A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 22nd 06, 12:25 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?

I have used W98SE for about 9 years, almost always very stable, once in awhile screen
crashes or BSOD. Just before a reinstall last week, it was having screen crashes
constantly for no reason I could determine, except the registry was 9 years old.

I have heard that people switching to W2000/SP4 say it is far more stable than the
W98SE they were running.

Is it correct that W2K/SP4 is considered much more stable than W98SE?

MS
  #2  
Old March 22nd 06, 12:38 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?

ms wrote:
I have used W98SE for about 9 years, almost always very stable, once in
awhile screen crashes or BSOD. Just before a reinstall last week, it was
having screen crashes constantly for no reason I could determine, except
the registry was 9 years old.

I have heard that people switching to W2000/SP4 say it is far more
stable than the W98SE they were running.

Is it correct that W2K/SP4 is considered much more stable than W98SE?

MS


?On the same hardware??

I wonder.

Stanislaw
Slack user from Ulladulla.

  #3  
Old March 22nd 06, 12:39 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?

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.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User

"ms" wrote in message ...
I have used W98SE for about 9 years, almost always very stable, once in

awhile screen
crashes or BSOD. Just before a reinstall last week, it was having screen

crashes
constantly for no reason I could determine, except the registry was 9

years old.

I have heard that people switching to W2000/SP4 say it is far more stable

than the
W98SE they were running.

Is it correct that W2K/SP4 is considered much more stable than W98SE?

MS



  #4  
Old March 22nd 06, 12:55 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

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.


Naughty, naughty!

Have fun

Stanislaw
Slack user from Ulladulla.

  #5  
Old March 22nd 06, 01:30 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?

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
  #6  
Old March 22nd 06, 03:08 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?

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



  #7  
Old March 22nd 06, 01:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?

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




  #8  
Old March 22nd 06, 02:19 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?

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






  #9  
Old March 22nd 06, 04:04 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?

Vic wrote:
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!

No, a misunderstanding here. He will do what I want, but as in my earlier post, today
it seems hardware available is not as advertised, does not run W98SE reliably, and
that is my prime requirement. He has lots of experience with W98Se before he switched
himself to W2K. He installed fresh W98Se on a new hard drive, practically nothing
else installed. In initial scandisk, we got screen freezes. This with a new, clean
registry, 128 MB VRAM. Answer seems to be the 865 chipset and motherboard for it are
not *really* compatible with W98SE. So I still run it on my old P166.


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)


Mentioned the likely cause in thread, don't want to get into that as the P166 works
OK now, has some sort of video problem between monitor cable to video card, as long
as it operates 24/7 it's fine, but in my normal pattern of cold boot each morning, I
get a black screen.

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!

See above, I will wind up on new computer with W2K and Ubuntu Linux in dual boot. Old
computer is no way capable of running W2K.

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!

XP for some of you experts here is OK as you are capable of removing the crap from
it, but it's not easy for me.

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


Thanks for your comments,

MS
  #10  
Old March 22nd 06, 05:46 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?

ms wrote:

I have used W98SE for about 9 years, almost always very stable, once in awhile screen
crashes or BSOD. Just before a reinstall last week, it was having screen crashes
constantly for no reason I could determine, except the registry was 9 years old.

I have heard that people switching to W2000/SP4 say it is far more stable than the
W98SE they were running.

Is it correct that W2K/SP4 is considered much more stable than W98SE?

MS


Windows 2000 is newer than Windows 98, so it is somewhat better suited
to running on today's hardware. And it supports the NTFS file system
which is much better than FAT32 for today's large hard drives.

Windows 2000 is based on the Windows NT kernel, which is entirely
different from the 9x kernel used in Windows 95/98/Me. It was
intended primarily for business use so consumer aspects such as
multimedia support were a secondary consideration. Security and
enterprise scale networking were major concerns, much more so than
they were with 95/98/Me.

There was more post-release development with Windows 2000, as
evidenced by the number of Service Packs that have been released for
it.

Software compatibility can be an issue with Windows 2000, especially
with older applications written for DOS or Windows 3.x. Many of these
older apps, especially games, used programming shortcuts such as
writing directly to the hardware instead of using operating system
function calls. These apps invariably crash and burn when they are
run on Windows 2000 or XP, as direct control of the hardware by an
application is totally prohibited in the NT kernel versions of
Windows.

But I cannot definitely state that there is a "stability" difference
between the two Windows versions.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USB and W98se Jo General 11 October 22nd 05 11:16 AM
ICS (W98SE host, XP client) stopped working Pinhas Networking 22 May 8th 05 04:57 PM
Problem with Online Windows Updates for W98SE Papa General 16 November 22nd 04 11:31 PM
w98se / xp pro / Norton ack-up strategy.... RJK General 4 August 15th 04 10:58 PM
How to install W98se on a laptop with W98 Marvin Kroll Setup & Installation 3 July 15th 04 12:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.