MS, here's a simple solution:

Find out if W2K is more stable for yourself. As Gary said, W2K may not be as forgiving (depending on your apps). So why don't you
consider installing both and using dual boot, that's what I did! And I found BOTH systems have their own strengths for my purposes.
Some people would not find that true for them because they may use different apps, or simply prefer this or that for WHATEVER
reasons. But for my purposes having both is GREAT.

Win98 is the primary OS. W2K is used for heavy duty multimedia production, and works GREAT for that ... but for W2K to run the loads
of DOS apps used DAILY, forget it. DOS apps and W2K are a poor mix for a multitude of reasons.

So consider your reasons (or needs) for the PC. What types of apps do you use, 32bit, 16bit, DOS? On W2K one CHERISHED dictionary
software package will not load up its voice module, but it does on Win3/95/98! I use that dictionary quite often AND the
pronunciation. It was disappointing to see it not work FULLY with W2K. So examine your needs, consider W2K is a 32bit OS NOT
designed to fully accommodate old 16bit apps, nor run DOS as Win9x does. Then install both (dual boot) :-)

Just some things to consider.
___

"ms" wrote in message ...
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
More secure, yes. More stable... Not really. Win2K isn't as forgiving as 9x
systems. IOW, you're more likely to come across a program that makes Win2K
choke.

If the previous installation lasted 3 years, why not just reinstall from
scratch? Or buy a new machine and upgrade to WinXP. It's time to do that,
you know.

Certainly don't want to argue with you, Gary, but everything I've heard over several
months confirms I hope to never load XP Home, it's full of garbage compared to my
W98SE. My old P166 with W98SE is on life support, and the tech I work with could no
longer find hardware for a new computer that would run W98SE reliably. He
demonstrated that, on a mb with the Celeron 865PE chipset that is supposed to support
W98. And the mb was the same. We got screen freezes in scandisk. So I have to move on.

W2000 is supposed to be much "cleaner" than XP.
It is significant to me, that you say More stable... Not really. Win2K isn't as
forgiving as 9x systems.

Locally, I hear people saying W2K is so much more solid than W98SE.

Comment?

Thanks,

MS