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

"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?

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?

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

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

Right. Start at the bottom, or stand on your head, just as Terhune said. ALSO, bury that XP eight feet deep in the meantime!

But, yea, I agree, if/when it becomes necessary!


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR

"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
|