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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?
Ron Martell wrote:
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 Thanks for the info. Ron. To clarify, I now use many apps written for AFAIK W98/ME, FAT 32 for sure. Generally, how will they work in NTFS? Assuming W2K *ONLY* functions in NTFS? MS |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?
"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 Yes Win2k is *definitely* more stable than win98. I still run win98 and win2k on one of my machines and Win2k rarely (if ever) crashes... but Win98 crashes from time to time (just enough the be annoying) If you decide to go with win2k I recommend backing up your data and performing a clean install. A clean install of win2k is more likely to work well than an upgrade from win98. I know there are some who say that a properly prepped win98 will be OK to upgrade... but I disagree. The logic is that if the win98 installation is in 100% perfect shape...it should upgrade OK... But my thinking is that there really is no such thing as a 100% working win98 installation... Or if there is one...then why upgrade? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?
Your issue isn't NTFS - any application running in Windows 2000 doesn't care
if it's on NTFS or FAT32 since the OS handles disk reads and writes. Your issue may be that your legacy applications (Windows 95, 98, DOS, etc) don't run well in the Windows 2000 environment. In that case you may simply want to leapfrog to Windows XP as it offers "Compatibility Mode" to run troublesome apps. -- Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to. * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/ * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm "ms" wrote in message ... Thanks for the info. Ron. To clarify, I now use many apps written for AFAIK W98/ME, FAT 32 for sure. Generally, how will they work in NTFS? Assuming W2K *ONLY* functions in NTFS? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?
Even though I don't like XP. If you are building a new machine? Just do it now with all XP. Upgrade to the newest hardware and install XP. Then you will be all set to get Vista if it is any good. So I have to agree with Gary and Richard about this. I really like my 98SE machine. I know it so well it's like a part of me. But I plan to install my copy of XP if I have to upgrade to a new MB. If and when that comes about I will buid a complete new machine from top to bottom. "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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Is W2000 more stable than W98SE?
I hope that when you build your new machine, you'll do it from bottom to
top, instead. It's so much more manageable that way, ;) -- Gary S. Terhune MS MVP Shell/User "poatt" wrote in message ... Even though I don't like XP. If you are building a new machine? Just do it now with all XP. Upgrade to the newest hardware and install XP. Then you will be all set to get Vista if it is any good. So I have to agree with Gary and Richard about this. I really like my 98SE machine. I know it so well it's like a part of me. But I plan to install my copy of XP if I have to upgrade to a new MB. If and when that comes about I will buid a complete new machine from top to bottom. "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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |