Can someone suggest 5 good reasons to switch from 98se to 2k?

[Angrymarshmello]

I mainly use my computer for surfing the net, some Photoshop, not a lot of games though (that'll change since I'm done with exams ). I only have 128 MB RAM though. For me, Win98se is stable. Hardly ever crashes (can't remember last time it has), its fast for me, supports all my hardware.

Can anyone suggest 5 good reasons to go from 98se to 2K? Other than "its stabler" or something a 2 year old can figure out. (I plan on NOT dual booting, and I plan on installing it on a FAT32 partition) Thanks!

 

[FOBSIDE]

if you find win98 to be stable just stick with it. stability IMHO is the best aspect of win2k. if you dont want to get more ram win98 will probably be better for you too. if youre satisfied why change it? but if youre really curious like i was try it out...

 

[BCYL]

If win98 suits your needs then dont change it... You're right, win2k main advantage over win9x is stability... if you feel your win98 is stable enough then there's really no point in changing... just stick with what you have now...

 

[node]

I find that applications load faster on W2k. Not a lot faster but it was noticeable to me at the time I was dual booting. Although I don't know if this is a good enough reason to switch. But games do run faster on w98. I say you try it for a week and see if you like it or not.

 

[lsd]

Win2k generaly "feels" better and it has a much improved tcp/ip stack. When I first installed win2k I didn`t have to install any drivers at all (win2k had all of them).

 

[jacobnero6918]

I love W2K but would have to say that at this point you might want to wait til April or May when Whistler comes out. Whistler is the replacement for both 98/ME and 2000. It will be all NT code no more DOS. There will a few versions from what I hear, like personel,professional,server,advanced server and super duper billion dollar server.

Note: one server version I just made up lol !

 

[KouklatheCat]

Why not try the Dual boot option. I did and now I never use Win 98/ME any more at all....

 

[kyoshozx]

There are WAY more than 5 reasons to upgrade, but in your case I would stick with win98. If it's stable for you there isn't a real reason to upgrade a home system to win2k. There are many great features of win2k, but it's geared mostly towards business. For home use the only major reason I could see is stability, but you already have that. Also security is nice if you share the computer with someone. My advice is stick with win98se until they release a consumer OS based on the NT kernel.

Actually Nnode, with the newest video drivers win2k and win98 runs SOME games pretty much the same. When I first upgraded to win2k, q3 was definately slower, but when the drivers matured it's about the same now.

 

[owensdj]

1. Win2K is far, far more stable than Win9x. You've mentioned that, but no matter how good your personal experiences have been with Win98 so far, it's still very easy for any errant application to take down Win9x.

2. Win2K's NTFS file system is far more reliable than the FAT32 file system you have to use with Win98. NTFS uses journaling to prevent file system damage in the event of a system failure during a write to the hard drive. If you are using Win2K, you'll want to use NTFS, unless your data means nothing to you.

3. Win2K has faster TCP/IP(a.k.a. Internet) networking than Win98.

4. Win2K has log on security, but Win98 has no real security. This might be important if you want to keep other people from using your computer when you're not around.

5. Win2K runs higher-end applications like Photoshop faster than Win98 on the same hardware(given enough memory) due to Win2K being 100% 32-bit and Win98 being a 32-bit/16-bit hybrid operating system.

6. Win2K lets you diagnose problems with the system much easiler than Win9x using Win2K's Event Logs.

 

[TerreApart]

How about 5 reasons not to change to 2000...

1) Currently you have no "need" to change, everything is working great for you now on Win98se. (you do run the risk of causing problems if you change to 2000--this does happen)--(if it's not broke, don't fix it)

2) If you haven't purchased 2000 yet, then buying it just to try it is kinda like wasting money--(since as was already stated a new version is already in the works)

3) If you plan to use games on 2000, not all of them are very happy running on 2000--(it can be done, but it is still not a guarantee)

4) May have hardware issues with 2000--(if everything works fine now, why waste a week or 2 getting 2000 to work with all your hardware/software)--(your in school use that extra time on women and wine)

5) 2000 is the future for Windows(no doubt about that). However, everyday they find more security loop-holes in Windows Operating Systems, big difference between "more secure" and "is secure"... Kinda of like trading this loop-hole for that loop-hole...


Is the glass Half-full? or Half-empty?

 

[Davegod75]

stability
security
user interface
stability
NTFS if you want
stability
memory management
stability

oh did i say stability

david

 

[FaultCode]

Well, if you have two CPUs and want to use them both then you can't use Win9x.

 

[cococola]

1.it's pretty
2.it's pretty
3.it's pretty
4.it's pretty
5.it's pretty

 

[TerreApart]

Davegod75 perhaps i can point out a few things...

stability <--(you saying 2000 never crashes?)
security <--(MS has had their own servers &quot;cracked into more than a few times--how are you any safer?)
user interface <--(ok, so it's pretty...)
stability <--(you saying all hardware works in 2000?)
NTFS if you want <--(severe crash how you plan to fix it? Can't use a DOS boot disk to repair the file system?--NTFS is best used with a regular backup system--such as tape, so all you have to do is restore the backup to a previous good copy--how is a home user gunna do this? buy a $200-1200 backup system that runs nightly?)
stability <--(you saying all software/games work under 2000?)
memory management <--(2000 actually has a higher base requirement than Win98se, tho it does do a better job due to protected memory i admit)
stability <--(you haven't had 1 crash/freeze/lockup/random-reboot yet since you installed 2000???)

Just playing devil's advocate...

I actually see both OS's as a nice choice for certain situations...

 

[Celstar]

lol @ cocacola

 

[Wik]

1. stability
2. stability
3. stability
4. stability
5. stability

Any Questions?

 

[UnixFreak]

1. Everyone will be using it.
2. New software will demand it.
3. Bill needs the money
4. Blue screens are pretty
5. Provides good motivation to upgrade your hardware.

 

[Mal007colm]

Used to use 98 switched to Win2k and have yet to blue screen (2 months,knock on wood) I have another computer running WinMe and I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times that hangs or blue screens. I did notice that WIn2k runs faster then 98. Going to install whistler this weekend on the WinMe machine and see how that works but if you have WIn2k I would reccomend using it.

 

[robisc]

I'm with everybody else, stability and the NTFS are the advantages, but since you are not having stability problems right now and all software is working with Win9x I would continue using it unless you have money eating a whole in your pocket, then you could buy Win2k and dual boot and I bet then you would quit using Win9x. Try BeOS 5 personal edition and dual boot with it, it's free and good.

 

[NeuroN]

&quot;if it's not broke, don't fix it&quot;
Actualy it is, &quot;If it's not broke, tweak it&quot;.
So if you got access to it through a license bought at work (like myself) try it

 

[syf3r]

commenting on a few comments along the way...
2000 definitely handles memory better... ever notice how in win9x you have around 92% system resources available immediately after a fresh boot, and then you open a program like photoshop or netscape or word, and then you use it for a while, and then you close it, and you expect to have 92% resources again, right? nope. now you're down to about 85%... use the computer for a whole day and you're down in the 60-70% range... use it for a few days and you're even lower.. solution.. reboot.
with win2000 when you close that app, you're pretty much back to the same amount of free memory as before you opened it. that's why i can run my dual-processor 2k box for over 2 months without a reboot (that's right, 2 months, under daily, heavy use).

terreapart:
stability and saying 2000 never crashes... again, same 2000 box, never had a crash yet. okay, i'll admit, netscape crashed on me once when i it some unfriendly javascript, but that was it, *netscape* crashed, not the whole OS, and it just dumped out and let me open it back up again, while 2000 just kept on going throughout the whole thing...

terreapart:
severe crash in NTFS how do you plan to fix it... well, anyone who has used NTFS for a while knows that you install a 25Mb FAT partition as C: and then a whatever-Gb NTFS partition as D: and install NT/2000 onto that partition, so that a bootdisk will indeed work in cases of emergency, taking you to the C: drive... then you can recover what you need from the NTFS partition... cool, huh?
as far as backing up to tape... well, maybe, maybe not... but all you *really* need to do is install your system as FAT, install all your software and non-changing apps (always install your email onto another drive so your system drive *can* be reformatted if absolutely necessary) and then GHOST it onto another drive, saving an image of it... then convert it to NTFS and you have an original system image that saves you time reinstalling a new system... and again, as far as tape drives, i know a good number of people who do have tape drives at home because they value their data. tape drives are not very expensive these days. hell, the onstream drive is a few hundred bucks and hold 30+ Gb on a single cartridge...

as you, just playing devil's advocate..

if the original poster's machine is stable, and it performs all the functions he needs it to, then there is no reson to upgrade... however, if he needs a stronger and more secure networking environment, better serving capabilities, better crash-handling, then 2000 *might* become the way to go... or he could just switch over to some *NIX/*NUX flavor... in my experience, 2000 *is* certainly more stable, and from what i've seen, when it does have an app problem, that app's thread is killed without taking down the whole machine. i've run 2000 for close to 8 months now under heavy usage, and i kind of forget what a bluescreen is until i sometimes go back to my 98SE machine and use it for extended periods.. anyway, that's all.

-syf3r.

 

[TerreApart]

lol - syf3r...

I was doing my best to find fault with each of the points (Davegod75) had listed.

So I left out some details(hey, it's not easy find bugs in an operating system i like)-(i was just adding color to the argument cause everyone was falling in luv with 2000, lol)

The NTFS comment wasn't wrong, i simply left-out the detail that mentioned my point &quot;if the entire disk was formatted NTFS&quot; for FULL security. Actually, i think NTFS is the best thing since sliced-bread, with the one limitation i had mentioned.

But if you want to be picky, then actually using a boot partition formatted in FAT16, you OPEN up a huge security-hole. So let me add this to the security argument. hehehehe

You gotta admit i was on a roll there-(besides my mistake with wording the NTFS limitation).

Nice discussion, thanks for keeping me on my toes...

BTW--Raging, what have you decided? Just curious...

 

[BigToque]

<< anyone who has used NTFS for a while knows that you install a 25Mb FAT partition as C: and then a whatever-Gb NTFS partition as D: and install NT/2000 onto that partition, so that a bootdisk will indeed work in cases of emergency, taking you to the C: drive... then you can recover what you need from the NTFS partition... cool, huh? >>



Even if you had a 25mb-(whatever)gb c:\ drive and booted up with a boot disk, that does nothing for you because YOU CANNOT READ AN NTFS FORMATTED PARTITION FROM DOS. You cannot recover data from a drive that you cannot access.

If you want to recover data or try to fix the system if it wont boot, you would use the recovery console that can be installed from the Windows 2000 CD.

 

[syf3r]

actually, stefan, this is untrue... there is a resourcekit utility called NTFSDOS which gives you read-only access to an NTFS drive from a DOS bootdisk. therefore, you CAN access an ntfs drive from DOS.

-syf3r.

 

[FirmPete]

I sure as hell can't