Migrating to Windows 2000

[DaffyD®]

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.

 

[Bill in Co.]

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.

 

[Fan924]

I find Windows 2000 takes 3 times longer to load than Win98 on the
same machine. 2000 seems really sluggish. I rarely use it and stay
with Win98SE for daily use.

 

[98 Guy]

"DaffyD®" wrote:

> I guess where I'm leading to with all this is asking why users in
> this newsgroup prefer Win98 SE to W2K.

Don't waste your time with win-2K. You'd be better off replacing 2k on
the surplus computer with XP.

If you are strictly limited to a choice between 98se and 2k, I'd stick
with 98se.

If you really do like 98, and you can build your own machine, then start
with an Asrock motherboard. I've got 6 of them, and plan to build some
new win-98 machines around them. Full compatibility with win-98 for
everything except the on-board hi-def sound. Add an Nvidia 6600 AGP
video card and the system is complete. Attach a SATA hard drive to get
around the 128 gb issue. I've tested win-98 with 500 gb drive and it
works fine.

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:44:15 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> wrote:

>"DaffyD®" wrote:
>
>> I guess where I'm leading to with all this is asking why users in
>> this newsgroup prefer Win98 SE to W2K.
>
>Don't waste your time with win-2K. You'd be better off replacing 2k on
>the surplus computer with XP.
>
I dont understand this thinking at all. XP is the same basic OS as
Win2K, except XP is seriously bloated and needs much more power and
memory. I use Win98se on my desktop, and Win2K on my laptop. I
prefer 98, but I put 2K on the laptop because my laptop is mostly just
for WIFI use, and the wifi requires 2K or higher.

Win2K does seem more stable, but that's really not a good comparison,
because all I have on that computer is the OS and a few web programs,
whereas my desktop is loaded with tons of software.

>If you are strictly limited to a choice between 98se and 2k, I'd stick
>with 98se.
>
>If you really do like 98, and you can build your own machine, then start
>with an Asrock motherboard. I've got 6 of them, and plan to build some
>new win-98 machines around them. Full compatibility with win-98 for
>everything except the on-board hi-def sound. Add an Nvidia 6600 AGP
>video card and the system is complete. Attach a SATA hard drive to get
>around the 128 gb issue. I've tested win-98 with 500 gb drive and it
>works fine.

 

[Dan]

I have no big problem with Windows 2000 Professional and prefer it to Windows
XP. Windows 2000 Professional can act a lot like Windows 98 Second Edition
and I have been able to run stable versions of Windows 98 Second Edition and
Windows 2000 Professional. I prefer an Ati Radeon 9800 XT video card to 98
Guy's suggestion of an Nvidia card because I still remember when Nvidia
burned me by causing problems when upgrading from a 3dfx graphics card. I
feel Ati is better but that is based upon my personnel experiences. Anyway,
Windows 98 Second Edition runs well on my machine and the Radeon 9800 XT
driver is a Windows ME driver and the HP Printer drivers is actually a
Windows 2000 driver when I could not get the 98 drivers for it from the HP
website. There are other customizations with this 98 Second Edition machine
but I will not bore you all with the details. I hope your used (new machine
works well for you DaffyD) and remember 2010 which is the end of support for
Windows 2000 with security updates supposedly unless Microsoft is convinced
to change their minds. <grin>

"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.
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Actually, you Dunce, Windows 2K is/was the most *limited* of the Windows
OSes for its day. And still is the most limited of today.

Just like a Dunce to recommend a motherboard model before actually building
anything around them and putting them through any kind of real testing.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:8uc1c4lla6jlqaoiro5dsmkk088ntgi56k@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:44:15 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> wrote:
>
>>"DaffyD®" wrote:
>>
>>> I guess where I'm leading to with all this is asking why users in
>>> this newsgroup prefer Win98 SE to W2K.
>>
>>Don't waste your time with win-2K. You'd be better off replacing 2k on
>>the surplus computer with XP.
>>
> I dont understand this thinking at all. XP is the same basic OS as
> Win2K, except XP is seriously bloated and needs much more power and
> memory. I use Win98se on my desktop, and Win2K on my laptop. I
> prefer 98, but I put 2K on the laptop because my laptop is mostly just
> for WIFI use, and the wifi requires 2K or higher.
>
> Win2K does seem more stable, but that's really not a good comparison,
> because all I have on that computer is the OS and a few web programs,
> whereas my desktop is loaded with tons of software.
>
>>If you are strictly limited to a choice between 98se and 2k, I'd stick
>>with 98se.
>>
>>If you really do like 98, and you can build your own machine, then start
>>with an Asrock motherboard. I've got 6 of them, and plan to build some
>>new win-98 machines around them. Full compatibility with win-98 for
>>everything except the on-board hi-def sound. Add an Nvidia 6600 AGP
>>video card and the system is complete. Attach a SATA hard drive to get
>>around the 128 gb issue. I've tested win-98 with 500 gb drive and it
>>works fine.
>

 

[DaffyD®]

I found about the 2010 "sunset" for 2K a few weeks ago which bummed me out a
bit. On the new machine, I'm sticking with the video card already
installed, which is an ATI. I'm still going to give 2K a try. If worst
comes to worst, I still have my original W98SE cd & key.
And actually, I would be interested to read how you customized the OS on
your computer.

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7704C60F-9F3E-44DF-A378-0E6EE4C7D2B0@microsoft.com...
> I have no big problem with Windows 2000 Professional and prefer it to
Windows
> XP. Windows 2000 Professional can act a lot like Windows 98 Second
Edition
> and I have been able to run stable versions of Windows 98 Second Edition
and
> Windows 2000 Professional. I prefer an Ati Radeon 9800 XT video card to
98
> Guy's suggestion of an Nvidia card because I still remember when Nvidia
> burned me by causing problems when upgrading from a 3dfx graphics card. I
> feel Ati is better but that is based upon my personnel experiences.
Anyway,
> Windows 98 Second Edition runs well on my machine and the Radeon 9800 XT
> driver is a Windows ME driver and the HP Printer drivers is actually a
> Windows 2000 driver when I could not get the 98 drivers for it from the HP
> website. There are other customizations with this 98 Second Edition
machine
> but I will not bore you all with the details. I hope your used (new
machine
> works well for you DaffyD) and remember 2010 which is the end of support
for
> Windows 2000 with security updates supposedly unless Microsoft is
convinced
> to change their minds. <grin>
>
> "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 producer
s
> > 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®]

I'm still looking forward to fooling around with W2K. As far as multimedia,
all I need is CD burning, mp3 and video playback and I'm fine.

"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®]

On the machine I was given (which admittedly is still bare bones because I
haven't yet loaded it up with programs, start up is much faster than my 98
machine.

"Fan924" <a924fan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ec2232cf-da06-4575-85f7-6b73729a8d01@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> I find Windows 2000 takes 3 times longer to load than Win98 on the
> same machine. 2000 seems really sluggish. I rarely use it and stay
> with Win98SE for daily use.
>

 

[DaffyD®]

I do have a SATA hard drive but the MB on the W2K machine is IDE so I'm
stuck with that. A new MB isn't an option right now because of expense which
is why I brought home a free PC. I would love to install XP but again, if
it ain't free it's too expensive.

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:48C0AB0F.643FC397@Guy.com...
> "DaffyD®" wrote:
>
> > I guess where I'm leading to with all this is asking why users in
> > this newsgroup prefer Win98 SE to W2K.
>
> Don't waste your time with win-2K. You'd be better off replacing 2k on
> the surplus computer with XP.
>
> If you are strictly limited to a choice between 98se and 2k, I'd stick
> with 98se.
>
> If you really do like 98, and you can build your own machine, then start
> with an Asrock motherboard. I've got 6 of them, and plan to build some
> new win-98 machines around them. Full compatibility with win-98 for
> everything except the on-board hi-def sound. Add an Nvidia 6600 AGP
> video card and the system is complete. Attach a SATA hard drive to get
> around the 128 gb issue. I've tested win-98 with 500 gb drive and it
> works fine.

 

[John John (MVP)]

How much RAM does the machine have? All other things equal, Windows
2000 will run faster *if* it has enough RAM, if it does have enough RAM
it will crawl like a snail!

John

DaffyD® wrote:

> On the machine I was given (which admittedly is still bare bones because I
> haven't yet loaded it up with programs, start up is much faster than my 98
> machine.
>
> "Fan924" <a924fan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ec2232cf-da06-4575-85f7-6b73729a8d01@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I find Windows 2000 takes 3 times longer to load than Win98 on the
>>same machine. 2000 seems really sluggish. I rarely use it and stay
>>with Win98SE for daily use.
>>
>
>
>

 

[Roger Fink]

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.

 

[Dan]

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.
>
>
>

 

[Bill in Co.]

Well, there are some USB external hard drive enclosures and IDE drives that
*will* work with Win98SE (I mean just as an extra drive, not as a bootup
drive).

But I also added an inexpensive USB 2.0 PCI card, which I'm sure helped.
And I also installed that freebie Generic USB Mass Storage Driver (nusb24e),
too.
Maybe you're just missing a driver, or maybe there isn't one for your
particular drive. But admitedly it is getting harder to find some of this
stuff for Win98SE.


DaffyD® wrote:
> 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.
>
> "Fan924" <a924fan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ec2232cf-da06-4575-85f7-6b73729a8d01@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>> I find Windows 2000 takes 3 times longer to load than Win98 on the
>> same machine. 2000 seems really sluggish. I rarely use it and stay
>> with Win98SE for daily use.

 

[Dan]

98 Second Edition is stable if you configure it properly

"DaffyD®" wrote:

> 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.
> >
> >
>
>
>

 

[John John (MVP)]

With more than 500MB of RAM it should run very well. What did you
install for your AV and firewall software? Once you get used to Windows
2000 you won't want to go back to Windows 98, you will find windows 2000
to be much more capable and robust than Windows 98.

John

DaffyD® wrote:

> It has over 500 MB of RAM. The system was built by one of the tech guys at
> work. It was working extremely fast before I saddled it with AV and firewall
> software. It's still fast but not like it was. The price we pay for
> protection.
>
> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:OPleBDCEJHA.5044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>>How much RAM does the machine have? All other things equal, Windows
>>2000 will run faster *if* it has enough RAM, if it does have enough RAM
>>it will crawl like a snail!
>>
>>John
>>
>>DaffyD® wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On the machine I was given (which admittedly is still bare bones because
>
> I
>
>>>haven't yet loaded it up with programs, start up is much faster than my
>
> 98
>
>>>machine.
>>>
>>>"Fan924" <a924fan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>
> news:ec2232cf-da06-4575-85f7-6b73729a8d01@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>>I find Windows 2000 takes 3 times longer to load than Win98 on the
>>>>same machine. 2000 seems really sluggish. I rarely use it and stay
>>>>with Win98SE for daily use.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

 

[John John (MVP)]

There is a bit of a learning curve but once you get used to Windows 2000
you won't regret the move!

John

DaffyD® wrote:

> 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.
>
> "Fan924" <a924fan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ec2232cf-da06-4575-85f7-6b73729a8d01@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I find Windows 2000 takes 3 times longer to load than Win98 on the
>>same machine. 2000 seems really sluggish. I rarely use it and stay
>>with Win98SE for daily use.
>>
>
>
>

 

[DaffyD®]

It has over 500 MB of RAM. The system was built by one of the tech guys at
work. It was working extremely fast before I saddled it with AV and firewall
software. It's still fast but not like it was. The price we pay for
protection.

"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:OPleBDCEJHA.5044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> How much RAM does the machine have? All other things equal, Windows
> 2000 will run faster *if* it has enough RAM, if it does have enough RAM
> it will crawl like a snail!
>
> John
>
> DaffyD® wrote:
>
> > On the machine I was given (which admittedly is still bare bones because
I
> > haven't yet loaded it up with programs, start up is much faster than my
98
> > machine.
> >
> > "Fan924" <a924fan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
news:ec2232cf-da06-4575-85f7-6b73729a8d01@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>I find Windows 2000 takes 3 times longer to load than Win98 on the
> >>same machine. 2000 seems really sluggish. I rarely use it and stay
> >>with Win98SE for daily use.
> >>
> >
> >
> >

 

[DaffyD®]

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.

"Fan924" <a924fan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ec2232cf-da06-4575-85f7-6b73729a8d01@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> I find Windows 2000 takes 3 times longer to load than Win98 on the
> same machine. 2000 seems really sluggish. I rarely use it and stay
> with Win98SE for daily use.
>