|
Re: Win98 versus 2000, XP, Longhorn, etc.
de Roger Johansson 06/22/2006 11:46
Sauli Suikkanen wrote:
> Mike Dee wrote:
> > I ran mostly 98se up until about 3 months ago. I decided it was time to
> > use a more modern Windows OS. I have gone to Win 2000 Pro. At this point
> > in time I have no intention of moving to XP or the up coming Vista.
I made the same change a few weeks ago and so far I am very happy with
the change to win2000pro.
> As you wrote, it is possible to have multiple operating systems (and
> application programs) in a single computer. I have currently Windows
> 98SE and 2000 installed with separate applications.
I used a dual boot system for a few years, but I never used the second
system, except when one system crashed and I could repair it from the
other.
After learning to use disk imaging the dual boot system became
unnecessary.
I can run earlier systems anytime I want to, by restoring images of
these systems, it takes less time to restore an image than it takes to
boot.
> I mostly use 98SE, since after both operating systems were configured
> to usable and safe state, 98SE is faster in real life scene. This is
Win2000 actually feels faster for me.
> because 2000 needs a more comprehensible security application suite
> that, besides the many services of the 2000 (that require protection),
> uses more system resources than simpler firewall in 98SE.
I used kerio for years in win98se, until it caused a problem, then I
changed to zone alarm, which took longer to boot.
Now I use kerio again in win2000 and it works very well, and boots
quickly.
I use Antivir virus checker. Both are freeware and easy to use.
I don't worry much about security issues, with a good backup system
there is no need for that. But this time I let antivir keep its
virusgard running in the background.
>The difference
> in 'feel' is not big, but it is enough to keep me almost entirely on
> the slightly more responsive 98SE side.
I agree that the feel is the same, I just experience win2000 as much
more stable, no kernel page faults or crashes anymore.
> So, provided that appropriate hardware compatibilty and driver support
> exists and unless grave security issues come up that cannot be cured
> because of unavailable upgrades or separate security solutions, there
> should not be absolute necessity to abandon 98, if and when it can be
> made peacefully co-exist with the 2000 in the same computer. In my case
> this has been accomplished by using only FAT32 filesystems.
I chose to keep fat32 file system too, when installing win2000.
> But this
> has meant that there is a need to have competent disk utilities suite
> like Norton Utilies or SystemWorks, that can repair file system errors.
I have used fat32 for many years without any file system errors.
Except maybe when a file is impossible to delete, if that is a file
system fault, that has happened a few times.
I have learnt how to use norton ghost to solve such problems.
Make an image of the partition, use ghost explorer to delete the file
in the image, and restore the system from the image. Partition saving
which is freeware is just as good as ghost when saving and restoring
images, but ghost has the explorer function which I think is valuable.
I can copy files both into and out of an image, like in a zip file.
My main reason for changing from win98se to win2000pro was that I
bought an usb mp3 player, and found that win98se cannot handle such usb
connections reliably.
I was also tired of crashing programs, kernel page faults, and
incompatibility with newer programs, like gimp. Many newer programs are
not available for win98se.
--
Roger J.