98, 2kPro, or XP Pro?

[syntax01010]

I have copies(legit) of a variety of MS operating systems. I like tweaking and streamlining to get the best performance out of them that I can. I am also a dedicated gamer, who loves many vintage(DOS and/or Win9.x) games. I enjoy doing audio-video creation and editing as well. However, I admit to being a bit stumped on something. You lose much of the NTFS specific abilities in XP or 2K if you run them on a FAT32 partition, but if you don't, then Win98SE can't communicate with either of them. I can, and have been, run a dual-boot setup, but I'd like to just find one single OS to go with and stick with it.

I don't like the trade off between using NTFS for 2k/XP or not however. I am curious, including current service packs and udpates, which Windows would be the best to use for what I previously mentioned I mostly use a PC for? Is just going oldschool like 98SE the best route? That skips a lot of the modern enchancements and GUI improvements in both 2KPro and XP Pro though. Is it possible to split the difference, and use Win2kpro and somehow get the best functionality of both XP and 98SE blended together on 2kPro? Should I ditch the older ones, just use XP, and deal with being frustrated when my games won't install or work? Any advice would be appreciated.

I don't know if this is possible, but I have seen on the Windows 9.x/Me forums that there is a way to swap out better features from Me into 98SE to keep its functionlity, but also take advantage of slightly more modern improvements, and sorta have the "best of both worlds". Is that possible to do between Windows 2000 and XP? Honestly, I really like Windows 2000, it is not nearly as resource hogging as XP and not as bloated with worthless add-ons. However, I have to admit the XP GUI does usually look the best overall. If there were some good way to get 9.x Windows/DOS support on Win2k, as well as somehow get 2k to support visual styles from XP, I would probably go with that hands down...but i'm not sure at the moment which would be best. Any advice/suggestions?

[jbertoms]

There is a tool to add full NTFS to Win98:

http://www.paragon-gmbh.com/f_ntfs.htm

[Marsden]

Why would the consideration of an 8 year old OS like Win98 even be practical?

Actually I think you are clueless, despite being in the middle of a clue field covered in clue dust in the middle of clue mating season...

[syntax01010]

Ok, first of all, that last reply was pointlessly rude. I was asking an honest general opinion, based on what I primarily use my computer for. If I were a mod/admin on this forum i'd smack you upside your head with a warning stick for that response you gave me. Just because you see something differently from a person does not give you the right to treat them so poorly, especially when they are asking for good general advice and nothing more.

For your information there are still a large variety of businesses out there that use Win98SE or NT. There are even a large number of law firms and accounting firms out there that still run Windows 95 of all things. Just because something is old, doesn't make it useless. XP and 2K both have proven problems and issues with legacy support and backwards compatability. They both are resource hogs on top of it, with XP being the worst.

However, I will just take it in stride and guess that you might have had a bad day or some reason for being in such an apparently bad mood. Just be glad i'm no admin on theses boards, you'd get warned, and then banned if you ever did it again for that uncalled for reply you posted.

[Marsden]

I appoligize for the rudeness but not my point. We live in a competive world. If I want my company to prevail over my competition. I sure as hell better give my employees the best tools on the market or my competition will eat my lunch.

Running an 8 year old OS or older is just plain bad business. There is no excuss for that practice other than short sighted IT staff and dumb management.

Oh please, not the "legacy apps" montra...

That is because many companies just don't want to spend the money for newer hardware... the IT people run around with duct tape and bailing wire trying to keep it running. It works so it is ok.

Win2K and Win XP resource hogs??? Please show me on decent hardware how that is possible...

Just because something is old, doesn't make it useless.

Take any two office workers and give one Win95 on old hardware and the other Win XP Pro on new hardware. I bet the one on the new OS does twice the work as the one with the old crap.

It may indeed "work" but it is not the better tool in the long run. Sure, I could into a forest and cut a 150' tree down with a hand saw but I could cut a hell of alot more with a chainsaw!

It really doesn't matter here if it is XP or a new Linux distro. Anybody who wants a sharp tool is going to want to install the latest version. I don't see many folks trying to install Linux from say 5 years ago because it works... And I don't see people trying to make Win98 their OS of choice because it uses less resources.

XP and 2K both have proven problems and issues with legacy support and backwards compatability.

The only issues and proven problems are users that don't know how to configure their OSes to work properly. User ignorance is not the fault of the OS.

[jamesas]

Why not just use something like win2k3 more advacned then 2000 but hasnt got any crap from xp and has a 2 years more devlopent time then maybe just use vmware to run a virtual DOS or 9x and play your games in there :S