Should I get Win2000

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Thanks ponch but the one I linked to is a newer version from aug\sept of 2006.

[eidenk]

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

Not really. All the graphic and multimedia subsystem is 16bit. The reason appears to be for faster performance as oscardog points out apparently.

When those system came out, cpus weren't really beefy and 9x systems were gaming/multimedia oriented in contrast to their NT cousins and hence needed the fastest possible code for graphic and audio rendering. 16 bit code appears to run significantly faster than 32bit code.

DOS is 16bit as well but each DOS application runs in its own virtual machine while all the rest runs in a virtual machine called system VM in which each 32bit app has its own memory space and all 16bit apps share the same memory space.

Or so I "understand" it currently.

The weird bit are 32bit console apps.

The windows that are created by them do not have the DOS toolbar nor can you create a DOS shortcut to them.

But if I run a 32bit console app by double clicking on it ( I use an app whose console remains opened in its "DOS" windows) and then run RemoveVM, this one shows 3 VMs : System, its own one (it is a 16bit DOS application) and one that corresponds to the opened 32 bit console app.

A process viewer shows both the application and winoldap (WINOA386.MOD) running.

I don't know if the NT internals are to easier to grasp but the 9x ones are sometimes (often shall I say) very puzzling.

Edited November 27, 2007 by eidenk

[erpdude8]

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?

Go with Win2k since the next generation of Firefox (3.0) and SeaMonkey (2.0) browsers will only work with a minimum of Win2000 and not Win98. These browsers won't be officially available until sometime next year.

I've upgraded my cousin's eMachine PC from Win98se to Win2000 in the late spring and he loves it. Win2k is less bloated than WinXP.

[rainyd]

MS say they will cease support in Jan 08 so get while you can and grab all related downloads before Christmas.

Not exactly, judging by this table: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/sea...Filter=FilterNO

[herbalist]

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.

The question you need to ask is "Do I have all the apps I need and am I happy with them?"

The application compatibility issue cuts both ways, especially if you use older apps.

I have both 98 and 2000 installed. My hardware is slower than yours, 366mhz, 160mb RAM. On mine, 98 runs circles around 2000. On faster hardware, this may change. As for 2000s alleged stability advantage, I haven't seen it. It may be more stable "out of the box" but properly configured, 98 is very stable. IMO 98 is also easier to secure against web borne threats but not as secure against malicious activity at the keyboard. Since 2000 has many similarities to XP and Vista, it will also be at risk from exploits and malicious code that affects them. That could become a big problem when its support ends. Malicious code that attacks 9X systems is declining as there aren't near as many of them to exploit. A lot of the present malware has no effect on it.

If 98 and 2000 were completely equal, I'd still choose 98 just to have DOS. There's just too many things you can do with DOS that you can't do with command line in an NT system.

Rick

[erpdude8]

As for 2000s alleged stability advantage, I haven't seen it.

I guess you are "blind" to see it. My cousin's Win2k system NEVER crashed with a BSOD message, with or without any updates applied to it. I get a few BSOD errors using Win98se, even with all of the 98se updates installed.

MS say they will cease support in Jan 08 so get while you can and grab all related downloads before Christmas.

Not exactly, judging by this table: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/sea...Filter=FilterNO

MS is dropping Win2000 support in mid-July 2010.

And Win98se has major problems handling 512Mb of RAM or more without any memory tweaks. Win2000, on the other hand, can handle 512mb, 1Gb, 2Gb of RAM just fine with NO memory tweaks involved.

Edited January 2, 2008 by erpdude8

[herbalist]

As for 2000s alleged stability advantage, I haven't seen it.

I guess you are "blind" to see it. My cousin's Win2k system NEVER crashed with a BSOD message, with or without any updates applied to it. I get a few BSOD errors using Win98se, even with all of the 98se updates installed.

On my primary PC, a dual boot 98FE/Win2K, 98 never crashes. It runs day after day, no problems at all. The Win2k OS has given me a few BSODs, has had shutdown issues, and is much slower than my 98FE box when performing the same tasks. Except for testing, I rarely ever use it. If my equipment was newer, the results might be different, but on my hardware, 2K has no performance or stability advantage. 2K does run some apps that my 98 box can't, most of which I either don't need or have found 9X compatible alternatives for.

In all fairness, this 98 box wasn't this fast or stable "out of the box". It's taken a few years of tweaking, tuning, and modifying to get it this good. I picked up 2K only a few months ago. If I compared them "as installed", the speed is much closer. I don't know what to say about the stability. When I first got this PC, it had some stability issues, but they were a result of adware and spyware combined with having just 64MB of RAM. Other than that, this PC has never had a stability problem. I can't remember the last time it gave me a BSOD. I'm not blind to it. There's no instability to see.

The only BSODs I ever see are on my test units, which are stripped down copies of my regular system. They're caused by the projects I'm running on them, not the fault of the operating system.

Rick