What to buy: Windows 2000 Pro or Windows Me?

lost_soul on 11/12/2009 at 02:09

I want to buy a version of Windows that is guaranteed not to stop functioning at some point when they shut off the activation servers. This will be used for gaming *only*. I know Windows 98/Me were targeted at home users for multimedia, but I don't think they can handle a gig of ram, which is what most of my (even old) machines have in them.

So, do games run well in Windows 2000? I seem to recall gaming in NT4.0 being utter crap, complete with very laggy sound and poor 3d support. Was Directx 9 released for Windows 2000?

Renzatic on 11/12/2009 at 03:00

Windows 2000 Pro all the way. It's a lighter, thinner, slightly earlier version of Windows XP, and can thus support just about everything it does. You might run into a couple of problems with the occasional newer game, but it shouldn't throw anything your way that can't be fixed with a bit of tweakery.

And yes, DX9 was released for Win2k.

Enchantermon on 11/12/2009 at 04:36

Anything other than Me. Windows Me was crap.

bikerdude on 11/12/2009 at 09:41

Quote Posted by lost_soul

I want to buy a version of Windows that is guaranteed not to stop functioning at some point when they shut off the activation servers. Was Directx 9 released for Windows 2000?

...if you have only 2k or Me to choose from then 2k, Me is to be avoided at ALL costs...!!! But then there is Tiny Xp (drop me a PM) and yes DX9 is available for Win2k - (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=2DA43D38-DB71-4C1B-BC6A-9B6652CD92A3&displaylang=en) link

Al_B on 11/12/2009 at 18:22

Agree with Win2k if you're forced to make a choice between those two.

Is there a particular reason for being worried about the activation servers being turned off? You'll probably have much bigger problems with hardware drivers not being available as time goes on.

Matthew on 11/12/2009 at 18:24

And you can always call your local Microsoft office to authenticate anyway, no? I did that for XP.

baeuchlein on 12/12/2009 at 14:53

Quote Posted by lost_soul

I know Windows 98/Me were targeted at home users for multimedia, but I don't think they can handle a gig of ram, which is what most of my (even old) machines have in them.

Win98SE can use up to 512 MB of RAM. Above that, there are no guarantees. Sometimes, it can handle more, but usually 1 GB is the maximum you may be able to use.

One of my machines has 1 GB of RAM inside, but if Win98SE is running, only 512 MB can really be used. The rest has to be hidden from the prying eyes of Windows' memory manager, unless you like to run into problems. It was possible to give 256 MB to Windows' file cache, so they're not totally wasted in Win98SE.

Another machine has 1,2 GB RAM inside and, to my surprise, was able to use about 1 GB of that with Win98SE. The rest (about 256 MB) ended up in the file caching program's greedy hands, once again.

Some machines allow you to use only 512 MB RAM for programs, others run fine with more, but you can't be certain before you tried. And you have to manipulate the SYSTEM.INI file in any case if you have more than 512 MB RAM built into your machine. But AFAIK, it should be possible to get the system up and running with 1 GB or more inside and Win98SE.

I don't know what's up with WinME, but since it's more or less a newer version of the Win9x product line, one might assume that the situation is similar to the one in the Win98 realm.

Keep in mind, though, that any CPU faster than about 1.8 to 2.2 GHz will cause problems in Win98SE. Such machines are "too fast" for 98. Again, I can't tell you whether the situation has improved with WinME.

bikerdude on 12/12/2009 at 16:59

Quote Posted by baeuchlein

Win98SE can use up to 512 MB of RAM. Above that, there are no guarantees. Sometimes, it can handle more, but usually 1 GB is the maximum you may be able to use.

Er no.. Win98se can handle 2.0GB of memory, what your probably thinking about is the bug in plain Win98 with memory over 512mb

baeuchlein on 12/12/2009 at 23:21

Quote Posted by Bikerdude

Er no.. Win98se can handle 2.0GB of memory, what your probably thinking about is the bug in plain Win98 with memory over 512mb

When I acquired several RAM modules some months ago, two of my computers crossed the 512 MB barrier. Both of them were running Win98SE (and other operating systems), and both exhibited strange crashes and error messages which were not present before.

Back then, I read about a bug preventing Win98 (including Second Edition) from using more than 512 MB RAM. After reading on, I changed (or rather added) two entries in the SYSTEM.INI file, one to prevent Win98SE from "seeing too much memory" (MaxPhysPage=40000 in section [386Enh]), and another to handle a problem with one of Windows' drivers (Virtual File Cache, I think; the entries are MinFileCache=262144 and MaxFileCache=262144 in section [vcache]). It was not enough to just address one of these two issues, I had to enter all three lines (or variations of them).

However, one of the two computers worked without any problem when allowing it to "see" (via MaxPhysPage) about 1 GB RAM (but not the whole 1,2 gigabytes), while the other needed to be restricted to "seeing" only 512 MB RAM until the machine worked again with Win98SE.

Therefore, I think that Win98SE can still have problems with more than 512 MB RAM.

Al_B on 12/12/2009 at 23:35

512MB was the maximum amount of memory I came across when Win98 was around and I can't remember having to deal with a computer that had more. However, two seconds on google (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/333688.html) brought up this thread which suggests that versions of Windows from 95 to ME may have the problems you've seen.