Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

Win 98SE vs Win ME maybe Win2000

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1
Racer63

Racer63
  • Member
  • 5 posts
  • Joined 06-February 13
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
Hi, all. New Member here.

I have a Dell Pentium III with 256 Mb RAM and a 1 Ghz processor, currently with a customized Windows XP that doesn´t work bad, but is very slow at times. I was thinking on an old Windows, just for fun. I tried some Linux distros but I always had some problems with Linux recognizing the hardware.

The OS must be Win98SE or Win ME, maybe 2000. I want to have something capable of at least browsing the web fast and play old games. I´m curious about some comments read on this forum about the speed of such unbloated os and for some nostalgia too.

But all will depend on finding the correct drivers for my two USB Wi-Fi adapters, both Linksys WUSB54CG; I found no drivers for 98/ME/2000, just for XP/7 in the official site. I have another adapter that came with a CD with Windows 2000 drivers, so maybe I´ll have to cope with 2000 due to the drivers.

So what should be the better option?

Regards
Windows 8 Laptop
Windows 7 Laptop
Windows XP mini laptop
Windows XP "Bare Bones" Pentium III 256 RAM, 1 Ghz, my loved one


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
LostInSpace2012

LostInSpace2012

    OS: Ubuntu 12

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 581 posts
  • Joined 20-August 12
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Big question...

I prefer Windows ME over Windows 2000 and 98.

You'll probably get about the same internet mileage out of all three of them. Last version of Internet Explorer is version 6.0. Last version of Firefox for Win2000 is like 12.00. When using KernelEx on Win9x, the last version of Firefox is like 10.00

Similarly, Opera 12.02 is the final version for Windows 2000 and Windows 9x (assuming you use KernelEx).

So either way it's pretty close, internet-wise.

But on the matter of being easy to use and maintain, not to mention repair. I'd go with Windows ME or 98, instead of 2000. Windows 2000 is the bloated version of the compact, sleek, fast performing Windows ME and 98. In my opinion. More older programs (like DOS games) seemed to work better on Win9x.

It all depends on what you need the computer for.

I still use Windows ME (it's my favorite OS of all time besides DOS) for my daily needs. It has USB mass storage drivers... it automatically detects flash drives and card readers. Windows 98 doesn't I think.

In my opinion... Windows ME was the zenith of DOS based, simpler computer systems. I enjoy it. I'm familiar with it. It's comfortable. I think it's easier to use and navigate then the later versions of Windows which are suppose to be easier to use in theory, but are just more convoluted and annoying. Again, just my opinion.

Here's a link to an interesting article about how to get Windows ME online in the year 2012. This gentlemen goes through all the steps required in order to get his ancient computer back online.

(He isn't aware though of KernelEx, which is the only flaw of this article.... so please read and enjoy)

http://planetbotch.b...me-in-2012.html

#3
Racer63

Racer63
  • Member
  • 5 posts
  • Joined 06-February 13
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
Thanks, interesting link and a good reading. Windows ME is the less known Windows. It just hadn´t enough time...

Ok, Win ME has one point in the basket, right now.
Windows 8 Laptop
Windows 7 Laptop
Windows XP mini laptop
Windows XP "Bare Bones" Pentium III 256 RAM, 1 Ghz, my loved one

#4
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts
  • Joined 27-November 10
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

You'll probably get about the same internet mileage out of all three of them. Last version of Internet Explorer is version 6.0. Last version of Firefox for Win2000 is like 12.00. When using KernelEx on Win9x, the last version of Firefox is like 10.00

Similarly, Opera 12.02 is the final version for Windows 2000 and Windows 9x (assuming you use KernelEx).

So either way it's pretty close, internet-wise.

It's not a fair comparison. You're comparing Windows 9x with KernelEx to a clean Windows 2000... but Windows 2000 with unofficial kernel can run newest versions of all major browsers, i.e. Firefox, Opera and Chrome so I wouldn't say that it's close.
Posted Image
Unofficial Service Pack 5.2 for MS Windows 2000 <- use this topic if you need help with UURollup, Update Rollup 2 and other unofficial packages

#5
LostInSpace2012

LostInSpace2012

    OS: Ubuntu 12

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 581 posts
  • Joined 20-August 12
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

^ true, I see what you're saying, but is the Windows 2000 patch as user friendly as KernelEx for Windows 9x? I'd be interested in trying this Windows 2000 "kernelex" for the fun of it.

also, would you care to elaborate on the topic, do you have a preference for a certain OS? Just curious :-)

Honestly, I've never looked into the Win2000 "KernelEx" because I never knew where to find a simple introduction to it. Whereas you can type "KernelEx" into Google and you come up with Xeno's homepage with the ready-made installer.

My knowledge only goes as far as "unmodified" Windows 2000 SP1.... which I have installed on one my machines right now.

Edited by LostInSpace2012, 07 February 2013 - 04:54 AM.


#6
loblo

loblo

    Oldbie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 761 posts
  • Joined 12-January 10
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag
As a long term user of Windows Me who started using this OS on a Celeron 333Mhz (and probably 256Mb of RAM, can't really remember) and upgraded the hardware several times up to my current 2.8Ghz AMD CPU + 4GB of RAM machine, I can say that I only really became happy with it when I got to a 2Ghz AMD and 1.5GB of RAM configuration. If you want to multitask while having a modern web browser opened 1.5GB of RAM is the minimum required IMO not to go constantly through the major annoyance of swapping memory to disk.

Edited by loblo, 07 February 2013 - 02:45 PM.


#7
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts
  • Joined 27-November 10
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

^ true, I see what you're saying, but is the Windows 2000 patch as user friendly as KernelEx for Windows 9x? I'd be interested in trying this Windows 2000 "kernelex" for the fun of it.

The situation is more complicated than in case of Win9x because there are currently two separate extended kernel projects but if you want to have a simple solution then just visit my website (the link is in my signature) and download and install Update Rollup 2 and UURollup from there. Remember that you need to have SP4 and Update Rollup 1 installed before doing so (you can just run Windows Update and apply everything from there before using the unofficial packages).


also, would you care to elaborate on the topic, do you have a preference for a certain OS? Just curious :-)

As you may have guessed, I use Windows 2000 :P I like it for its stability, speed and professional look (no bells and whistles or other similar useless stuff).
Posted Image
Unofficial Service Pack 5.2 for MS Windows 2000 <- use this topic if you need help with UURollup, Update Rollup 2 and other unofficial packages

#8
Racer63

Racer63
  • Member
  • 5 posts
  • Joined 06-February 13
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
How about the security in ME and 2000? I heard that ME is not being targeted anymore, just Windows NT based systems.
Windows 8 Laptop
Windows 7 Laptop
Windows XP mini laptop
Windows XP "Bare Bones" Pentium III 256 RAM, 1 Ghz, my loved one

#9
loblo

loblo

    Oldbie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 761 posts
  • Joined 12-January 10
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag
If you don't use Internet Explorer or Outlook Express you'll be 100% safe with Windows ME.

#10
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,520 posts
  • Joined 27-November 10
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
M$ still releases cumulative IE updates for Windows 2000. They don't announce it on their websites but the updates themselves are available in the monthly ISO packages (KB913086).

Edited by tomasz86, 08 February 2013 - 10:43 PM.

Posted Image
Unofficial Service Pack 5.2 for MS Windows 2000 <- use this topic if you need help with UURollup, Update Rollup 2 and other unofficial packages

#11
Racer63

Racer63
  • Member
  • 5 posts
  • Joined 06-February 13
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
One more question. Is possible to install Windows ME in another fat formated drive along with Windows XP? I´ve read that in case of multiboot systems the oldest SO must be the first to install, but sure must be a work around to install ME after XP.
Windows 8 Laptop
Windows 7 Laptop
Windows XP mini laptop
Windows XP "Bare Bones" Pentium III 256 RAM, 1 Ghz, my loved one

#12
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 4,338 posts
  • Joined 14-September 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
9x/ME doesn't "see" NTFS Partitions without other software installed and thus will not allocate as "C-drive" (AFAIKR).

You could go this route then convert the 2K/XP to NTFS afterwards if you wish.
http://www.petri.co...._windows_xp.htm

I went with starting with NTFS, FDISK/FORMAT the second partition, installing to Second Partition (remember, the "see NTFS"), used FIXBOOT (see link), then used Grub4DOS to boot directly to the Win9x OS from the non-Win9x/ME OS.

Grub4DOS at Reboot Forum -
http://reboot.pro/forum/66-grub4dos/
Guide -
http://diddy.boot-la...os/Grub4dos.htm
Sourceforge links -
http://grub4dos.sourceforge.net/

Someday the tyrants will be unthroned... Jason "Jay" Chasteen; RIP, bro!

Posted Image


#13
ihateusernames

ihateusernames

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 34 posts
  • Joined 20-December 12
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
I would say that 98 is a bit leaner and quicker, and has better compatibility with DOS games. But 2000 is more stable, has support for newer hardware, and you can change network settings without a mandatory reboot (that always bugged me on 9x). On a 1GHz CPU I'd go with 2000. My Dell Latitude L400 has a P3-700 and 256MB RAM and is great with Win2K.

It's possible to install multiple versions of Windows on a single FAT32 partition, but if you currently have one partition with NTFS you would have to repartition to be able to install 9x or ME.

#14
[FMC]Ravage

[FMC]Ravage

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 32 posts
  • Joined 08-October 03
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
2k is the better os but if you're wanting to play older games, it's going to give you alot of grief (even more than xp).

#15
ROTS

ROTS

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined 22-September 12
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
I tried that recently, after my current situation became "1984". I suggest trying WINE to see if that works out for you.


EVERYTHING I TYPE BELOW IS OPINION FROM EXPERIENCE
.................



2000 with updates, and fixes ( for fooling later XP, programs to install ) should do a person good, when wanting to play games
from Pre-2005 at least. However I do not know about games like Half-life 2, or later games in comparison to higher rez stuff.
The reason why I tried to use it, was to have an environment that is both 9x and NT freindly, but apparently that is not the case.
Win 2000 has memory limitations ( as shown on this board ) as well as file count problems. In my case I have like a gazillion different files, which will cause a problem with the files. There should be a fix for this as well, but so far I don't know. The benifit of having 2000 is having the power of XP but with less garbage inside. However XP so far, seems to be a more stable OS then 2000, but then again the crap.

,,,,,,,,,,,

9x is good if your heavy invested in DOS applications, and have access to the exe files collections this system is great. One of many problem with computers back then is the size of language files ( or something like that ) which made playing import games hell. Meaning if you are playing a Japanese type installation ( like say an 1999 era RPG that was also released on PSX as well as Win9x ) you will have problems with getting the game to run withot closing, on you ( because the game detects the language and stuff that I am not sure of ), or you run a floppy disk, meant for another nations Win9x.

If you had a hard drive with DOS only, and the correct drivers, for each program and their settings, It would be heavan with a notebook beside the machine. That is the problem working with DOS. You need to know how to access etc, otherwise a person has to join the homer simpson gang.

95 fixes the memory leak but leaves you with a memory build up in 98. 98 ( for I do not know what is the difference ) has a whole slew of programs that are unale to run on 95. 98 problem and greatest attribute is the IE, why it is a problem I do not know, maybe privacy, or something else ( somebody could make me understand ).

.......

Why not ME? Because I tried to change many settings in ME, but for some reason from time to time, I get an error that leads
to my data being destroyed, or damaged.

Why ME? Because many of the support files for the 2000/XP/NT can also load on ME as well. Amazingly that is the one fact I love about ME, until it lost support of the mentioned.

...........


So all in all, without extremly high resolution ( HD ) imagery, Without all this crap about video, internet, and vid phone etc.
I would go for the Windows 9x, and then from their decide which one shoudl suit me. However if I want support of some
XP stufff I would stick with ME, but then again ME is not a NTFS operating system. Windows 9x for the win. Pesonally I just wish
that windows would allow usage of the 9x startup screen that can also cause an error in ME. One of the two 95 or 98.

However if I want to hang with the "oh nothing special happend in 2001" generation ( who thinks HD is the 411 ), I would go with the 2000, and just to deal with all the crap I would go with XP. If you can somehow clear the XP of it's crap I would deal with that and make sure it is XPSP2. 2000 is nice but it annoys me so much. If you can get your hands on Vista, because that is pretty much XP from what I read so far but I don't know. I only use it because the computer I brought has it installed.

That is the problem, you can't play every single DOS related windows game without a 9x, and you can't play the latest games
without an near XP type computer. It boils me when I have a game, that could run on 9x but is lacking the program support for it.
I feel like saying "Why have you forsaken me". I am just glad I am not the person who buys everything brand new, and thinks
the lastest is the greatest mumbo jumbo, because that is why the decison is problematic.

#16
naaloh

naaloh

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 25 posts
  • Joined 12-February 12
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag
I'd say... If your primary concern is being able run relatively recent applications, use Win2000. If you have some applications that require real-mode DOS (most DOS apps do not require it and can be safely run from Windows) and you need to run them often, use Win98. In other cases use WinME, you can still run DOS apps that require real-mode, but you'll have to reboot your machine before and after that, which is much less than convenient. In all other aspects working under WinME will most likely be far more rewarding than under Win98, unless you want to run it on a machine with 32 MB of memory.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users