W2K vs Win98SE, why switch

[JFP]

I hate to bring this topic up as I am sure it has been discussed in the past and I have missed it OR I already have the information stored in my organic computer (brain) but it's now in a hidden/deleted/forgotten folder.
Which is the better system, perhaps faster, for gaming (mainly flight sims)and light business applications, and moderate surfing?
I built this computer starting in April, and could only afford W98se at that time and have not had any major nor minor problems--that I know of or can positively identify. It does, on occasion, become unstable and has to be rebooted. Occasionally, while surfing, I will lose communication with the website, but I think that is my ISP--even though they say it is w98.
Surfing: I like Netscape but use IE5.5 too.
Business; stuff is really simple text files and databases
Sims: Lots:CFS,CFS2,Jane's(several),FlSim 2000, hopefully Santa will bring FS2002, Crimson Skies, IL2 etc.
Computer specs:T-brd 1.2/266,512mb/2100,LeadtekGF3,2/Maxtor 30G DMax+, Promise FT100tx4 striped 0,Plext.24/40,Nokia 21"mon.
Any suggestions/reasons to change/input appreciated.
If I do the change over it will NOT be an upgrade but a clean install. And XP is out for now, still has to many bugs.
Thanks for all the replies and info. When I do this I will make w2k the main os. Duel boot sounds like a plan and I had contemplated the setup earlier, but an to lazy now to mess with it.
To Ladogaboy: North of Chico, South of Oregon, in the foothills. That's the best I can do for now.

[sbp]

I stopped using Win98 a year and half ago. Win2k has better stability. How about not rebooting for weeks? Win2k has more robust networking than 98. Games play fine under Win2k.

Win2k does need more system resources like ram than 98 to run well.

If your happy with 98se, stay with it and maybe try out a dual boot with Win2k.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by sbp
How about not rebooting for weeks?


Haha... I've done that in 98 and Me... no problems... it is scary how stable my system is. :shifty:

I also haven't made the plunge yet, but I think I might go with Win2k, just because... that's it, just because...

Oh, and one reason I would suggest for going to Win2k or Xp is that you can run dual processors... if you are doing video editing or photoshop or whatnot...

[Ladogaboy]

Oh, and JFP, where in "Far Northern Calif." are you?

[Memo]

w2k is really a preference. I think there is no need to upgade from 98se to w2k. Stability, schmability, if you're going to use your computer as a server or maybe use some memory-intense programs then W2k might be an option. Most people do not leave their computer on for weeks. MOST people will reboot once in a while. I really see no need for it. If you plan on formatting anyways, you can give W2K a try and see how you like it.

[Ladogaboy]

Okay guys, this is on a similar subject. I know there has already been a thread about 2K verses XP and I really think that I personally would rather go with 2K because I want to use it in a Dual CPU computer... I don't think I really have any use for some of the other XP features...

Anyway, my question is, what, exactly, is the difference between the OEM and the Retail versions of Win2K.. I was looking at the OEM, and it looked like it had everything that I needed: the CD and License. Is there any reason why I would want to get the Retail version instead?

Also, one of the places I was looking said that it came with a distribution pack... Does that mean that I can use it for other people? From time to time, I build systems for friends, and I'm sure it would be much cheaper than buying an entirely new OS everytime I built a new computer.

[artslave]

what, exactly, is the difference between the OEM and the Retail versions of Win2K
Nothing except for the shiny colourful box. Usually you have to buy a significant piece of hardware to buy the OEM version but Microsoft adjusted their policy on that when they released XP. You can now buy something as inexpensive as a $10 mouse and get the OEM version. As far as the actual software it's exactly the same.

Is there any reason why I would want to get the Retail version instead?
Nope, I always go OEM. It's the same darn software, it's cheaper than the retail upgrade and you don't have to fart around with old Windows CD's to prove you're worthy to own and install the upgrade. As far as buying the "Full Retail Package" I haven't been that foolish with my money since Windows95 :D

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by artslave

Nothing except for the shiny colourful box. Usually you have to buy a significant piece of hardware to buy the OEM version but Microsoft adjusted their policy on that when they released XP. You can now buy something as inexpensive as a $10 mouse and get the OEM version. As far as the actual software it's exactly the same.

Nope, I always go OEM. It's the same darn software, it's cheaper than the retail upgrade and you don't have to fart around with old Windows CD's to prove you're worthy to own and install the upgrade. As far as buying the "Full Retail Package" I haven't been that foolish with my money since Windows95 :D

Okay, thanks...

Yeah, I noticed that thing about buying hardware with it as well. I'm thinking of going with Win2K, and it seems to have the same policy as XP. :D

If I need anything hardware-wise, I'll probably pick that up with it, otherwise, I could always use another mouse. :P