MS said:

That's not easy for me. The tech building my computer will put Ubuntu, a Linux
distro, on as dual boot with W2K.


Sounds like he really objects to win98 for some reason. Heck, you said you've already reinstalled 98 so what would be his beef with
installing W2K. A middle school kid could do it!


Only a few apps I run in W98SE are DOS, but I hoped to run some DOS games and old
football and aircraft games on the W2K computer, guess not.

My use mainly is plain text apps, nearly all 32, bit, some 32 bit games and the
internet, so W2K should handle that fine...?

from the sounds of it, you could live without 98 and would make due with W2K, but FYI, W2K has a 'compatibility mode' which 'fakes'
a program into thinking it is working in Win95, 98 or NT so your legacy programs MIGHT benefit from that feature. I had no success
with it but instead had to install DOSBox to run one particularly fussy DOS program. It works ok now, not as good as Win98 ran it,
but it's ok.

I'd like to back up a little; your initial post mentioned getting BSOD, then you reinstalling 98. How stable is the system now? If
it is good (to me indicating the BSOD was not caused by hardware) why not install W2K4 yourself, on your current HW? You can buy W2K
upgrade CD on ebay and install it to a partition other than the one for 98 (assuming you currently have more than one partition).
W2K will set up dual boot automatically for you! It's not hard. And if you make sure of having internet access the people here will
usually provide helpful information in case you need extra help!

By installing a dual boot system you can have the best of both worlds, and although doing it may sound a little intimidating, with a
good BACKUP (of your entire HD) and some time, I think you find the rewards worth it.

You may think this is nuts but I have two PC's, an oldie (but a goodie) which includes a MULTI boot system with Win3.11, Win95 and
Win98. I love this pc (on it right now).

Then I have a hot-rod PC for multimedia production. It's off most of the time but, liking to tinker, ended up installing MULTI-BOOT
with Win95, Win98se, W2k4 and Xp1 on it! Can't find the Intel chipset drivers for the MOBO for Win95 so 95 doesn't work well but the
other OS's are great. And I find each OS has their strengths and weaknesses. Which have I found to be the 'best' all-round? XP1
(it's quite amazing)!

Waited until just this year to install XP (I don't change easily). And much to my surprise, really like it. It does better than W2K
running legacy programs, but not THAT much better, so Win98 is here to stay as long as I can find HW to run it on!

Hope you find some ideas for yourself reading through all this. And don't let the tech. steer you into something you don't want.
I've noticed over the years people in service can have VERY different approaches; some want to steer you THEIR way (it's easier for
them, and often more profitable), and some will bend over backwards to accommodate YOUR desires. I prefer the latter.

If you think you can install a dual boot system yourself, consider taking the risk. If you have a GOOD, RELIABLE, FULL backup of
ALL your 'stuff' (on the HD), take the jump! You can do it. If you don't really want to be 'bothered' with all the technical stuff,
your choice will be different.

All the best, Vic
____
"ms" wrote in message ...
Vic wrote:
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!

That's not easy for me. The tech building my computer will put Ubuntu, a Linux
distro, on as dual boot with W2K.

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.


Only a few apps I run in W98SE are DOS, but I hoped to run some DOS games and old
football and aircraft games on the W2K computer, guess not.

So consider your reasons (or needs) for the PC. What types of apps do you use, 32bit, 16bit, DOS?

My use mainly is plain text apps, nearly all 32, bit, some 32 bit games and the
internet, so W2K should handle that fine...?

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.
___

Comment?

MS

"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