Win98 versus 2000, XP, Longhorn, etc.

[Ron May]

I tried replacing notepad.exe with metapad, and found out that this
win2000 system defends itself against such attempts, it just restores
the real notepad.exe.

The Metapad FAQ tells you how to get around this on W2K:

http://www.liquidninja.com/metapad/faq.html#Q17

Similar instructions for WinXP:

http://www.liquidninja.com/metapad/faq.html#Q28

I was able to use the manual "copy/paste" method succesfully a few
years ago on a pre-SP2 version of XPH, but on my latest box with the
Media Center Edition of XP, I had to go the batch file route.

 

[meow2222]

"Specimen under the MS microscope?" Feh, I call sour grapes.

I doubt it

Help me out. I can only find three reasons to avoid MS OSes:
- lack of interest
- not a requirement
- it's a "religious" thing

The rest is black helicopters & tin-foil beanies.

it probably looks that way if youre unaware of the issues. And windows
is not short on issues.


NT

 

[Ron May]

Help me out. I can only find three reasons to avoid MS OSes:
- lack of interest
- not a requirement
- it's a "religious" thing

The rest is black helicopters & tin-foil beanies.

I almost spewed coffee all over my monitor screen. <g>

I do have some empathy for the anti-M$ crowd, these days largely
composed of Linux fans. For years, I was a devoted Commodore and
Amiga user, but things move on. There will always be hobbyists, but
in the real world, M$ is pretty much the only game in town, like it or
not.

One thing worth watching, though, is the emergence of OS-independent
online apps and mobile technologies. As people feel more of a need to
be "connected," the business pattern may morph into something entirely
different from the desktop and laptop dominated model we have now.

 

[ms]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in @m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

2k has a terrible case of spyware. Put your ntfs drive onto 98 and
watch those enormous spy files gobble up space, MS seems weirdly keen
on spying on its customers.

Do you have a URL reference to the spyware statement?

One of the big advantages I understood of W2K over XP was it did not phone
home at all.

Mike Sa

 

[ms]

Howard Schwartz wrote:
...

Below, I've included a couple of ZDLab papers comparing stability and
performance of Win2k to its predecessors. As well, a feature matrix
of the MS OS'provided by ntfs.com.


hth,
-Craig

Uptime study
doc download
<http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/b/5/db5b2495-d913-46c6-b69d-c
5a0c8a78b6f/win2000r.doc> web page
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/news/zdwi
ndows.asp>

Performance study
doc download
<http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/5/f/75fe094b-984f-4661-8e9b-2
89f345eb54d/zdlabtst.doc> web page
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/performan
ce/reports/zdlabs.asp

http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

Thanks, very interesting.

I migrated from W98SE (dying computer) to W2K. I prefer W98SE, W2K is OK,
but lots of my usual settings are more difficult in W2K, W98SE was always
easy to set up. In W2K, Task Manager has so much normal crap listed, it's
useless to me.

Mike Sa

 

[Craig]

I migrated from W98SE (dying computer) to W2K. I prefer W98SE, W2K is OK,
but lots of my usual settings are more difficult in W2K, W98SE was always
easy to set up. In W2K, Task Manager has so much normal crap listed, it's
useless to me.

Mike Sa

Hey Mike;

"more difficult," and "so much normal crap" pretty much sum up the
differences between dos- and ntfs-based oses. <g>

It is a learning curve but that's to be expected. The underlying
technology is more complicated. But give it time...the task manager
example...don't give up looking at it from time to time and googling
what's unfamiliar. It'll start making sense.

Fwiw, the ng microsoft.public.win2000.general has several regulars who
are pretty helpful. You'll notice a lot of the questions are geared
more towards business situations but all stripes are welcome...

-Craig

 

[mike]

"more difficult," and "so much normal crap" pretty much sum up the
differences between dos- and ntfs-based oses. <g>

Hello, Craig

I'm drifting OT here, so don't tell the polizei, but what's the difference
between DOS and other systems.

I ask because in 98, I can get behind the OS and kick it intosubmission
with DOS, even though I've only the barest Dos competence; and other people
use it to do miracles with batch files etc.

And (I theeenk) linux is like dos in that you can get down to bedrock.

But in NTFS, what do you do if the OS jams? Can you get out of it, like a
Dos boot floppy will get you going again, even if only to format and
reinstall!

It's not so much the technicalities of the file system I'm bothered about,
its the getoutofjail abilities; and why I've so far avoided XP

mike

 

[Sparkle]

Silly rabbit, just because you /use/ an MS OS doesn't dictate that
you're having /fun/ with it. And from all indications, Sparkle, it
doesn't look like you're having much fun. Ergo, sour grapes. <vbg>

back to you...

-Specimen

Seems that either:

1) I've been forced to endure Win98 for years, or

2) You're filling the gaps in your reasoning with bits that you conjure up.

 

[Duddits]

But in NTFS, what do you do if the OS jams? Can you get out of it, like a
Dos boot floppy will get you going again, even if only to format and
reinstall!

WinXP is much less likely to jam than Win 9X. NTFS is a much more stable
file system than Fat32/16. In the unlikely event WinXP jams you can use
the recovery console to fix most anything - Just like good ol dos. See
http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2006/2006-06-22.htm#2 for example. There
are many KB articles at Microsoft.com that cover this. I use Gparted live
CD to work with partitions.
http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/04/25/1917228

regards

Dud

 

[Sauli Suikkanen]

I ran mostly 98se up until about 3 months ago. I decided it was time to
use a more modern Windows OS. I have gone to Win 2000 Pro. At this point
in time I have no intention of moving to XP or the up coming Vista.

Oddly it was the GPL'd and freeware softwares, not MS that drove me to
this "upgrade". Because more and more of the main GPL software efforts are
designed to run on Win 2k or above, and if they happen to run on 98, they
aren't supported (Gimp and Scribus spring to mind) Open Office is one of
the exceptions, for now. Supporting larger than 2 GB file sizes were
another reason for my migration.

True, I do lose a real DOS box in the trade off. But I also keep a very
well maintained P166 for that alone, it runs DOS 6.22, WFW 3.11, and '95
very nicely too.

If you have room for more than one computer for your own use, then your
options change for the better, IMO.

As you wrote, it is possible to have multiple operating systems (and
application programs) in a single computer. I have currently Windows
98SE and 2000 installed with separate applications.

I mostly use 98SE, since after both operating systems were configured
to usable and safe state, 98SE is faster in real life scene. This is
because 2000 needs a more comprehensible security application suite
that, besides the many services of the 2000 (that require protection),
uses more system resources than simpler firewall in 98SE. The difference
in 'feel' is not big, but it is enough to keep me almost entirely on
the slightly more responsive 98SE side.

So, provided that appropriate hardware compatibilty and driver support
exists and unless grave security issues come up that cannot be cured
because of unavailable upgrades or separate security solutions, there
should not be absolute necessity to abandon 98, if and when it can be
made peacefully co-exist with the 2000 in the same computer. In my case
this has been accomplished by using only FAT32 filesystems. But this
has meant that there is a need to have competent disk utilities suite
like Norton Utilies or SystemWorks, that can repair file system errors.

 

[Roger Johansson]

Mike Dee wrote:

I made the same change a few weeks ago and so far I am very happy with
the change to win2000pro.

As you wrote, it is possible to have multiple operating systems (and
application programs) in a single computer. I have currently Windows
98SE and 2000 installed with separate applications.

I used a dual boot system for a few years, but I never used the second
system, except when one system crashed and I could repair it from the
other.
After learning to use disk imaging the dual boot system became
unnecessary.

I can run earlier systems anytime I want to, by restoring images of
these systems, it takes less time to restore an image than it takes to
boot.

I mostly use 98SE, since after both operating systems were configured
to usable and safe state, 98SE is faster in real life scene. This is

Win2000 actually feels faster for me.

because 2000 needs a more comprehensible security application suite
that, besides the many services of the 2000 (that require protection),
uses more system resources than simpler firewall in 98SE.

I used kerio for years in win98se, until it caused a problem, then I
changed to zone alarm, which took longer to boot.

Now I use kerio again in win2000 and it works very well, and boots
quickly.
I use Antivir virus checker. Both are freeware and easy to use.
I don't worry much about security issues, with a good backup system
there is no need for that. But this time I let antivir keep its
virusgard running in the background.

The difference
in 'feel' is not big, but it is enough to keep me almost entirely on
the slightly more responsive 98SE side.

I agree that the feel is the same, I just experience win2000 as much
more stable, no kernel page faults or crashes anymore.

So, provided that appropriate hardware compatibilty and driver support
exists and unless grave security issues come up that cannot be cured
because of unavailable upgrades or separate security solutions, there
should not be absolute necessity to abandon 98, if and when it can be
made peacefully co-exist with the 2000 in the same computer. In my case
this has been accomplished by using only FAT32 filesystems.

I chose to keep fat32 file system too, when installing win2000.

But this
has meant that there is a need to have competent disk utilities suite
like Norton Utilies or SystemWorks, that can repair file system errors.

I have used fat32 for many years without any file system errors.

Except maybe when a file is impossible to delete, if that is a file
system fault, that has happened a few times.

I have learnt how to use norton ghost to solve such problems.
Make an image of the partition, use ghost explorer to delete the file
in the image, and restore the system from the image. Partition saving
which is freeware is just as good as ghost when saving and restoring
images, but ghost has the explorer function which I think is valuable.
I can copy files both into and out of an image, like in a zip file.

My main reason for changing from win98se to win2000pro was that I
bought an usb mp3 player, and found that win98se cannot handle such usb
connections reliably.

I was also tired of crashing programs, kernel page faults, and
incompatibility with newer programs, like gimp. Many newer programs are
not available for win98se.

 

[Craig]

Hello, Craig

I'm drifting OT here, so don't tell the polizei, but what's the difference
between DOS and other systems.

Y'know, I'm not so worried about drifting OT as I am trying to sum up
"the difference between DOS and other systems!" I think I'd rather
answer "why's the sky blue." <g> Let's rephrase this as "difference
between dos and Win2k/xp or *nix."

(One prefacing note: The learning curve from win98 to (win2k or xp) is
eased by the similar interfaces. For me, this meant I was able to keep
on using my new system as a regular "joe user" and then, /gradually/,
begin to learn the expanded abilities lurking beneath at my leisure.)


The major differences fall into two catagories: First is the
filesystem, second is what's referred to as a 'kernel.'

-Filesystem security & stability:
DOS' file system has little, if any, capacity for security (ie
accessibility) and stability (ie recovery). Win2k's and *nix's various
filesystems have both to a very fine degree. As a practical example,
this means you determine who accesses your files (& when) and that file
corruption happens less frequently.

-Unprotected vs Protected kernel:
The memory space occupied by DOS' kernel (those executables & drivers
responsible for managing the orchestration of devices & input/output) is
not "protected." As a practical example, this means that a poorly
written device driver (eg a sound or video card) or program can
overwrite parts of the kernel. When this happens, the whole system
either hangs or crashes (and may cause file corruption, viz). In an OS
w/a proteced kernel, this cannot happen (or much more rarely does <g>).

-Serial Computing vs Multi-tasking:
The DOS kernel does one thing at a time and then the next. Win2k's
kernal and Unix's allow for true multitasking. Whether this is a good
thing(tm) depends on whether you are a well-organized person <g>. But
seriously, the raw computing power of your cpu is much more effectively
used in a multi-tasking environment. This means simultaneous use of
several apps are handled much more gracefully (no hangs) and speedily.

-Tuning & Scaling:
Win2k and *nix can be scaled. That is, they can be tuned as an
appliance (eg ATM), a workstation (eg CAD/CAM) or a server (eg Apache).

-Memory Usage:
Last thing that I can think of is memory management. I forget what the
abilities are for DOS in accessing memory (RAM and paged) but they are
very limited compared to win2k & *nix memory management. 3 apps and 3
IE windows open? No problem for either. 10? 20? DOS lags then fails.

What all this means in a day-to-day manner, for me, Mike is that:

~security is much stronger

~file corruption happens less frequently

~misbehaving apps/drivers don't require a reboot or an OS re-install

~a system can be tuned to it's purpose

~the performance scales better with better hardware

I sincerely hope this clarifies more than muddies. And please, next
time would you ask something like "shouldn't the US have won the
E-league match against Ghana yesterday???"

(damn right it should've.)

-Craig

 

[Roger Johansson]

The major differences fall into two catagories: First is the
filesystem, second is what's referred to as a 'kernel.'

The filesystem is not a part of the operating system.

You can run DOS in many different file systems, and you can run Win2000
in many different file systems. I run Win2000 in a Fat32 file system,
for example.

Choosing a file system and choosing an operating system are two
separate choices.
(unless the operating system forces you to use a certain file system)

-Serial Computing vs Multi-tasking:
The DOS kernel does one thing at a time and then the next. Win2k's
kernal and Unix's allow for true multitasking. Whether this is a good
thing(tm) depends on whether you are a well-organized person <g>. But
seriously, the raw computing power of your cpu is much more effectively
used in a multi-tasking environment. This means simultaneous use of
several apps are handled much more gracefully (no hangs) and speedily.

If you have only one CPU (processor) in your computer no "real
multitasking" is possible, there are only different software solutions
available which allow something that looks like multitasking, with
different degrees of success.

In DOS I used Desqview for 5 years, running a BBS system simultaneously
with my own use of the computer. So multitasking in DOS is no problem.

Win2000 probably handles multitasking better than Win98 because it is a
more modern OS but not because it uses more "real" multitasking than
Win98.

-Memory Usage:

This is where the big difference is. Win98se has faulty memory
handling, which often leads to crashes. Win2000 has a much better
handling of the memory.

"shouldn't the US have won the E-league match against Ghana yesterday???"

(damn right it should've.)

The industrialized part of the world will slip further behind in fields
like sports compared to the third world where people move their bodies
more.
We will find new ways to compete, like in reading comprehension,
thinking rationally, debating, programming, etc..

 

[Zepos]

Seriously off topic, be warned!

The industrialized part of the world will slip further behind in fields
like sports compared to the third world where people move their bodies
more.

African teams are not doing well in the football (soccer for
North-Americans) worldcup at all, with only Ghana surviving the first
round of the finals currently held in Germany. Out are Angola, Ivory
Coast, Tunesia and Togo. Tunesia ("Arabic" African) qualified from a
group with Guinea, Kenya, Botswana and Malawi (black African).

Zepos

 

[bambam]

You can run DOS in many different file systems, and you can run Win2000
in many different file systems. I run Win2000 in a Fat32 file system,
for example.

I have two installs of WinXP on this computer, Home and Pro. They are both
on Fat32 partitions. The install that I am currently on is WinXPPro SP1 on
a 1.2GB Fat32 partition with about 50% free, no IE, OE, or Media Player.
Now for the part that makes my post on topic. The above was achieved
with the excellent freeware program nLite-

http://www.nliteos.com/

Computers are my hobby, not my job, and I like WinXP best.

 

[badgolferman]

Craig, 6/23/2006, 2:08:31 AM,

Thanks for a well-written description of some major differences.

The major differences fall into two catagories: First is the
filesystem, second is what's referred to as a 'kernel.'

-Filesystem security & stability:
DOS' file system has little, if any, capacity for security (ie
accessibility) and stability (ie recovery). Win2k's and *nix's
various filesystems have both to a very fine degree. As a practical
example, this means you determine who accesses your files (& when)
and that file corruption happens less frequently.

Whether this is a function of the OS or the filesystem I am not sure,
but NTFS for Windows has made my life much easier in protecting
file/folder permissions across network shares.

-Unprotected vs Protected kernel:
The memory space occupied by DOS' kernel (those executables & drivers
responsible for managing the orchestration of devices & input/output)
is not "protected." As a practical example, this means that a poorly
written device driver (eg a sound or video card) or program can
overwrite parts of the kernel. When this happens, the whole system
either hangs or crashes (and may cause file corruption, viz). In an
OS w/a proteced kernel, this cannot happen (or much more rarely does
<g>).

In my mind this is the single most important difference between W9.x
and W2K/WXP systems. The reliability of the modern OS has improved
dramatically. Sometimes I could live without the Windows File
Protection but there are ways to get around that.

-Serial Computing vs Multi-tasking:
The DOS kernel does one thing at a time and then the next. Win2k's
kernal and Unix's allow for true multitasking. Whether this is a
good thing(tm) depends on whether you are a well-organized person
<g>. But seriously, the raw computing power of your cpu is much more
effectively used in a multi-tasking environment. This means
simultaneous use of several apps are handled much more gracefully (no
hangs) and speedily.

I have become used to having browser, e-mail, newsreader, game, CAD,
etc. all open at the same time and having them working themselves in
the background.

-Memory Usage:
Last thing that I can think of is memory management. I forget what
the abilities are for DOS in accessing memory (RAM and paged) but
they are very limited compared to win2k & *nix memory management. 3
apps and 3 IE windows open? No problem for either. 10? 20? DOS
lags then fails.

There is still room for improvement in this category.

 

[charles]

If you have only one CPU (processor) in your computer no "real
multitasking" is possible, there are only different software solutions
available which allow something that looks like multitasking, with
different degrees of success.

In DOS I used Desqview for 5 years, running a BBS system simultaneously
with my own use of the computer. So multitasking in DOS is no problem.

Win2000 probably handles multitasking better than Win98 because it is a
more modern OS but not because it uses more "real" multitasking than
Win98.

You may be confusing multitasking with parallel processing.

refs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computing

To my mind the key issue in this area is whether the OS is
cooperatively or preemptively multitasking. Since all modern OS's do
preemptive multitasking, the issue is moot today.

 

[Craig]

Craig wrote:




The filesystem is not a part of the operating system.

Duly noted and thank you Roger.

You can run DOS in many different file systems, and you can run Win2000
in many different file systems. I run Win2000 in a Fat32 file system,
for example.

Certainly, there are myriad permutations. However, for the sake of
answering Mike's question, these would be a digression. IOW, moving to
win2k or xp w/o moving to ntfs -/in general/- leaves behind too many
advantages to be recommended. Unless there are specific requirements,
which, again, were beyond the scope I'd hoped to address.

If you have only one CPU (processor) in your computer no "real
multitasking" is possible, there are only different software solutions
available which allow something that looks like multitasking, with
different degrees of success.

As mentioned by Charles, it looks as if you've mistaken multi-threading
for multi-tasking. Multi-tasking is a milestone that can be used
effectively by 5.x kernels but not DOS.

-Craig

 

[Roger Johansson]

As mentioned by Charles, it looks as if you've mistaken multi-threading
for multi-tasking. Multi-tasking is a milestone that can be used
effectively by 5.x kernels but not DOS.

There are different ways to handle multitasking but there is no "real
multitasking" possible as long as you have only one CPU in the
computer.

 

[Craig]

Craig wrote:




There are different ways to handle multitasking but there is no "real
multitasking" possible as long as you have only one CPU in the
computer.

OK Roger;

I get it. I should've said "...pre-emptive multitasking, commonly
referred to as 'multitasking.'"

thank you,
-Craig