Elliot B. Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Which would run faster and more efficiently on this laptop, Windows 98 SE (Unofficial SP2.0.1) or Windows 2000 SP4? Intel Pentium III 500 MHz 128 MB PC100 SD-RAM ATi Rage Mobility (8 MB) 12 GB HDD 8x DVD 1024x768x32 (75 Hz) It currently has Windows XP SP2 on it with all visual effects disabled and it's still slow. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/323123-which-os-would-run-faster/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 NiceCarpet Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Windows 2000 Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/323123-which-os-would-run-faster/page/2/#findComment-585954618 Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Japlabot Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 (edited) King Mustard said: Which would run faster and more efficiently on this laptop, Windows 98 SE (Unofficial SP2.0.1) or Windows 2000 SP4?Intel Pentium III 500 MHz 128 MB PC100 SD-RAM ATi Rage Mobility (8 MB) 12 GB HDD 8x DVD 1024x768x32 (75 Hz) It currently has Windows XP SP2 on it with all visual effects disabled and it's still slow. 585954023[/snapback] That's strange because I've got a laptop with: Intel Celeron 500 MHz 64 MB PC100 SD-RAM ATi Rage Mobility (4 MB) 6 GB HDD 24x CD-ROM 800x600x32 (60 Hz) (As you can see it's worse in every way, but pretty simular) Well anyway, I have Windows XP Pro SP2 and it FLIES. Absolutely fast, it gets into Windows in less than 30 seconds. If Windows XP without the theme service is too slow, Windows 2000 would be just as bad. Windows 98 (With Unofficial SP or not) is just too unstable I have only the following programs installed: Daemon Tools Mozilla Firefox Media Player Classic Teamspeak MSN Messenger JCreator(Java Programming) Microsoft Word 2003 All without a problem I have most visual effects disabled, but I do have Cleartype (You won't find that in Windows 2000, absolutely essential for LCDs!), Menu Shadows, Cursor Shadows, Translucent selection rectangle, Window dragging (as oppose to an outline), Icon shadows on desktop. I have the following services configuration, this would probably help rather than putting on 2K or 98... Edited May 22, 2005 by Quick Reply Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/323123-which-os-would-run-faster/page/2/#findComment-585954625 Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Denis W. Veteran Posted May 22, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 22, 2005 )(RockerBoy said: Windows ME would own that pc,lol just kidding another vote for 2000 585954331[/snapback] Don't get me started on Windows ME. That OS doesn't deserve to exist: they should've made the last 9X OS Windows 98 SE. Plus, Microsoft's attempts to shove DOS under the covers just failed. They only irritated me when it refused to load the crappy Real Mode DOS drivers (that powered my all-in-one sound and modem card in my old PC :p) that loaded just fine under Windows 95/98. I remember those days when Internet Explorer used to crash on completely random intervals :no: Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/323123-which-os-would-run-faster/page/2/#findComment-585954842 Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Kaska Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 2000 just has a much better kernel, that is far upgraded from the windows 9x kernel line. I'd say 2k just because of the better kernel, and updated will be supported for longer also. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/323123-which-os-would-run-faster/page/2/#findComment-585954856 Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 AJerman Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Thanks for posting that Quick Reply. That's what I was trying to say with my post as well, if 2k runs, XP will run, they are basically the same thing but XP has more fancy stuff running on top. My grandparent's recently got another computer from an Uncle that is just a spare and is being put upstairs for visitors to use. It's P3 700 with either 256 or 512 MB of RAM (don't remember now), and I just put Win2K3 on it. Good solid OS with no BS that allows me to put a lot of restictions on it as a workstation so people can use it all they want and not mess it up. It runs beautifully. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/323123-which-os-would-run-faster/page/2/#findComment-585954864 Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 +Warwagon MVC Posted May 22, 2005 MVC Share Posted May 22, 2005 BeOS err wait thats not on the list Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/323123-which-os-would-run-faster/page/2/#findComment-585954881 Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 AJerman Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 warwagon said: BeOS err wait thats not on the list 585954881[/snapback] Haha, it's Zeta now, get it right :p Actually, that is a pretty impressive little multimedia OS. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/323123-which-os-would-run-faster/page/2/#findComment-585954914 Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 THE BAT Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Another vote for windows 2000 Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/323123-which-os-would-run-faster/page/2/#findComment-585955659 Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Slugbait Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 The Pentium III is based on the P6 architecture (as was the Pentium II). The P6 architecture was designed specifically with Windows NT in mind. This is why NT operating systems will run apps and games considerably faster on your machine than the 9x operating systems would. If you were to install on a P5 machine, you would notice the opposite: apps and games on the 9x OS would be faster. I believe there are still some hardware and games that W2K has problems with. If you have an issue like this, you may wish to use Win98. Otherwise, here's another vote for W2K. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/323123-which-os-would-run-faster/page/2/#findComment-585957030 Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 GOHARD Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 win 2000 all the way Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/323123-which-os-would-run-faster/page/2/#findComment-585957581 Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Slimy Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 i would just cut down windows xp with nlite, disable a ton of services, do some tweaks, keep it minimal. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/323123-which-os-would-run-faster/page/2/#findComment-585958060 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
Elliot B.
Which would run faster and more efficiently on this laptop, Windows 98 SE (Unofficial SP2.0.1) or Windows 2000 SP4?
Intel Pentium III 500 MHz
128 MB PC100 SD-RAM
ATi Rage Mobility (8 MB)
12 GB HDD
8x DVD
1024x768x32 (75 Hz)
It currently has Windows XP SP2 on it with all visual effects disabled and it's still slow.
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/323123-which-os-would-run-faster/Share on other sites
36 answers to this question
Recommended Posts