XP or W2K - Best Choice from W98? 7

[MiklK]

For some reason I have begun to think it's just Time For A Change in OS. ...(Could it be the spontenaeity of the Win98 crashes? Microsoft's XP advertising? Santa skipping my house this year? heehee)...
But in trying to decide between W2K or XP, I've been hearing a groundswell of unhappiness about the ritual of registration with XP, and prickly annoyance at some of its other features. And - partly as a result of people wanting something-not-XP - there is a FIERCE bidding war on eBay, etc., for MS Windows 2000 software. Doesn't seem like people were fightin over THEM a couple years ago! ;<)

Anyway, I would love some advice/opinion to help me think about choice.
How did you make your choice?
Should I ask this on the W2K too?

My system is AMD K6 2 at 350 with 196 RAM and HardDrive about 6 - &quot;technically&quot;, mechanically, i could adequately run either OS. Or so they say...

Thx (a LOT) to anyone for helping
mikl
bigpygme@earthlink.net

 

[dilettante]

My 2 cents...

I'd go with WinXP if you don't have a commitment to Windows 2000 already.

Biggest reasons?

Windows 2000 is old now, and will age faster than XP. If you're going to pay out the dollars, stretch 'em as long as you can.

XP supports wider range of (recent) hardware. I've also had good luck getting some of my most cantakerous older hardware working under XP.

If you think there are problems with AMD-supporting chipsets and BIOS' with XP, you haven't seen Win2K yet!

XP uses more RAM and HD space, but these are cheap right now. 196M is about right, consider at least 256M - but no hurry.

My experiences?

I ran Win2K betas and trials for about 2 1/2 years. Big improvement over NT4.

Got in on the public betas of XP, hated it the first week, loved it thereafter. Still running RC2 on 2 machines here, but I have an upgrade and a full in boxes sitting right next to me. Can't imagine going back to Win2K now.

 

[rjkrash]

Hands down go with XP for all the reasons in the previous post.

I have been a Windows user since DOS. Say all the bad about MS they have delivered a technical marvel. In this world of exponential leaps in what common people want to do with computers they have delivered a usable platform upon which do them.

WinXP isn't perect but the alternatives are less than ideal.

I was on Win2k and switched to XP as soon as it was delivered. Win2k wasn't bad but my kids use this computer too and Win2k was a business OS. WinXP is both.

Be sure to go with XP Pro. It's just not worth the savings to buy the Home Edition. The differences are subtle but the future needs that we don't even know are more likely to be met with a full version.

As to your config. Get more memory, XP likes it, and as said before it's cheap. If you are flush upgrade the CPU and get the mostest graphics card you can. What you have should work fine and you can take your time on the extras.

Before the upgrade be sure to get the latest BIOS for your machine. Most legacy programs will work fine if not native then in compatibility mode (which Win2K doesn't have). The only real gotchas are utility programs like anti virus programs, have to upgrade them. Actually Win2k and WinXP have similar issues in regards to software compatibility from a Win98 environment, XP has a leg up with compatibility mode.

Suggest if you upgrade do a clean install, not an upgrade over 98. If your copy of 98 is legit and you have the CD then you won't have any issues with a Upgrade version.

As to registration or really Activation. Not a big deal. Takes a few seconds online. You don't have to tell MS anything about yourself (that's registration which is entirely optional). I have had to reActivate twice for various reasons, upgrades mainly, and it was absolutly not a hassle. I had to call an 800 number 'cause reActivating doesn't work over the net but both times the call was quick and absolutly painless.

And finally, you have found us here at Tek-tips so you know if you run into issues we're here to help.

Happy Computing...
The two rules for success are:
1. Never tell them everything you know.

 

[CitrixEngineer]

In addition to the above, XP not only likes but needs a large amount of memory to avoid the feeling that you're &quot;computing through treacle&quot;. I found 512Mb to be optimal, although 256Mb is OK. Any less, and you'd be better off sticking with Win9.x

Also, it's advisable to make sure that your graphics card is a recent, fast model with plenty of video RAM.

I compared an 8Mb Matrox with a 32Mb ATI in the same machine, and the difference was unbelievable.

I think your 350Mhz K6-2 should be up to the job, but you can easily and cheaply upgrade the processor, if increasing the RAM and updating the graphics doesn't give you the speed you want.

Good Luck!

 

[biffo]

I also think XP is better than Windows 2000. Even though XP is a big step from 98, it won't take too long to get used to the new features. Although, if you need it for mostly gaming then Win 2000 will be better. Biffo, the Godfather of making mistakes in life. Although, his Tek-Tips answers and questions are no mistakes.

 

[MiklK]

this has been very helpful so far, thanks everyone!

But the extras people have named ..... WOW,512 meg ram, i'm at 196 and i'm sure there's no WAY this motherboard will go to 512! Clearly, many experienced people think that MS's ideas of system requirements are WAY under what you'd need to get pleasant performance from the computer.

It is an IBM Aptive 2158-240, AMD K6 2, hard drive about 6 (with plenty of room) and by the way Acer BIOS V3.2 V72EN2D (and i don't think i have yet found the real proper upgrade at Acer or at IBM despite hours of plugging along searching).

I appreciate everyone's experience and opnion. THX
mikl
bigpygme@earthlink.net

...what did rj say the other two rules for success were?

 

[Masterpjz9]

your motherboard won't go up to 512 mb ram? I find that strange unless you have an older motherboard. Many new motherboards can go up to at least 2 GB DDR ram

 

[dilettante]

Don't fret, mymild.

I am running WinXP RC2 on two machines right now:

P III 533, 192MB RAM, 30GB HD, 4MB on-board video that is sharing that 4MB out of main memory.

P II 350 128MB RAM, 6.4GB HD, 2MB (non-shared) on-board video.

The P III is quite a bit peppier than the P II, and I'll probably max it out at 256MB of RAM. The 4MB shared-memory video is only a problem if I want to run higher than 1024 x 768 TrueColor, which it handles fine. The machine'll take a 16MB to 32MB PCI video card if I think I need it - but I'm only running a 17&quot; monitor on this box anyway. This is mostly a software development workstation.

The P II is just fine, and will expand to 384MB but I just don't need it. The video is limited to 800 x 600 because of the video memory, but this thing has a 14&quot; monitor that is seldom on. I use it as a server for IIS (Web and FTP) development, and the box is running MSDE as well (user-limited SQL Server 7). It is also hosting SharePoint Team Services. No problems.

I'd say update to 256MB while RAM is cheap (more if the board will take it). Think about a 40GB HD. I just bought two at $74 each three months ago, just bought an 80GB for $120 shipped this week. Consider that XP really wants about 4GB for OS and overhead.

Video? Not sure what software these guys are running - mine is mostly software development tools and the Office suite. Maybe they're trying to make DVD videos or something? Probably just gaming - a never-ending arms race as far as hardware consumption goes.

If people are running DDR memory they're playing in a different arena than we are anyway. Some of us work for a living ;-) and have to support more than one computer to do it.

 

[MiklK]

thx everyone, thx dilettante
sounds like your PII setup is much like mine, and if it's running fine then i could be ok as well. i also hear your suggestion, though, to grab RAM and HD space while they're inexpensive - with the implication that, though your PII system may be 'fine', more room in both dept.'s would be very welcome by XP ...
and you and rj and everyone are clear (at least in this forum) that your advice is to go XP rather than W2K.
Did i get that right?

Thx again
mikl
bigpygme@earthlink.net

 

[SK79]

I'd suggest a dual booting system with 98 and XP. My set has a PIII 500 with 128 MB RAM and a 16MB graphics card, so playing games on it isn't really an option within XP.

I use 98 for games and XP for surfing the net, email & general office work. It's the best of both worlds - you get a faster set in 98 without the sleeker interface, etc (you don't really need that for playing games), and you get the multimedia features of XP when surfing the net...

...plus you save oodles of cash (which is always good if you're a cheap b&stard!)

 

[FoxPacific]

go to

http://www.musiccity.com

and download and install morpheus. I hope you have boardband. Download both and try them both out for yourself (dual boot) before forking over the money for any of um. Remember the only opinion that matters is yours.

Aloha,

James

 

[MiklK]

THX SK, i'd mostly heard &quot;stay away&quot; advice adout a dual boot set-up, good to know yours works well for you.
How much hard drive space do you need/have for that?
I get to save the proverbial oodles by, how? Not havng as much pressure to upgrade my components?

And i have thought Morpheus lloked cool but i haven't downloaded it yet... but i am puzzled how that suggestion applies to my fundamental OS and components/systems interest?
Thx all
mikl

 

[chassty]

I have run XP and 2000, and I suggest winXP. It runs more stable and supports more hardware then Win2000. I also seems to support a lot of applications. I have a system with 196megs of ram running XP and it runs fine and is stable. I also run it in ntfs format for the security and stability.

I also agree that it is better to do a full install over an upgrade. Upgrading usually always causes a problem sooner or later.

I hope this helps.

Aloha,

Chas

 

[SK79]

I've got a 14.3Gb hd with 3 partitions. The 98 partition is 1.17Gb, the XP partition is 5.87Gb and the USERS partition (where I keep my documents, games, music, etc) is 7.26Gb.

This way if I need to scrub the set, I don't lose any personal data. If you're going to install tons of games, you might want to increase the 98 partition to about 3Gb...

 

[BeckahC]

Just to let you know, I'm running XP on a 400mghz pentium with 192mb memory...so far, so good.... I also run SQL and Office XP and I have only had a couple of slight lags (That's with 6-12 apps open and monitoring mapped drives in extra toolbars, etc.) No crash, no probs..... am going to try to go for memory upgrade - but won't hold my breath! ;-)

I run 2K at home and I have been having problems!!!! Runs ok for awhile, needs to reboot - but I defnitely don't have enough umph ther to move to XP....yet - maybe as a B-Day present... BeckahC

 

[ssudha17]

Hi,
I have a P celeron 933 Mhz laptop with 128 MB ram and I am doing fine too with the XP home edition running on it. So I dont think its too much of a big deal. Probably i might see a bigger diference if i decide to shell a ew hundred dollars on additional ram but i am not sure if it is worth it!!1
Rgds,
Sudha Visit

http://www.ssudhakar.com

to know more about me

 

[dilettante]

Depends on the memory market, for sure.

I bought 128MB PC133 Kinston Value RAM in retail packs for $11 each back in October. Same memory costs at least $29 now.

Just keep an eye on the market, and when it gets cheap, buy. Otherwise wait.

I ran WinXP beta 2 in 64MB for awhile and it ran OK (so so). Raising it to 128MB was all the boost it really needed. Made a huge difference.

Putting in 384MB (3 of the 128MB DIMMS) did not show a big improvement - hardly even noticeable. And that machine is used for IIS and low-volume database serving (MSDE). I cut it back to 128MB and it is doing fine - but it doesn't get worked really hard.

256MB is about right if you have it. More than that is a waste unless you are running very differnt stuff than I normally do (web, email, Office, Visual Studio 6, image editing).

Video editing might benefit from more, and perhaps recent games. I don't run either of these things though.

 

[Hungster]

Win2k pro
-rock solid with most apps, includes gaming.
-drivers are easilier to get for most hardware

WinXP Pro
-very nice graphics and wall paper
-plug-in for remote desktop (VNC, Radmin, etc...)
-burner software built-in (who cares, use Nero)
-slow in gaming
-drivers start rolling in, not as much
-most feature are inhereted from win2k

Yes, it uses lots of ram, if you turn all those crap off, you will find it works fairly well
i don't mind it, but still a few error kept telling you to send/report to Microsoft which it will go away after awhile

good luck

 

[MiklK]

HEY - you are all AWESOME! I am so glad i found this site (- where the hell HAVE i been?) (On the other hand, let's not go there )
The notes from Chassty and Beckah and Ssudha and SK sound like they''re happy with XP and also sound (to me) like i could run XP on my IBM as it is, with AMD K6 2 (350)and 196 RAM.
And that my hard drive might be a little tight (but not necessarily) and that i might be happier if the the CPU were - well, more! But many specs from their machines are comp'le to mine.
(Now i gotta figure out who manufactured the mobo on this so i can explore what CPU i could swap into it. Maybe IBM did, themselves, but their website is a freekin JUNGLE - whoa!)
THX A LOT
mikl
bigpygme@earthlink.net

 

[CitrixEngineer]

You should be able to update your Aptiva (I think that's what your machine is) with any K6 2. I think the fastest are 550Mhz. Knowing IBM boards, you'll probably have to set a jumper somewhere - but in most of the IBM machines I've worked on, there's a list inside the case of all the jumper settings.

I'd recommend upgrading your graphics card and RAM over upgrading the CPU, however.

RAM is still relatively cheap - so go for as much as you can afford - before the prices go up again. XP will thank you for it. I'm pretty sure that your board will take up to 512Mb. Get Crucial or Kingston RAM, though. IBMs are very picky.

I hope this helps