Win98SE or Win 2k Pro?

[MASTOURA]

Simple question from a VERY upset customer of Micro$oft Windows ME...

I am going to eraze this piece of **** from my machine and sell the brand new CD I bought...

I am running mainly games, and standard programs (MS Office, ICQ, IRC, FTP related programs, Network programs, security programs, antivirus, etc. No 'hard' programs).

I wasn't ENTIRELY happy with Win98, but I was happIER than with Win ME. I have never tried Win2k for home use. I have it at work though, and it works GREAT. But I'm not sure I'm gonna be needing all these options it offers, nor I want to monitor so hard my home LAN as 2k seems to offer...

Any suggestions on what I have to do?

And let's face it: Win ME is ****. Works GREAT if you just don't install and eraze too much, but I absolutely DON'T UNDERSTAND why my IE crashes, and why my Explorer causes "kernel errors" all the time. In addition it is SLOWER overall (although boot time is impressive). Finally, my C drive is 2.0 giga and has only ME on it, and today (after 2 months of ME) it has free space of...800MB. Crapy "restore" function. Eats all my space!!!

Ok, I calm down... So, any suggestions?

M.

PS: What is this new windoze version called again? Whistler? And what is it? Any good?

[TechJumper]

My experience with Win2K Pro has been wonderful. Mainly with its file system NTFS. 2000 comes with several power and space saving features already pre-installed. The only drawback is the default settings sure do chew your ram. But you can turn those off. I recomment checking out SysOpts review of Win2K before making a decision on their "seamless" Earthweb site-
http://www.earthweb.com/earthweb/cda/dlink.resource-jhtml.72.995.|repository| |common|content|article|20000218|so_win2000-part2|win2000-part2~xml.41.jhtml

That should answer several of your compatability questions, good luck.


Best,
Michael Morelli
TechJumper

[NDC]

I am running mainly games, and standard programs (MS Office, ICQ, IRC, FTP related programs, Network programs, security programs, antivirus, etc. No 'hard' programs)

I think that gives you a good reason not to use Win2K. Win2K isn't compatible with all games, yet. Nor is it compatible with all hardware either. Some hardware companies still seem to be developing Win2K drivers for their devices, which makes it a real bummer when you have a device you need to use that doesn't have Win2K drivers available, yet!!! And since you said yourself above, that you are using your PC mainly for games, I'd say to stick with Win95 or Win98. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif


Many people still seem to think that Win2K is an upgrade from Win98 (Which by the name it does seem like it), but it's actually an upgrade from NT4, and NT4 wasn't much of a game contender OS either. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

There are games that run on Win2K, don't mistake me on that! Some of my favorite games such as, Quake3, X-Tom, Revolt, etc. run great in Win2K, but some just don't seem to run. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

For me I rarely play games on my PC so I use Win2K because it's seems to be one-rock-solid OS, so far......

I run many programs that are memory intensive and demand stability, so NT4 and Win2K has been my choice by far over Win98 and Win ME.

[TechJumper]

Thank you NDC-

My apologies for not completely understanding your query. While NDC is right about win2k not being the "gamer" os, if you don't like "ME" I don't know where to go. I have set up a small LAN and games like half-life, and delta-force work wonderfully on a network. But if your not on a network, I suggest downgrading to Win98SE- - - doesn't it puzzle you how people still think they must upgrade to 2000 before upgrading to ME!! geez, when 2k loads it says built on NT technology, I think that gives it away.


NDC- I don't know what I'm saying, but, does the OS have a lot to do with the quality of the game? Or is it just the graphics card?

TJ

[NDC]

NDC- I don't know what I'm saying, but, does the OS have a lot to do with the quality of the game? Or is it just the graphics card?


Well, it has mostly to do with your videocard, but OS does play its role as well. NT4 doesn't process graphics as fast as Win2K or Win98 with the same vidoecard, because NT doesn't have the latest DirectX support. I believe the latest DirectX for NT4 was directX 3. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

[NDC]

Oh, another thing. You will definetly want to turn off that fade effect from your Display Properties under effects. That will make a big difference on your video refresh rate.

If you really want to know how much of a difference, try maximizing and minimizing a windows with the Fade Effects on and then with the Fade Effects off.

[wyvrn]

Check the games to see if they are supported in NT/Win2k. Most games are. You **could** setup a dual boot pretty easily, and just use Win98 for only those games that will not run in Win2k. Win98 runs smoother the less you actually use it, IMHO, and Win2k is a MUCH stabler environment to run any application in.

[Dputiger]

I say use Win98 SE. You have a small HDD, which presumably means an older machine. Stick to using the OS that was designed (relatively) when your hardware was. Frankly, if you've got a 30 gig hard drive it isn't nearly as much of a big deal to give up 1200 Meg to an OS as when you've only got a 2.

[jad1097]

Check out http://www.ntcompatible.com/

[cyclone2]

I have a dual boot with ME and 2000, and even though 2000 is extremely stable I now use ME as my primary OS- I like to game and 2k has definete probs there.
My ME is quite stable too but IE was crashing a fair bit but MS just put out an IE 5.5 Service Pack 1 last week and so far so good http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
I also backed off how much space Restore can use.