[chewit]

Hi, I'm using Win98SE atm with the Win2000 add-on mod. Its a 700MHz CPU with 256mb RAM. I thinking about upgrading to Win2000 since it is very stable and secure. Plus with all these apps stopping support of Win98, I'm wondering if you should upgrade or stay with 98 even though it does have the win2000 mod on it?

[dirtwarrior]

What is the win2000 mod? Myself I would go to 2000.

[BenoitRen]

Windows 2000 secure? While it's more secure than XP, it's still a services-based OS.

So what if a lot of software is stopping support for Win98? There are always alternatives, and you can always keep using a stable old version. Newer is not always better.

[galahs]

If you don't need any of the software or hardware (make sure you have all the drivers you need) compatibility features Win98 gives, then Win2k is a good upgrade.

Win2k will require alot more HArd Disk Space too, so make sure that is not a concern.


Just remember you MUST install a Firewall BEFORE going on the internet with Win2k. I'd also recommend using Firefox or Opera over IE6 to help cancel out a few more threats.

[Atmosphere XG]

I went from Windows 98 First Edition to Windows 2000 nearly 2 years ago. If you want no eye candy Windows 2000 is what you are looking for. It only requires 1.6 GB of hard drive space and won’t use your memory carelessly like Windows 98 (First edition was prone to do that can’t say for 98SE) does.

You can always set your services to manual or disable them. Windows 2000 only requires 11 services to run (With Internet Services) which draws around 40 MB of RAM upon booting up.

700 MHZ with 256 MB of RAM is plenty for Windows 2000. Remember, it only requires 133 MHZ, 64 MB of RAM. I’ve actually tried running it on 200 MHZ, 32 MB of RAM and it works. Very slow but, it will work.

I’m currently using Windows 2000 on 400 MHZ AMD K6, 512 MB of RAM and I have no problems whatsoever. Opera is my primary browser. I’m probably one of the very few that don’t use a virus protection on my Internet PC. I just use Ad-aware on a weekly basis and, Ccleaner. I would imagine your surfing habits would play a factor and, if you keep all your personal information in your computer whether you can get away with it or not.

[galahs]

I've used Windows 2000 on a Pentium Pro 200MHz with 256MB of RAM and it ran flawlessly. Not really a gaming machine, but was fast and stable for office work and internet browsing, email etc.

Just don't forget the Firewall!!! I've seen Win2000 machine hacked after a fresh install being hacked 2 minutes after they connect to the internet. Not even giving you enough time to download a firewall!!!

Get the firewall and put it on a disk and make sure you install it before you connect to the internet.

[BenoitRen]

So why is Windows 2000 a good upgrade if you get infected as soon as you connect to the Internet?

Quote

If you want no eye candy Windows 2000 is what you are looking for.

Windows 2000 actually started most of the eye candy, minus Fisher Price theme. Things like mouse cursor shadow.

Quote

It only requires 1.6 GB of hard drive space

That's still a lot, and much more than an IE-free install which requires 500+ MB.

[chewit]

Thanks for all the feedback. I'm still not sure if i should upgrade. I'm very happy with 98 and its very secure and stable now (thanks to the Win2000 mod), but maybe I'm justed worried that 98 has no app support any more and 2000 does.

[TravisO]

It's hard to say, you do have 256mb of ram, but that's not as much in Windows as it use to be. If you had 512 of ram, I would say absolutely.

Another thing I should point out that most people don't realize, WinXP is faster and can use less ram than Win2000 after you configure it properly (disable the extra features, disable the services you don't use). I've actually stress tested both and there's no comparison, XP is faster on the same hardware after it's properly configured. And if you want to get really dirty, use NLite to customize your install disk before you upgrade. What people get confused with XP is if available ram is there, the OS will use it for pre-caching. This is what makes XP faster, but it also gives people a false impression that it uses more ram. If the ram isn't available, this simply won't happen.

But ultimately, 256 is just barely enough to run XP, but if you run all the newest apps (IE7, Office 2007, etc) 256 isn't enough to cut it anymore. I have ran XP on a similar computer, and it did run fine, so it's your call. I guess if you want to run recent software, going to XP would be a good idea. IMHO Win2000 is just as abondoned as Win98 is, MS has proven they've turned their back to 2000 after IE7 and MS Antispyware won't support it, and there's many more apps from them too that won't work. Honestly, installing 2000 isn't really an upgrade in your situation, it's just a 98 replacement that's going to use way more ram and not really bring you up to date... go XP or stay in 98.

[Atmosphere XG]

BenoitRen, on Nov 9 2007, 08:59 AM, said:

So why is Windows 2000 a good upgrade if you get infected as soon as you connect to the Internet?

Quote

If you want no eye candy Windows 2000 is what you are looking for.

Windows 2000 actually started most of the eye candy, minus Fisher Price theme. Things like mouse cursor shadow.

Quote

It only requires 1.6 GB of hard drive space

That's still a lot, and much more than an IE-free install which requires 500+ MB.

I would say Windows 2000 is very slim comparison to XP in terms of effects and, lets not even mention Vista.

You can most definitely strip down Windows 2000 with N Lite. I have a Windows 2000
version I made that is 77 MB 120 MB installed.

I can't tell you how fast it is using only 32 MB of RAM. But of course, those that go the N Lite route pretty much knows exactly what they need and do not need.

I'll agree that Windows XP is faster than Windows 2000 on a strong computer. However, on a computer offering 500 MHZ or less, Windows 2000 exceeds XP's performance. You'll find XP is fine on 256 MB of RAM providing you have a strong processor. I've ran XP on 192 MB of RAM 500 MHZ Celeron for years and it worked very fast. On the flip side, I've tried running XP on a
400 MHZ AMD K6 with 512 MB of RAM and it was very slow. YMMV.

[dirtwarrior]

chewit, on Nov 9 2007, 12:53 PM, said:

Thanks for all the feedback. I'm still not sure if i should upgrade. I'm very happy with 98 and its very secure and stable now (thanks to the Win2000 mod), but maybe I'm justed worried that 98 has no app support any more and 2000 does.

What is the win2000 mod?

[Ponch]

Atmosphere XG, on Nov 9 2007, 07:50 PM, said:

I'll agree that Windows XP is faster than Windows 2000 on a strong computer. However, on a computer offering 500 MHZ or less, Windows 2000 exceeds XP's performance.

We know what we're talking about, it's a 700MHz CPU with 256mb RAM, so XP will be (verry little) faster. I agree with TravisO, 2k would only be half a step, unless you have a license and really need an application that doesn't run under W98.

[chewit]

dirtwarrior, on Nov 9 2007, 03:12 PM, said:

chewit, on Nov 9 2007, 12:53 PM, said:

Thanks for all the feedback. I'm still not sure if i should upgrade. I'm very happy with 98 and its very secure and stable now (thanks to the Win2000 mod), but maybe I'm justed worried that 98 has no app support any more and 2000 does.

What is the win2000 mod?

The Win2000 mod is this.

So you think maybe I should go for XP. I was considering that, but I want it to run fast.

[dirtwarrior]

Windows 2000 is a good OS and uses less resourse than XP. The choice is yours. XP and 2K can be made liter with HFSLIP or NLITE or both.

This post has been edited by dirtwarrior: 10 November 2007 - 03:18 AM

[RJARRRPCGP]

Atmosphere XG, on Nov 9 2007, 07:50 PM, said:

I'll agree that Windows XP is faster than Windows 2000 on a strong computer. However, on a computer offering 500 MHZ or less, Windows 2000 exceeds XP's performance.

Actually, that's true with almost anything under 1.8 Ghz.

Also, Intels seem to be better with Windows XP than AMDs, at least earlier ones.

This post has been edited by RJARRRPCGP: 10 November 2007 - 04:08 PM

[puntoMX]

I could be outdated, but before 32bit apps ran almost twice as fast on a 32bit OS like NT then on a 16bit OS like 95/98(SE)/ME... This was on a Pentium pro about 12 years ago (on 95)... Correct me if I’m wrong please...

[BenoitRen]

You are wrong. Win9x is not 16-bit, it's 32-bit.

[computerwizkid]

You're both wrong.Windows 9x is a 16/32 bit OS since it still has DOS roots.

[BenoitRen]

DOS is just the bootstrap. After that it's all 32-bit. Even DOS.

[puntoMX]

So, I was wondering how it’s possible that Windows 98 now is a "complete 32bit OS? Even 2000 has 16bit parts but the kernel is 32bits...

This is why I say Windows 98 has a partly 16 and 32bit core but Windows 2000 32bit... This is why drivers don’t work on 98 and do work on NT/2000 (a part of it, and the OS layers).

Quote

Windows 98 (codenamed Memphis) is a graphical operating system released on June 25, 1998 by Microsoft and the successor to Windows 95. Like its predecessor, it is a hybrid 16-bit/32-bit monolithic product based on MS-DOS.