Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

win2k or win98SE?

Tags:
  • Windows
Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Anonymous
April 3, 2002 6:01:58 PM

Hello everyone:-) I know all of you have answered this question before, but if you could answer it just one more time.
---->win2k or win98se?<----

I am a gamer:-) I play mostly modern games, such as Medal of Honor and Return to Castle Wolfenstein. So I want an OS that will be stable but quick. I also would like an OS that I could keep up for a couple days without restarting or having system resources hit the floor. I have been using 98SE for a while now, with very little trouble. But I feel OS technology is passing me by. So I have tried XP. I didn't like it. My only other choice is win2k. Now another thing that has kept me from installin win2k right away would be that my second harddrive has a lot of stuff on there that I really need. But it is way to much to be backed up, well over 30 cd's to back up. That harddrive is running FAT32. Now if I installed win2k I would like to use NTFS on to my primary drive. If I went through with that, would the harddrives work with each other. Or should I just stay with good ol' FAT32?

my configuration is as follows:
amd1900+
256 ddr 2100
60 gb -master
60 gb - slave
asus a7v266-e
gf2 ti/500

Thank you for your time:-)

More about : win2k win98se

April 3, 2002 7:18:41 PM

If you have two hard drives, and your primary HD houses only your OS, while the second one for your data, you don't have to worry about Filesystem compatibility. You'll be able to get to your stuff, if you install Windows 2000 on that master HD. NTFS is so much more efficient.

<A HREF="http://www.ntcompatible.com" target="_new">NT Compatible</A> has a ton of resources for you to read up on. (<A HREF="http://www.btvillarin.com" target="_new">My site</A> as some links and stuff, too.) :smile:

If you do decide to jump into Windows 2000, then read this post about how to install Windows and it's drivers and updates correctly the first time, so you don't have to worry about instability.
<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/software/modules.php?nam..." target="_new">Windows Installation Methodology (basically by Toejam31)</A>

<font color=red><A HREF="http://www.btvillarin.com" target="_new">btvillarin.com</A> - My Windows XP-based Website</font color=red>
April 3, 2002 7:27:22 PM

Yes, the hard drives would work with each other. Win2K supports both file systems. With only one operating system, and only the primary partition on the master hard drive being bootable, accessing the second hard drive would be no problem, whatsoever. It would make no difference to the operating system which was which.

It would be a different story if Win98 was on the first hard drive, and Win2K on the second, formatted as NTFS. Win2K would be able to "see" both hard drives, but Win98 would only be able to see the hard drive partitioned and formatted as FAT32.

As far as I'm concerned, either file system is fine for a home desktop system. NTFS has less slack space, better security features, and is more resistant to file system errors, and also has the native ability to compress files and folders. It also supports files that are larger than 4GB, which is useful for video editing.

But that doesn't mean FAT32 is a "bad" option. The security features in NTFS are perhaps overkill for a home system, and the gain in disk space is not a tremendous amount, proportionally. FAT32 may also be a little faster than NTFS in some respects. And it can be seen from DOS, which gives you more than one option to access the hard drives, unlike with NTFS.

Nearly every kind of repair that can be done to a file system can be achieved with NTFS with the Windows 2000 Recovery Console, or from the Command Line. But some people prefer to also be able to work with the hard drives from DOS.

Your choice, really.

Note: If you have created any of the partitions on the hard drives with any kind of disk overlay software, such as MaxBlast Plus II, you should be aware that WinNT 4.0, Win2K, and WinXP are incompatible with the software.

Note 2: I know exactly what it means to back up a system with a lot of CDs. And you shouldn't let that stop you, even if it sounds like a big job. CD-R's are not that expensive. I backed up my main system not long ago, and accomplished it within an evening, while watching TV. It took 37 disks. Only two were for the operating system, and all were highly compressed images.

So ... it cost me about ten dollars, and few hours, to have peace of mind. But I figure that my data is worth it. How 'bout you?

Toejam31

<font color=red>My Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new"><font color=green>Toejam31's Tantalizing Tantric Toy</font color=green></A>
<font color=red>Second Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=15942" target="_new"><font color=green>Toey's Dynamite DDR Duron</font color=green></A>
____________________________________________________________

<font color=purple>"Procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."</font color=purple>
Related resources
April 3, 2002 7:29:41 PM

Hey, bt!!

Um, just saying "Hey!" I hadn't talked to you for a while.

:wink:

Toey

<font color=red>My Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new"><font color=green>Toejam31's Tantalizing Tantric Toy</font color=green></A>
<font color=red>Second Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=15942" target="_new"><font color=green>Toey's Dynamite DDR Duron</font color=green></A>
____________________________________________________________

<font color=purple>"Procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."</font color=purple>
Anonymous
April 3, 2002 7:40:41 PM

Thank you for the great responses:-) Your posts really helped me out with all teh information. I believe I am going to use NTFS on primary and FAT32 on secondary. Once again thank u:-)

Hey Toejam it has been a while:-)
cya around