Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build

Discussion about old PC hardware.

Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build

Postby PhilsComputerLab » 2017-4-21 @ 06:20

Well I tried all 4 OSes on that same machine. Windows 2000 is giving me the most issues. USB 2.0 driver won't install because of some licencing and needs SP4. And OpenGL isn't working for some reason. And it didn't play ball with the Promise controller, got extremely slow booting times and file corruption errors.

I'll re-visit 2000 at some later stage, but first impressions are not that great. So my advice is to do your own tests with whatever machine you are using and don't be a Lemming :blush:
User avatar
PhilsComputerLab
Hardware Mod
 
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2014-9-28 @ 03:33
Location: Western Australia

Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build

Postby appiah4 » 2017-4-21 @ 06:24

PhilsComputerLab wrote:Well I tried all 4 OSes on that same machine. Windows 2000 is giving me the most issues. USB 2.0 driver won't install because of some licencing and needs SP4. And OpenGL isn't working for some reason. And it didn't play ball with the Promise controller, got extremely slow booting times and file corruption errors.

I'll re-visit 2000 at some later stage, but first impressions are not that great. So my advice is to do your own tests with whatever machine you are using and don't be a Lemming :blush:


Well, Win2K gets USB2.0 support with SP4 and I really don't see why you wouldn't install SP4 anyway.
1987:A500|8MB|ACA500+@42Mhz|C1084S|WB3.1
1993:UMC486-33|8MB|TVGA900B|Edison16Gold|MSDOS6.22
1997:P166MMX|64MB|Mystique220|Voodoo2-1000|SBAWE64PnP|Win98SE
1999:PIII450|256MB|Voodoo3-3000|SBLive!|Win2K
2001:C1300|512MB|Radeon8500|SBLive!5.1|WinXP
appiah4
Member
 
Posts: 260
Joined: 2017-2-19 @ 07:36

Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build

Postby PhilsComputerLab » 2017-4-21 @ 06:27

appiah4 wrote:
PhilsComputerLab wrote:Well I tried all 4 OSes on that same machine. Windows 2000 is giving me the most issues. USB 2.0 driver won't install because of some licencing and needs SP4. And OpenGL isn't working for some reason. And it didn't play ball with the Promise controller, got extremely slow booting times and file corruption errors.

I'll re-visit 2000 at some later stage, but first impressions are not that great. So my advice is to do your own tests with whatever machine you are using and don't be a Lemming :blush:


Well, Win2K gets USB2.0 support with SP4 and I really don't see why you wouldn't install SP4 anyway.


Well the other three do it Vanilla. It's not a big deal, but I pickup these little differences and they are worth pointing out and everyone can decide for themself if it affects them or not.
User avatar
PhilsComputerLab
Hardware Mod
 
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2014-9-28 @ 03:33
Location: Western Australia

Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build

Postby appiah4 » 2017-4-21 @ 06:33

PhilsComputerLab wrote:
appiah4 wrote:
PhilsComputerLab wrote:Well I tried all 4 OSes on that same machine. Windows 2000 is giving me the most issues. USB 2.0 driver won't install because of some licencing and needs SP4. And OpenGL isn't working for some reason. And it didn't play ball with the Promise controller, got extremely slow booting times and file corruption errors.

I'll re-visit 2000 at some later stage, but first impressions are not that great. So my advice is to do your own tests with whatever machine you are using and don't be a Lemming :blush:


Well, Win2K gets USB2.0 support with SP4 and I really don't see why you wouldn't install SP4 anyway.


Well the other three do it Vanilla. It's not a big deal, but I pickup these little differences and they are worth pointing out and everyone can decide for themself if it affects them or not.


If you mean Win98/Me/XP by the other three, one of those three doesn't come with Universal Mass Storage drivers out of the box, the other has a terrible driver model and given me more BSODs than Win95/98 combined due to chipset driver issues, and the last is a Win2K with a new skin..
1987:A500|8MB|ACA500+@42Mhz|C1084S|WB3.1
1993:UMC486-33|8MB|TVGA900B|Edison16Gold|MSDOS6.22
1997:P166MMX|64MB|Mystique220|Voodoo2-1000|SBAWE64PnP|Win98SE
1999:PIII450|256MB|Voodoo3-3000|SBLive!|Win2K
2001:C1300|512MB|Radeon8500|SBLive!5.1|WinXP
appiah4
Member
 
Posts: 260
Joined: 2017-2-19 @ 07:36

Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build

Postby PhilsComputerLab » 2017-4-21 @ 06:38

And that's great that everyone makes their own experiences and can share them.
User avatar
PhilsComputerLab
Hardware Mod
 
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2014-9-28 @ 03:33
Location: Western Australia

Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build

Postby Fusion » 2017-4-21 @ 08:08

appiah4 wrote:If you have more than 256MB RAM and a PIII-800 or faster processor always go for Win2K. That sweet NT kernel..

Phil really needs to rebuild that Athlon 1GHz PC with Win2K to appreciate just how good the OS is so that he can better understand why people shat on WinMe.


I love Win2K. It runs and looks clean and only uses 45mb of RAM or so, especially after you disable a few processes . My only issue so far has been The Need For Speed series. I have NFS5 (Porsche Unleashed,2000) working great and NFS3:HP as well but only after much headache. High Stakes (NFS4) has not run on my Pentium III machine since I built it. :dead: I have come to realize that its my Voodoo 3 causing the issues and not my system. NFS4 hates Glide and Win2k. :lol:
P3V3_2K: Windows 2000 Pro - Pentium III @ 558Mhz - 512MB PC133 - Voodoo 3 3000 16MB @ 186/186 - SB Live! Value
I7960_W10: Windows 10 - I7 2600 @ 3.4Ghz - 16GB DDR3 1333 - GeForce GTX 960 2GB
User avatar
Fusion
Newbie
 
Posts: 19
Joined: 2017-3-06 @ 04:49
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build

Postby tayyare » 2017-4-21 @ 09:06

Tetrium wrote:
PhilsComputerLab wrote:You might also want to check out Windows ME :)

I've just recently used it with an Athlon 1000 build and it works great. In fact I had less issues than with Windows 98 SE. You can also run Windows XP and max out the RAM to what the machine can handle. I tried XP vanilla and that worked great, but to install the VIA USB 2.0 driver, which I really need, I had to upgrade to SP1 :)

Glad your first impression is a positive one :)


I was using Windows 98SE in my home PC in year 2000 like many others. Then came the Windows 2000 and ME. I just waited a bit to see what they were. I had chance to try them in the company I'm working for, and had access to both of them. I choose ME over 2000 since I really still didn't want to give up real mode dos yet (yeah I know, but it's a 10KB patch that works and was readily available even at that time) so I made the switch from 98SE to ME in early 2001. The funny thing is, during that period, my interest in computers was all time low (fiancé, wedding preparations, job change etc.) and I was away from computer magazines and general PC talk in internet. So I did not have a chance to see what people say about ME during that period.

I used it without ANY problems till late 2005 or early 2006,when I finally switched to XP. Even just this alone means that I was regarding it much more than a "not that crap" OS. It was not 100% stable, but not worse than 98SE in any possible way and performance was quite ok (from MMX 233 to PIII 733 to P4 1.8). I always amazed at all those biased bad reputation that surrounding it.
GA-6VTXE PIII 1.4 + 512MB
GeForce2 Ultra 64MB
Diamond Monster 3D II 12MB SLI
SB AWE64 Gold+SIMMCONN 32MB
120GB IDE Samsung/80GB IDE Seagate/146GB SCSI Compaq/73GB SCSI IBM
Adaptec AHA29160
3com 3C905B-TX
MSDOS 6.22+Windows 3.11/95 OSR2.1/98SE/ME/2000
User avatar
tayyare
Oldbie
 
Posts: 998
Joined: 2013-2-18 @ 18:54
Location: Turkey

Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build

Postby PTherapist » 2017-4-21 @ 11:44

I used ME back in the day and hated it. There is a reason there's so much negativity towards it, as on certain systems it did have stability issues.

I ran it on 2 PCs at the time, an older Socket 7 system (which was running an IDT Winchip C6 200MHz, with only 64MB RAM and a PCI Voodoo 3 card) and a newer Slot 1 system (Pentium III 650MHz, 128MB RAM, AGP TNT2). Windows ME ran great on the old Socket 7 but was abysmal on the Pentium III, with many BSODs. I put up with it for about 6 months, before switching finally to Windows 2000, where software & driver support had improved dramatically by that point, to make it suitable for usage on a home PC.

Sure, the stability issues in ME were almost certainly due to dodgy drivers, but if you consider the fact that 98 SE ran great on the same hardware and that 2000 was probably out of the question for most home users at the time, then it's easy to see why ME took such a deserved beating.

I personally could never recommend ME for a retro install, it'll be a game of chance with regards to if it works well or not.
PTherapist
Newbie
 
Posts: 19
Joined: 2017-3-24 @ 02:00

Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build

Postby Jorpho » 2017-4-21 @ 13:37

appiah4 wrote:the other has a terrible driver model and given me more BSODs than Win95/98 combined due to chipset driver issues, and the last is a Win2K with a new skin..
There are probably good reasons to hate on Windows ME (the System Restore feature gets a lot of flak, especially on underpowered machines), but it uses the same "terrible driver model" as Win98 SE, and if I'm not mistaken "chipset drivers" don't do much more than fill in some blank spaces in device manager. And XP in theory has some legitimate performance improvements over Windows 2000.

Fusion wrote:I love Win2K. It runs and looks clean and only uses 45mb of RAM or so, especially after you disable a few processes .
Which processes do you disable? I know there are lots of "guides" out there, but I understood they are generally of dubious practical value.
User avatar
Jorpho
l33t++
 
Posts: 6678
Joined: 2003-2-14 @ 19:50
Location: Canada

Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build

Postby devius » 2017-4-21 @ 14:23

tayyare wrote:I always amazed at all those biased bad reputation that surrounding it.


Well, here's my experience with Windows ME that I installed shortly after it was released:

  • Install ME
  • Install all the latest drivers, DirectX, all that jazz
  • Install Quake 2
  • Run Quake 2...
  • ...Quake 2 runs at 10fps :angry:
  • Put Windows 98 CD in drive
  • Format HDD and reinstall Windows 98, drivers, etc.
  • Reinstall Quake 2
  • Quake 2 runs at over 50fps as it should :cool:
User avatar
devius
Member
 
Posts: 320
Joined: 2014-10-12 @ 10:27
Location: Portugal

Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build

Postby Ampera » 2017-4-21 @ 14:53

Win2k is only good with it's service pack. Not installing it is just, no offense, stupid.
User avatar
Ampera
Oldbie
 
Posts: 562
Joined: 2016-11-16 @ 22:31

Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build

Postby PhilsComputerLab » 2017-4-21 @ 17:41

Ampera wrote:Win2k is only good with it's service pack. Not installing it is just, no offense, stupid.


There is no need for that. I am just reporting on my findings and testing what the various service packs affect is something that I find interesting.
User avatar
PhilsComputerLab
Hardware Mod
 
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2014-9-28 @ 03:33
Location: Western Australia

Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build

Postby Fusion » 2017-4-22 @ 06:59

Jorpho wrote:Which processes do you disable? I know there are lots of "guides" out there, but I understood they are generally of dubious practical value.


I disable all network/internet related and the printer service. I only do it to free up a bit of memory, and if I'm not going to use it, why have it running? Its really something that has become a habit. Even though my Pentium III system has 512MB RAM, I like Windows to use as little as possible.
P3V3_2K: Windows 2000 Pro - Pentium III @ 558Mhz - 512MB PC133 - Voodoo 3 3000 16MB @ 186/186 - SB Live! Value
I7960_W10: Windows 10 - I7 2600 @ 3.4Ghz - 16GB DDR3 1333 - GeForce GTX 960 2GB
User avatar
Fusion
Newbie
 
Posts: 19
Joined: 2017-3-06 @ 04:49
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE for a 2000 build

Postby Tetrium » 2017-4-22 @ 20:17

appiah4 wrote:If you have more than 256MB RAM and a PIII-800 or faster processor always go for Win2K. That sweet NT kernel..

2k ran more sluggish compared to ME. Also it seemed to actually need more ram and still it seemed more sluggish.
My experience is that 9x is usually fine with 512MB and if I use more, I'll skip right to XP. Especially using NLite it can be tweaked while tweaking 2k game me more issues (might have something to do with XP having been more popular or simply being easier to modify).

It's also a matter of personal experience, but I've never had the thought that I actually would've been better off using 2k.
appiah4 wrote:Phil really needs to rebuild that Athlon 1GHz PC with Win2K to appreciate just how good the OS is so that he can better understand why people shat on WinMe.

I didn't shit on ME and neither have many others. There are several reports of people here who experienced more problems with 98SE (including me) compared to ME.

There are several reasons why ME got a lot of bad press, but by now these are common knowledge.

And while 2k was definitely a great OS at its time, these are the days of retro gaming so things changed as the needs changed.

But in the end to each his own.
User avatar
Tetrium
l33t++
 
Posts: 6963
Joined: 2010-1-27 @ 18:53
Location: Netherlands

Previous

Return to General Old Hardware

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: krivulak, Munx and 15 guests