Migrating to Windows 2000

I do have a SATA hard drive but the MB on the W2K machine is IDE so I'm
stuck with that. A new MB isn't an option right now because of expense which
is why I brought home a free PC. I would love to install XP but again, if
it ain't free it's too expensive.

"98 Guy" <98 DeleteThis @Guy.com> wrote in message news:48C0AB0F.643FC397@Guy.com...
> "DaffyD®" wrote:
>
> > I guess where I'm leading to with all this is asking why users in
> > this newsgroup prefer Win98 SE to W2K.
>
> Don't waste your time with win-2K. You'd be better off replacing 2k on
> the surplus computer with XP.
>
> If you are strictly limited to a choice between 98se and 2k, I'd stick
> with 98se.
>
> If you really do like 98, and you can build your own machine, then start
> with an Asrock motherboard. I've got 6 of them, and plan to build some
> new win-98 machines around them. Full compatibility with win-98 for
> everything except the on-board hi-def sound. Add an Nvidia 6600 AGP
> video card and the system is complete. Attach a SATA hard drive to get
> around the 128 gb issue. I've tested win-98 with 500 gb drive and it
> works fine.

How much RAM does the machine have? All other things equal, Windows
2000 will run faster *if* it has enough RAM, if it does have enough RAM
it will crawl like a snail!

John

DaffyD® wrote:

> On the machine I was given (which admittedly is still bare bones because I
> haven't yet loaded it up with programs, start up is much faster than my 98
> machine.
>
> "Fan924" <a924fan DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ec2232cf-da06-4575-85f7-6b73729a8d01@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I find Windows 2000 takes 3 times longer to load than Win98 on the
>>same machine. 2000 seems really sluggish. I rarely use it and stay
>>with Win98SE for daily use.
>>
>
>
>

W2K is better than 98SE in every way, especially if you value stability.
I've been using it for two years on a custom build from the local shop and
have yet to experience a BSOD. There is no difference - none - in your
ability to customize the GUI, which I think is a concern many people
considering a changeover. Also, I can't think of a single program I used in
'98, including Office 97, that doesn't run seamlessly on W2k.

But there is one big difference and that is the hierarchal system of
accounts and their permissions, so you need to understand what an
Administrator account is and learn to manage the machine with the built-in
tools that the Administrator has access to, and there is definitely a
learning curve for that which will include making mistakes.
Microsoft.public.win2000.general is is terrific for this, with the added
bonus of being relatively free of flakes and poseurs. That too takes some
getting used to.

DaffyD® wrote:
> My employer has been giving away surplus computers with Windows 2000
> installed and I brought one home so I'll be migrating to that OS.
> I've heard for years that it was a more stable OS than 98. I'll still
> leave 98 on my old computer but it won't be connected to the
> Internet. I enjoy Win98 SE but I'm frustrated that support for it
> among many hard/software producers has ended and there are new online
> services that don't work with 98. Also, I've had increasing problems
> with 98/Windows Explorer crashing.
>
> I installed a 250 GB hard drive on my 98 machine but it will only
> recognize 127 gigs. I'm hoping that will be resolved in the W2K
> environment.
>
> I guess where I'm leading to with all this is asking why users in this
> newsgroup prefer Win98 SE to W2K. What are the benefits of using 98
> over 2000? What might be better about 2000? I've already subscribed
> to the W2K newsgroups where I can get help while getting used to the
> new (to me) OS.

I am puzzled how some games now say they require Windows 2000 as a bare
minimum. What does Windows 2000 offer in running a game that Windows 98
Second Edition does not offer. Heck, I am running my HP Printer fine with
Windows 2000 drivers on Windows 98 Second Edition and my ATI Radeon 9800
graphics card runs with the Windows ME driver and works great. BTW, I do not
get Blue Screens of Death anymore because they were caused by poorly
configured drivers for third party hardware like the Creative Soundblaster
that used to give me a Blue Screen of Death and mostly if not all the BSOD
were not Microsoft's fault on Windows 98 Second Edition.

"Roger Fink" wrote:

> W2K is better than 98SE in every way, especially if you value stability.
> I've been using it for two years on a custom build from the local shop and
> have yet to experience a BSOD. There is no difference - none - in your
> ability to customize the GUI, which I think is a concern many people
> considering a changeover. Also, I can't think of a single program I used in
> '98, including Office 97, that doesn't run seamlessly on W2k.
>
> But there is one big difference and that is the hierarchal system of
> accounts and their permissions, so you need to understand what an
> Administrator account is and learn to manage the machine with the built-in
> tools that the Administrator has access to, and there is definitely a
> learning curve for that which will include making mistakes.
> Microsoft.public.win2000.general is is terrific for this, with the added
> bonus of being relatively free of flakes and poseurs. That too takes some
> getting used to.
>
> DaffyD® wrote:
> > My employer has been giving away surplus computers with Windows 2000
> > installed and I brought one home so I'll be migrating to that OS.
> > I've heard for years that it was a more stable OS than 98. I'll still
> > leave 98 on my old computer but it won't be connected to the
> > Internet. I enjoy Win98 SE but I'm frustrated that support for it
> > among many hard/software producers has ended and there are new online
> > services that don't work with 98. Also, I've had increasing problems
> > with 98/Windows Explorer crashing.
> >
> > I installed a 250 GB hard drive on my 98 machine but it will only
> > recognize 127 gigs. I'm hoping that will be resolved in the W2K
> > environment.
> >
> > I guess where I'm leading to with all this is asking why users in this
> > newsgroup prefer Win98 SE to W2K. What are the benefits of using 98
> > over 2000? What might be better about 2000? I've already subscribed
> > to the W2K newsgroups where I can get help while getting used to the
> > new (to me) OS.
>
>
>

It has over 500 MB of RAM. The system was built by one of the tech guys at
work. It was working extremely fast before I saddled it with AV and firewall
software. It's still fast but not like it was. The price we pay for
protection.

"John John (MVP)" <audetweld DeleteThis @nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:OPleBDCEJHA.5044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> How much RAM does the machine have? All other things equal, Windows
> 2000 will run faster *if* it has enough RAM, if it does have enough RAM
> it will crawl like a snail!
>
> John
>
> DaffyD® wrote:
>
> > On the machine I was given (which admittedly is still bare bones because
I
> > haven't yet loaded it up with programs, start up is much faster than my
98
> > machine.
> >
> > "Fan924" <a924fan DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
news:ec2232cf-da06-4575-85f7-6b73729a8d01@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>I find Windows 2000 takes 3 times longer to load than Win98 on the
> >>same machine. 2000 seems really sluggish. I rarely use it and stay
> >>with Win98SE for daily use.
> >>
> >
> >
> >

I now wish I had stayed with 98SE. It's a much "friendlier OS. But I'm
stuck with 2000 for now because I have a $100 external drive that won't work
with 98.

"Fan924" <a924fan.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ec2232cf-da06-4575-85f7-6b73729a8d01@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> I find Windows 2000 takes 3 times longer to load than Win98 on the
> same machine. 2000 seems really sluggish. I rarely use it and stay
> with Win98SE for daily use.
>