to win2k. I have 128 RAM and most of the time 50+ ram is free and most of my programs load quickly since they are already loaded into memory...
Simply Put.. me thinks win98se rocks...
mmarrafiq: I would consider Windows 9x itself beta/unstable/bugridden software, there's no need to add anything (ok, maybe power to get the system up and crashing )
Also, don't know if you've tried 2000, but 9x's memory management is a nightmare. It usually tends to eat up almost all of one's memory very quickly (and doens't let go of it easily). You might need just a tad more memory in 2000, but it will be put to much better use.
) Also, don't know if you've tried 2000, but 9x's memory management is a nightmare. It usually tends to eat up almost all of one's memory very quickly (and doens't let go of it easily). You might need just a tad more memory in 2000, but it will be put to much better use.
LOL, acurate description there
I happen to be running a Beta 1 OS, *cough*whistler*cough*, as my main OS and is more reliable, stable, and all round kick ass than Win98SE ever was - and i never had any real problems with win98SE either, it just isnt half the OS whistler is, both literally and figuratively
I happen to be running a Beta 1 OS, *cough*whistler*cough*, as my main OS and is more reliable, stable, and all round kick ass than Win98SE ever was - and i never had any real problems with win98SE either, it just isnt half the OS whistler is, both literally and figuratively
My 2 cents.
I bought w2k OEM right when it was released. It was great for most of last year, but in December, I switched to 98SE (before w2k, I was running 95/2.1).
Why? W2k is a great OS. But, I got tired of always having to do "research" whenever I wanted to buy some software. Everything works in 98, and I can live with an occasional reboot due to memory managment issues. As for stability, 98SE almost never crashes for me.
Jeremy
I bought w2k OEM right when it was released. It was great for most of last year, but in December, I switched to 98SE (before w2k, I was running 95/2.1).
Why? W2k is a great OS. But, I got tired of always having to do "research" whenever I wanted to buy some software. Everything works in 98, and I can live with an occasional reboot due to memory managment issues. As for stability, 98SE almost never crashes for me.
Jeremy
With the average size of HDDs being so large these days, why don't more people just go with a dual boot? If the price of 9x and 2k are too high, I'm sure you can find a friend with a copy of each that you can borrow. Personally I love 2K, runs stable as hell without intervention, but before this I, with months of tweakage mind you, had 98se running near rock solid. If you wanna wait and go with Whistler, I've heard many good things about it. In another thread, I dont remember, Sinner talked about 98Lite that would be a good alternative to a full 98se dual boot install. Just my $0.02. *cough*2K rocks!*cough*
I like and use Win2k and try to read as much as I can to understand how everything is working. I never mess around with settings that can get me in trouble and I always do research before purchasing hardware.
That said, I have had Win2k crash on me, lots of times. It's usually the fault of some application, but aren't most crashes? I agree with some of the others here in that I think Win98 has much better support from the software community. This support makes up for lots of problems the operating system creates. I recommend going with Win98 for video, games, music, DVD type stuff and Win2k for office applications and similar. Just my $.02
That said, I have had Win2k crash on me, lots of times. It's usually the fault of some application, but aren't most crashes? I agree with some of the others here in that I think Win98 has much better support from the software community. This support makes up for lots of problems the operating system creates. I recommend going with Win98 for video, games, music, DVD type stuff and Win2k for office applications and similar. Just my $.02
invest in a kicka$$ vid card and get win2k...
That way, the trade off in speed isnt noticeable...
Win2k is better on so many levels, win98 is not even comparable...
That way, the trade off in speed isnt noticeable...
Win2k is better on so many levels, win98 is not even comparable...
With Win2K, you can actually run programs without having to worry about getting your system messed up.
Maybe Im strange and different, but I like having the freedom to use my computer as I see fit, installing and uninstalling every program I can find on the net etc etc, without having to reinstall the OS ala Win9x.
This is the way it should be with any half decent OS, any OS that cant handle some abuse without crashing isnt a functional OS.
Maybe Im strange and different, but I like having the freedom to use my computer as I see fit, installing and uninstalling every program I can find on the net etc etc, without having to reinstall the OS ala Win9x.
This is the way it should be with any half decent OS, any OS that cant handle some abuse without crashing isnt a functional OS.
robg and everyone:
Got a question for all of you, since Whistler beta is available and even Win2k for example, what is there that WinME supports that Win2k and Whistler doesn't? Since I thought as long as you had drivers for the hardware, it was supposed to make everything work... Even though MS shows WinME as being multimedia, doesn't Win2k have multimedia as well? Thanks.
Got a question for all of you, since Whistler beta is available and even Win2k for example, what is there that WinME supports that Win2k and Whistler doesn't? Since I thought as long as you had drivers for the hardware, it was supposed to make everything work... Even though MS shows WinME as being multimedia, doesn't Win2k have multimedia as well? Thanks.
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