View Full Version : Upgrading my system, Win2K or Win98???

2nd Mar 2001, 02:05 PM
I've been refreshing the UPS tracking screen about every 5 minutes, just waiting to see that "Delivered" status. My parts are on a truck, somewhere between the UPS hub and my house. I'm excited. I'm upgrading my current Pentium 2 300 MHz with 64 Meg of ram to an AMD Athalon 900 with 256 meg. Also, I'm upgrading my Voodoo 3, 3000 to the Voodoo 5500.

Could anyone let me know if they've had any problems running Win2K with any of these components? I'm primarily using the computer for gaming, so, FPS is my primary goal. My old system has Windows 98 on it, and everything seemed to have ran fine.

Anything I should be leery of?

2nd Mar 2001, 02:49 PM
Win Me.... or win98 if u'r only into gaming


2nd Mar 2001, 03:18 PM

2nd Mar 2001, 04:25 PM
be sure to search the f0s (http://forums.planetunreal.com/search.php) on this topic, it has been discussed many times....

3rd Mar 2001, 02:13 AM

that is like the most unstable OS ever...i'd go with win2k pro:D

Robot TinMan|BuF
3rd Mar 2001, 02:46 AM
I must agree with Peregrine, Win98 SE. Not ME! :)

3rd Mar 2001, 10:58 AM
WinME owns Win98SE.

Ignore these goons that likely don't know a driver from a .bat file ;)

WinME is by far & away MUCH more stable than Win98SE can ever try to be.

I've had ONE blue screen so far (over 6 months I think).

Win98 would BSOD weekly.

Believe me, when you work with 120 computers on a daily basis, you learn what works and what doesn't.

3rd Mar 2001, 11:42 AM
That's the problem with Windows: You can never know how it will work on your computer until you try.
So try Win Me, if it crashes a lot or keeps being annoying with its "friendly" features, move to Win2k

...or buy a Mac :)

3rd Mar 2001, 01:56 PM
You'll forgive me if I state that there is a vast difference in the controlled environment of the office, and the uncontrolled environment of the home.

What runs smoothly and stable with the types of applications run in an office, in which the machines are maintained by trained techs, in no way reflects on performance inside the home of your average consumer user who wishes to run the multimedia and games that is common.

After doing residence hall network tech support for a university of 20,000 students, I see reason to upgrade to WinMe and a few good reasons not to.

http://meisterplanet.com/images/planetunrealpics/sigs/scsig121.jpg (http://www.meisterplanet.com)

3rd Mar 2001, 02:30 PM
Of course there's a difference. But when you're involved with a company that has to rigorously test their software on all (windows) platforms so ensure stability on client's workstations, you see more than the usual "office".

As well, I've had all Windows incarnations on my 3 PC's at home (each with different config's and hardware).

WinME has been far more stable for me, my friends, and my (extended) family.

So yeah, it's my opinion, but I'd say it's pretty well backed up. :)

Robot TinMan|BuF
4th Mar 2001, 04:28 AM
BAT-file, Roo?? Waz dat?:D
All I can say is that ME didn't do any good in my rig.
It kept loosing IP# (not ISP's fault I might add), messing up the desktop and such stuff.
I know ME is supposed to be more stable for multimedia apps, but it wasn't for me.;)
Therefore I'm going with Win98SE.
I tried 2k also, that even worked worse.

If U want to USE the comp, buy a Mac. If U want to swear, reformat, tweak and whatever; stick with PC.:p

4th Mar 2001, 06:00 AM
My wife's new computer came with ME and it's been quite a stable OS so far. There are a good number of things to like about it. It's probably the best choice if you have mostly new hardware and are planning on doing a clean install and not just patching 9x to ME.

As a long term chocie, I don't think I'd install 98 unless you just have some software/hardware that you know is going to have some issues with ME. I know ME is supposed to be 100% compatable with all Win9x hardware/software, but.... :)

Win2k is rock-solid, but maybe not the number one choice for the casual home-user.

5th Mar 2001, 10:34 AM
*My last OS debate**
I support over 425 computers. I, also, know what I'm talking about.
We have Windows 2000, on NT servers. We'll be going to 2000 servers soon. I adore Windows 2000. It is rock solid. I can't break it. At work.
At home I've had it all, as well ('cept MAC). WIN98SE works FOR ME, far and away, better than anything yet. I don't get blue screens, I don't get lock ups. WIN98SE is small, fast, and tight on my box. And that ME restore thing in the beginning annoys the crap out of me. ME's big. Bulky. I thought the next OS would boot faster. Not. Try slower. As for 2000 at home?? It's OK. Not fantastic. Everything seems to run a bit slower, but you will rarely have to even SHUT THE THING OFF!!! :)
**This are just my opinions
I could be wrong**

5th Mar 2001, 11:14 AM

WinME isn't the *best* Roo. I upgraded (and fresh installed it once) on my computer and it ran like ****. Within 2 hours of installing (and yes, I know drivers from batch files thank you very much :D) it BSOD like once an hour. Seriously. It did this both times (from the upgrade and from a fresh install). So I promptly uninstalled and sold it to my boss. lol

My friend has WinME as well.. all was fine for about a month and then it went to hell. And he doesn't do anything except turn the computer on and load Diablo2 or Evercrack. So it wasn't due to him hacking around.

Sorry, but from my expereinces, I would say go to win98se if you want pure FPS. With your setup though, I would go to win2k Pro which is more stable than win98se or winME could ever hope to be. Sure you lose some FPS, but it's definately playable. I am getting around 40-90 (averages - based on map and number of people playing) in UT in win2k. (t-bird 950, gf2gts64, 512 megs RAM)

5th Mar 2001, 11:29 AM
Here we go again. This is the never ending story. ;)

I go with Roo. At home I have been running Win 95, Win 98, Win98 SE and Win ME.
I prefer Win ME. It's faster than the other versions.
I have used ME for about 6 months. The only time it crashed was when I used a bad driver for my video card. Never had any problems since then.
Most of my friends use ME. The only time they had problems was when they installed ME over 98.
After reformatting and a clean install everything works fine for them.

5th Mar 2001, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Robot TinMan
If U want to USE the comp, buy a Mac. If U want to swear, reformat, tweak and whatever; stick with PC.:p
Hehehe, good point there. ;)

5th Mar 2001, 12:13 PM
It's personal preference AND how your hardware gets along with the OS. You can never say "This one is best" because what's best on your hardware, isn't nessacarily best on mine or anyone elses'. My suggestion to the thread-keeper here is,
Go with whatever you have right now. If you have 98SE, try it. Have ME?? Try it. Try SE and it sux for you? Go buy ME. Vice-versa. Have WIN95??? DEFINITLY UPGRADE to whichever is cheaper when you're at the store!


5th Mar 2001, 01:40 PM
Well, I took the jump and moved from Win98SE to Win2K, and I've had very good luck with it. UT runs great and the OS seems to be very solid for me. The only problem I've had UT wise is that sometimes when I'm holding down a fire button, it'll just stop, resulting in some embarassing "chain-gun-stopping-opponent-flak-cannoning-me" incidents :)

5th Mar 2001, 02:11 PM
I would say Win2k eventhough I have dualboot (win98&Win2k) now on my computer. I had Win98 installed because some games refused to work on Win2k. But I play only UT now and I only loose about 1-3 FPS in UT on Win2k (who cares) but FPS is more stable on Win2k than Win98, so Win2k is my best choice.
WinMe was my worst experience in 3 OSs (Win98, WinMe, Win2k) I have tried. After more than 2 months with all needed applications (OS and apps: about more than 2 GB, games were in different partition) installed, it became SLOW like a ****. WMP 7 is a joke, Restore feature is useless (for me), System Information is huge thing to open (like Photoshop),...well, forget it.
My dualboot now seems to be a perfect choice.

5th Mar 2001, 03:04 PM
General info on me: I worked at my ISP for about a year and a half providing support over the phone, and have worked at my current job for about a year, one of three techs providing support to about 550 computers for a county gov't. I'm definitely not saying I know it all - just saying that I'm not John Q. User buying an E-machine from RadioShack...

My PC:
PIII 500
Gigabyte GA-6XBC mobo w/ Intel 440BX chipset (with required BIOS update)
Western Digital 20GB 7200rpm HDD
128 (later 384) MB PC100 RAM
Diamond Viper V770 AGP (32MB)
SoundBlaster Live!

Win98(SE) was a pretty stable OS for me, and very compatible with games and/or multimedia. I found that adding -more- than 128MB of RAM did slow it down a little in Windows. UT ran pretty well, but not "great"... I'd average around 25-35fps...

WinME was o-k for games... didn't notice an improvement over Win98(SE), though. However, I did have lots of problems with the screen savers and power management. Every time it went to screen saver and/or suspend, it would BSOD and I'd have to restart rather frequently. Windows operations (menus, opening/closing programs, etc...) weren't any faster than 98. Needless to say, I wasn't impressed.

Win2k Pro has been very good to me. I first installed it at work as a dual-boot with Win95(for support purposes). The machine is a DigitalPC, Pentium 200 w/MMX, with 160MB RAM. Win2k made a HUGE improvement in speed in normal Windows operations and programs. It also made the system 100% more stable... Win95 used to freeze 1-2 times/day. On my home system, I noticed the same performance increase in Windows operations... and also noticed a large increase in my UT fps as well. Last night I played a match in the single-player tournament... My minimum fps was about 40, and my max was about 63... my average was about 50.5... it was SMOOTH and FAST as hell... :D I love it!

I'm not pro-Micro$oft... it just seems like they finally made an OS for higher-end systems. Win2k seems to handle fast CPU's and mucho megs o' RAM much better than Win98(SE) or WinME.

As always - this is my opinion based on my own experience.

8th Mar 2001, 10:41 PM
winblows 98 is the MOST stable op sys if using microshoftie is nessary for you.

ME is buggy as HELL..... 2k, even worse if can believe that. the ONLY thing that woule make ME worth installing is if you install office2k as well. surprisingly that actually seems to stabilise it. still, a lot of harware does NOT like ME even if you Can find drivers specificly made for it. lots o luck

8th Mar 2001, 11:40 PM
Windows Me is pretty good. Pretty stable, not like Win2K of course, but pretty stable nonetheless.

Win2K is good but too bloated for home use.

9th Mar 2001, 12:16 AM
Funny how everyone (including me :)) swears their answer is the absolute final word. Short and sweet:

1) Win2k great business OS. Rock-solid stability. Will require some work to make some games compatable.

2) Win 98SE. If you have it right now, and play lots of games. Compatable with the most available games. It's a great OS to keep ....for now.

3) Win ME. Don't rush out to upgrade with it.

4) Win XP will be one to watch. May be the future gaming OS of choice.

No matter what, patching to the next OS step will not be a good choice.

Prophet Ali
9th Mar 2001, 01:03 AM
As you probably know, Win 98 and ME are (sadly) the best you can get for gaming. I am running Win 2000. And yes, UT does run about 5-10 fps slower then it did on Win 98, but I have a very strong system, and I do more then just gaming on my system, so Win 2000 (NTFS) was my best bet. So if you only play games, go with 98SE or ME. I do, however, suggest staying away from ME, simply because of it lacking Dos. But if you play games, but have other priorities, or if you donít mind loosing a few fps, go with Win 2000.


9th Mar 2001, 01:18 AM
I've thought about getting the ME upgrade, but fear it will do more harm then good.. I was always told you will never know til you try it out. I guess I just want to not have more of my memory used up with ME's extra stuff.. I have the second edition, but do not use the second edition extra disc that came with my windows 98.

9th Mar 2001, 03:23 AM
Bones, then I can confidently tell you. Do not upgrade.

*You can get most of the new stuff through 98 upgrades @microsoft.com or through better utilities available elsewhere. (if you have to have them..)

*You keep your DOS under Win98. (You cannot boot to DOS in ME - it isn't there!) Many older titles depend on DOS to run correctly.

*Win ME is a memory and HD hog.

9th Mar 2001, 03:36 AM
Then I will keep what I have :) no need to spend more money where its not needed!

9th Mar 2001, 04:05 AM
Everything You Wanted To Know About Windows ME But Were Afraid To Ask. . . (http://www.winsupersite.com/FAQ/millennium.asp)


. . . Or About MS Windows 2000. . . (http://www.winsupersite.com/FAQ/2000_old.asp)


. . . Or About MS Windows XP. (http://www.winsupersite.com/FAQ/whistler.asp)


http://meisterplanet.com/images/planetunrealpics/sigs/scsig12.jpg (http://www.meisterplanet.com)

9th Mar 2001, 05:09 AM
I have been a long time supporter of Microsoft and always backed their OS. It has made a very profitable career for me and I thank them for it.

But, alas the time has come...

I am about to embark on a massive Linux adventure. The problem is I know very little about it. I see that redhat and Penguin are the two most prevalent types out there...

Hardware will not be an issue for me, and the only absolute software requirement I have is that I need to be able to run UT.

Any suggestions and/or advice?

To keep with the original topic: I have a pure 2000 network that has never given me any problems other than those that I have caused for myself. I consider myself a power user so 2000 is definitely my OS of choice. ME is good but I just tend to stay away from that whole win98/ME style as it just does not prove to be as stable as 2000.

9th Mar 2001, 06:14 AM

What's that?

http://meisterplanet.com/images/planetunrealpics/sigs/scsig06.jpg (http://www.meisterplanet.com)

9th Mar 2001, 07:29 AM
Yes SC that was a question that was pretty much designed for you. I must say that your answer was a little shorter and less informative than I had hoped.

Seriously though...I am about to wipe out several of my windows boxes and fire up a linux network...all I need is a shove in the right direction...

9th Mar 2001, 05:37 PM
one of the crappy things about win ME, most notibly the "so- called" upgrade is that to keep it stable you need to boot BACk to 98 every so often. bizzar but true.
if you DO get ME get the entire full damn thing, believe me, its Much better that way
Even still, one of the buggs about That is that it will occationally fart on a boot leaving you to have to re-boot into "safe mode" before allowing you to boot normal. Thereby resetting all your display settings wich you have to reconfigure to your specs ( you guess it! more reboots nessary 4 this as well). this appeared to happen more or less randomly but ild get a couple of dozzen good boots before it farted like that.
Now, this happened with more then One complete fresh install so i Know it wasnt just a corrupt install the first time, wich unfortuantly Does happen more then most might think. =|-

on a completely Differant matter i know of a webhost who's buisness ran Win2K.... it crashed, and more then just the OP-SYS, screwed up his entire operation BADLY so i hear. i dont give a Damn what the specs are, i hear of this kind of thing happening entirally TO much with that op-sys. personally i wouldnt use the isntallation disk even as a fizbee! UGH!

9th Mar 2001, 07:44 PM
i'd use Windows 95. 98 is somewhat unstable because it was a rushed release. ME seemed to me like some alpha release of 98. Windows2000 is a bit of an overkill, but offers good security. From what I heard, it's not great for running a server since it has a `creeping ping' problem. If you do go with 2000, don't install IIS unless you keep up with Microsoft's security patches. Under Linux (or emulation)? not unless the only thing you plan on doing is running a server from the console.

NOTE: this comes from my experience on MY hardware. also, as someone mentioned earlier, Win Me is unstable when installed over 98, and that is the way I installed it.

10th Mar 2001, 01:37 AM
Alright, now that I've gotten the silly answer out of my system, I'd suggest a distribution like Mandrake (http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/) for a first time install. It sets itself up relatively painlessly, and makes a good jump start for the new peguinista.

You can play UT under Linux, using Loki Software (http://www.lokigames.com/products/ut/)'s port. They have some nice howto's on getting 3D games there, and have several support channels for users.

So, grab a spare box, install that puppy and play around. There are plenty of secret Linux users here, so don't be afraid to ask questions.

http://meisterplanet.com/images/planetunrealpics/sigs/scsig07.jpg (http://www.meisterplanet.com)

10th Mar 2001, 03:54 AM
mandrake it is then...by tomorrow noon I will be a Linux convert...thanks...

10th Mar 2001, 06:41 AM
It's funny that the thread would turn this direction, as I am giving serious thought to installing Linux on a machine. I was just reading an article about "alternative" OS'es in Maximum PC and thought that it might be time to see a more powerful OS in action.

They mentioned Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS, and QNX. Linux stood out as the one that I might be interested in... maybe a copy of Mandrake is just what I need. Thanks, SC.

10th Mar 2001, 11:02 AM
I just spent the entire night reading through several sights including your site SC. (not that I doubted you before but I like to be as informed as possible).

As it stands all the info I have supports what you suggest and after reading some of your stuff I've developed some new respect for you. I am grabbing Mandrake on the way home this morning and soon after that I'm venturing into slackware.

I'm not sure what your reasons are Hal, for wanting to convert, but I agree it does make sense if not for any other reason than to just learn it for personal gain. However, there is a lot of rumor and fear going on here in the Silicon Valley with the slowing economy. So it makes sense to learn and make yourself more marketable...

"Intel cuts 5000 jobs"
"Cisco cuts 8000 jobs"
This is not a good thing!

Thanks again SC...

Prophet Ali
10th Mar 2001, 12:51 PM
Another PuFer from the Bay Area! What's up man! I am in Cupertino across the street from De Anza College. And yes, it's a sad day for Intel and Cisco employees :(


10th Mar 2001, 12:59 PM
not alot of good things happening here at all, Proph.

I work for a large hosting company and things are looking bad for the dotcom techies here. Not to mention many established companies are starting to outsource...I would hate to have to resort to contracting my skillz.

I've seen you around the forum before but never realized you were from the bay. I am actually in Sunnyvale about to make a move to Dallas. Tired of the high prices here...got a decent promotion and transfer so its time to bail ya know...

Prophet Ali
10th Mar 2001, 01:25 PM
I actually work at Gateway, so I can safely say that I feel your pain. Our market capitol dropped by around 80%! About 30% of our staff got laid off.

They changed EVERY thing around in Gateway. We no longer customize computers :( When I joined this company, every one on the staff was like my best friends. Now they all left or got laid off, and every thing has changed :( I am looking for a new job as a web designer now. I just sent my resume to Adobe, and am going to keep looking around. Unfortunately, not a lot of companyís like hiring an 18-year-old web designer.

Good thing I changed my major to Biology :) but yes, I know what you mean.

Good luck on your moving to Dallas btw. If I leave, it would ether be back to LA (Beverly Hills), NY, Chicago, or Seattle. But for now, I am in love with SF. And it looks like Iíll be transferring to UCSF for my pre-med, so Iíll be around here for a while.


10th Mar 2001, 11:40 PM
Yeah, I usually recommend Mandrake (http://www.linux-mandrake.com) as a first distro, as it's really to easiest to pop in and get up and running with nearly all the features you want (and a few you wouldn't have tought of). Additionally, they do try to keep up on more cutting edge tech, and LM 8 (currently in beta) will have it all, including KDE2.1, Kernel 2.4, XFree 4, and even a front end to RPM 4 based on Debian's 'apt' program.

Eventually, most experienced users who want to explore Linux in more depth will move to either Slackware (http://www.slackware.com) (as close to pure UNIX as you'll get) or Debian (http://www.debian.org) (very much the epitomy of the Free Software Movement's ideals, as well as a really nice package management system).

Fun stuff, to say the least.

And now for some blatent plugs for my Linux articles at 3DRage (http://www.3drage.com):

Linux Introduction (http://www.3drage.com/guides/introlinux/)
Linux Distribution Guide (http://www.3drage.com/guides/linuxdistro/)
Uses For a Spare Linux Box (http://www.3drage.com/guides/linuxbox)
Using OpenSSH to Secure Your Communications (http://www.3drage.com/guides/openssh/)

http://meisterplanet.com/images/planetunrealpics/sigs/scsig138.jpg (http://www.meisterplanet.com)

11th Mar 2001, 06:38 AM
got it up and running...I was expecting more of a Solaris feel but this is pretty cool...just gotta get used to it and figure out where and what everything is.

11th Mar 2001, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by Prophet Ali
They changed EVERY thing around in Gateway. We no longer customize computers

What do you mean? Their website allows you to customize one. Granted their options aren't what they used to be, and their prices are higher. I hate to see another good company struggle and fall to mediocrity.

11th Mar 2001, 11:47 AM
I wouldn't be so quick to leave Gateway if I was you...they laid off 30% of the staff but you are still there...obviously they like you there.

Prophet Ali
11th Mar 2001, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by hal

What do you mean? Their website allows you to customize one. Granted their options aren't what they used to be, and their prices are higher. I hate to see another good company struggle and fall to mediocrity.

At gateway, you have set packages that you have to choose from now. CS, CL, XLÖ You canít change around anything! If you want a certain graphic card, you have to go with the package that has that graphic card. In example, to get the GF 2 Ultra, you MUST buy the XL package, witch include a 60+ GB HD, SB Live, 1394 Firewire, network card, TV tuner, 12x CDRW, and a DVD player. And it will end up costing you over $1000. It doesnít matter if you NEED the stuff in the XL package or not, YOU ARE GETTING IT! I personally feel this is bull****. That is why I am leaving.

What do you guys think?

11th Mar 2001, 03:34 PM
That is pretty weak and that is why I build all my own machines...they run better and as it turns out I get exactly what I want for less than Gateway or Dell or any other pc manufacturer sells their equivalent for. Plus my machines are fully upgradeable...no proprietary stuff here.

11th Mar 2001, 05:43 PM
Well, the problem is that the profit margin for the PC business is so slim now that reducing the choices to a manageable set makes sense.

With completely customized computers, you had to spend the time on each individual order, which increases the costs. With a select set, you only have to produce those sets in quantity, and then pull them out of stock when someone orders one.

Most of us who are knowledgeable enough are building our own systems these days in order to get the most performance out of the least amount of money, which leaves only those who can't or don't want to build a system to go to a larger manufacturer.

http://meisterplanet.com/images/planetunrealpics/sigs/scsig156.jpg (http://www.meisterplanet.com)

11th Mar 2001, 10:03 PM
Kind of a unfortunate turn for them...their attempts to save money are actually going to cost them more.

More and more people are starting to become knowledgeable enough to build their own or they know someone like us who is, and thus they turn away from the canned products like Gateway and Dell are putting out now. Not that they produce bad PC's but why should we the consumer pay for things we do not want? Seems to me they are shooting themselves in the foot by dropping their flexibility when in fact that is what they should be investing in.

Sometimes big business makes poor decisions simply because the decision makers are so far removed from what the market really wants. And these so called marketing experts doing their surveys are IMHO a joke. Perhaps being in the Silicon Valley I have a distorted picture of whats really happening across the country. I thought everyone had a PC...:)

11th Mar 2001, 11:01 PM
I was running Me for the longest time.. then I played around with w2k on my system and loved.. it.. it lacked in the game department a bit.. (still ran UT gr8 though) but I missed Me... reading up on some stuff one day I ran across this little article (http://arstechnica.com/tweak/win2k/others/multiboot-1.html) at arstechnica.. and I was like cool.. so.. now I dual boot hehehe.. and I have the best of both worlds :D

12th Mar 2001, 03:23 AM
got it up and running...I was expecting more of a Solaris feel but this is pretty cool...

Don't worry, Slackware will give you as much a "Solaris feel" as you can get. From what I hear, Sun will be switching the default Window Manager of Solaris from CDE over to KDE, so you might want to try the latest (2.1) version of the K Desktop out.

You also might want to research into FreeBSD for work with companies that do alot of networking work.

http://meisterplanet.com/images/planetunrealpics/sigs/scsig60.jpg (http://www.meisterplanet.com)