You may know all this, but here's a VERY broad brush:
- There are two major differences between W98 and W2k: their basic
architectures, and their cosmetic overlays (user interfaces/presentation
managers/lots of names for this.)
1. W98 is an advanced dialect of DOS, which since it allows
applications full freedom to manipulate all hardware directly is
inherently unstable in effect. W2k makes good use of various CPU
functions that isolate applications from each other and the nucleus of
the OS, such that rarely can bad application code have bad effects on
processes outside the address space assigned to that application - and
this is inherently a much more stable and reliable architecture. WinNT
was the first Microsoft OS to employ this architecture, and W2k is
basically NT5. (See notes below)
2. W98 has a rich and friendly user interface (I understand; I've
used it over the years for a total of about 2 hours). W2k has evolved
further. It has a much richer and friendlier user interface which
subsumes W98's features and offers other display options as well. In
other words, you can make W2k look (and behave) just about identical(ly)
to W98 if you wish.
Notes:
1. "DOS applications" (those written to run under standalone DOS) under
W98 actually run on a real DOS. Under W2k such applications run in a
"virtual DOS environment." Essentially this is a process designed to
intercept certain "dangerous" machine instructions/routines in the app's
instruction stream, execute them under the W2k protective umbrella, and
return the expected results to the application without endangering other
processes also running. Occasionally such a DOS application CANNOT
execute unless it can actually have direct hardware hands-on; such an
application will NOT run under a W2k-class OS. An example of this might
be a diak access routine that itself issues certain low-level controller
or device commands which are serious W2k no-nos.
2. By design, with integrity/reliability/security and other factors in
mind, W2k is MUCH more stringent about and demanding of hardware
tolerances and capabilities. This has all kinds of effects.
Example: RAM that passes BIOS checks and upon which W98 executes more
or less flawlessly may cause W2k to fail to install, or boot, and may
cause system crashes. Older machines/devices, and those provided with
W98 preinstalled, may well be unable to suppost W2k.
Example: ALL motherboard and other device drivers for W2k are unique
and specific to that system. Other drivers simply won't work. Older
mainboards/devices may never have had W2k drivers written for them.
3. Google is a good way to find technical and cosmetic comparisons
between and among various OSs. The web is full of them, although there
are many more dealing with cosmetics (many of which are extremely
important; I mean nothing snide about that word) than there are about
fundamental architectural distinctions. But the detail is all available,
generally to the depth someone might wish to delve, and much of it
written carefully in basic English. As always, the more you know about a
subject the easier it is to learn still more.
4. Cliche: the bottom line is that for a user operating alone or maybe
with a small LAN, moving from W98 to W2k is a very simple affair, and
after a very few hours of familiarization with the occasional new word
and/or the remarkable flexibility of the user interface, that user has
and is comfortable using what can (by choice) appear to be that old
familiar W98 system that magically just keeps going and going...and going...
