Migrating to Windows 2000

[DaffyD®]

Re: Migrating to Windows 2000

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.

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eFyBRwvDJHA.4676@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Advantages for Win98SE: I'm guessing better *multimedia*, and perhaps
even
> USB, support, but I'm not sure. And, of course, real DOS mode
capability.
> And last but not least, it being a more basic and lean operating system,
> that is easier to tweak and control as you see fit.
>
> The downside being, it's not as stable or robust - and it is limited to
FAT
> or FAT32 (with those limitations).
>
> (Somebody else can correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, as I'm not all
> that experienced on Win2000).
>
> 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.
> > --
> > { : [|]=( DaffyD®
> >
> > If I knew where I was I'd be there now.
>
>

 

[DaffyD®]

Re: Migrating to Windows 2000

I agree about the Administrator learning curve, I'm still climbing it. And
I agree with the stability of 2000 vs 98SE--I haven't had one crash or BSOD
in the past week that I've been using it. I was experiencing weekly crashes
or more on my 98SE machine.


"Roger Fink" <fink@manana.org> wrote in message
news:OVUrTfIEJHA.1460@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
>

 

[DaffyD®]

Re: Migrating to Windows 2000

Since I can't read code, I had no idea what were causing the BSODs on my
98SE machine. I do know that Windows Explorer crashed frequently during the
day and that hasn't happened once since I started running 2000. However, a
scanner I have from my early 98SE days no longer functions properly when
sending a print job. The color is all screwed up. I thought I had found a
2000 driver for it but it didn't work. Also, I have a modem that isn't
working but I just may need to re-seat it in its PCI slot.

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3297ED17-0966-490E-91C5-A5CAFDB5B1DA@microsoft.com...
> 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.
> >
> >
> >