OSDev.org

Hello,

I've been using Win98SE for years, but I've noticed many new applications do not work properly or at all on it. I'm considering an update to Windows 2000. I can't install a newer version than that because of hardware performance.

So, if you have used both Win98SE and Win2k Pro, how would you grade them both on stability?

How much RAM does Win2k Pro really use (from your own experience, not MS official reports)?

Can I install it on the primary partition and still be able to access the other FAT32 partitions (some being extended FAT32) without a problem?
Also, will the setup directly convert the primary partition to NTFS or should I format it manually before executing the setup?

Is there a "Boot to MS-DOS" option at startup like in Win9x where I could run programs in real mode?

Is the ACL (access control lists) in NTFS similar to RWX permissions in Unix-like systems? Does NTFS 3.0 (Win2k) support it? The few times I used WinXP (which has NTFS 3.1), I couldn't find many more filesystem features than in Win9x (other than quotas).
Also does ACL support the same or a similar owner/group/others division as Unix-like systems?

Thank you for your time.

ManOfSteel wrote:
Is there a "Boot to MS-DOS" option at startup like in Win9x where I could run programs in real mode?

nope

ManOfSteel wrote:So, if you have used both Win98SE and Win2k Pro, how would you grade them both on stability?

Win2k is just like WinXP without these fancey color schemes, of course some extra functions are ripped off. Win98 runs atop DOS kernel, Win2k on a stable (if configured rite) NT kernel. If you want real stability, use WinNT 4.0. Its fast and light, plus I like the '95 style; but its somewhat harder to config than Win2k and you won't run new programs (starting from Win2k) on it.

ManOfSteel wrote:Can I install it on the primary partition and still be able to access the other FAT32 partitions (some being extended FAT32) without a problem?

Sure.

ManOfSteel wrote:Also, will the setup directly convert the primary partition to NTFS or should I format it manually before executing the setup?

You should be able to reformat/repartition the HDD directly in the setup program, but be warned, you may lose all data on your disk. WinXP has absolutely no problems installing on a FAT32 partition, so Win2000 shouldn't be a exception.

ManOfSteel wrote:Is there a "Boot to MS-DOS" option at startup like in Win9x where I could run programs in real mode?

No.

Regards
inflater

Windows 2000 doesn't run all applications either, due to lack of proper directx 9 support (for which you'll need XP or better).

So really, you should consider getting a new (second-hand) box, which is able to run XP properly (P3+, 128MB+ ram, 40GB+ HD, GeForce 3+), it should set you back about ~€100 (depending on how good you are at haggling) but would at least get you somewhat up to date. I doubt you want a brand new €1100 high-end, but if you want a machine that lasts at least the next seven years, you may want to think about it.
_________________

Is there a "Boot to MS-DOS" option at startup like in Win9x where I could run programs in real mode?

No.

How about dualbooting '98 and 2k? I expect w2k's bootloader to be capable of it.

Combuster wrote:How about dualbooting '98 and 2k? I expect w2k's bootloader to be capable of it.

I would suggest to back up all important data, destroy the W2k partition, FDISK a new one for Win98 (FAT32) and for e.g. user data (its better to use fat32) and then install Win98 and configure it. Then he has to install Win2k...

Win98 overwrites the disk MBR I think, plus it must be installed on first primary -separate- partition... Then after installing Win2k, NTLDR will add two boot options: Win98 and Win2k.

The easy way is DOSbox, but its not for slow computers though

ManOfSteel wrote:So, if you have used both Win98SE and Win2k Pro, how would you grade them both on stability?

Win2K is an order of magnitude more stable than 98 was to me. The only time I've ever seen it crash or bluescreen is because the hardware was retarded or had bad drivers. Applications have probably caused it to crash only a couple of times in over four years of use for me.

How much RAM does Win2k Pro really use (from your own experience, not MS official reports)?

By itself, a paltry amount. Even with tons of applications running, my system rarely went over 200MB (as claimed by Windows anyway, it's not always reliable). I think the recommended specs are 64MB, and I'm certain you've got that much (or can get it).

Can I install it on the primary partition and still be able to access the other FAT32 partitions (some being extended FAT32) without a problem?
Also, will the setup directly convert the primary partition to NTFS or should I format it manually before executing the setup?

Win2K can read FAT32 no problem, I had an install of it running on FAT32 for nearly four years (I had to upgrade in place to NTFS to support >4GB files). I think setup gives you the option of formatting as FAT32 or NTFS, but I can't recall. Either way, if you format it as FAT32 outside of setup, it can install right onto it.

Is there a "Boot to MS-DOS" option at startup like in Win9x where I could run programs in real mode?

As has been said, afraid not. There is no longer any DOS component in Windows 2000 / XP / Vista. They're built on an entirely different kernel. On the other hand, they do still have a command line, but it is run inside of the OS. If you still need DOS, you can install Win98 or DOS onto a separate partition and set up Windows to allow you to boot into it. I know it's possible, but I'm afraid I don't know the specifics of it.

Is the ACL (access control lists) in NTFS similar to RWX permissions in Unix-like systems? Does NTFS 3.0 (Win2k) support it? The few times I used WinXP (which has NTFS 3.1), I couldn't find many more filesystem features than in Win9x (other than quotas).
Also does ACL support the same or a similar owner/group/others division as Unix-like systems?

Sort of. I don't think NTFS supports the same ACL functionality of Unix filesystem variants, but I'm certain it does support some subset of it. I've never used it before, but I know that Windows was giving me fits once when I was trying to copy files off of another hard drive, telling me that I didn't have permission to do so (or something like that). If you're running as an administrator, I think you can set permissions like that, but again, I don't know specifically how. Also, this may not have been completely supported in Win2K, as I just might have been working from XP and forgot.

Thank you everybody.

Is it possible to restrict access to files with NTFS? For example, user1 can open folders X, Y and Z while user2 can only open folder X.

inflater wrote:Win2k is just like WinXP without these fancey color schemes

That suits me fine. Color schemes are the last thing I'd ask for.

inflater wrote:of course some extra functions are ripped off

Like what for example?

Combuster wrote:Windows 2000 doesn't run all applications either, due to lack of proper directx 9 support

I'm not sure I follow. I have DX 9.0b installed on Win98SE. Do you mean Win2k has problems running programs using DX 9.0?

Combuster wrote:So really, you should consider getting a new (second-hand) box, which is able to run XP properly (P3+, 128MB+ ram, 40GB+ HD, GeForce 3+)

Don't you need at least 256MB RAM for the OS alone?

Telgin wrote:By itself, a paltry amount. Even with tons of applications running, my system rarely went over 200MB (as claimed by Windows anyway, it's not always reliable). I think the recommended specs are 64MB, and I'm certain you've got that much (or can get it).

I have 128 MB.

Telgin wrote:If you're running as an administrator, I think you can set permissions like that

As far as I can see, when WinXP has just been installed, there are no users. How would you log in as administrator? Does WinXP automatically create an administrator account that is invisible by default?

There is DirectX 9 for Windows 2000.

As far as I can see, when WinXP has just been installed, there are no users. How would you log in as administrator? Does WinXP automatically create an administrator account that is invisible by default?

XP has a normal Administrator account and on the first boot you create a named Admin account.

You can login with the regular old Administrator by using the 'classic' login window rather than the XP user list view login.

ManOfSteel wrote:

Combuster wrote:Windows 2000 doesn't run all applications either, due to lack of proper directx 9 support

I'm not sure I follow. I have DX 9.0b installed on Win98SE. Do you mean Win2k has problems running programs using DX 9.0?

I recently got a box with a win2k licence attached onto it. So naturally, I used it However, I recall having a very hard time locating an updated directx, and the downloads that I did find refused to install.

Why don't you use Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs (WinFLP)? It's based of Windows XP Embedded (a.k.a. modular Windows XP where you can add/remove OS and kernel components, and optimised for low-end slow and/or memory-starved devices), but put together to form a fully runnable Windows system.

From Wikipedia:

# Consumes by default less RAM than full Windows XP Professional
# Supports most 2000/XP applications
# Supports basic networking features
# Supports most 2000/XP drivers
# Updates older machines to modern security specifications
# Supports DirectX (Installed with Media Support / DirectX upon OS installation)
[ sniped more from here ]

* Pentium class processor 233 MHz (300 MHz recommended)
* 64 MB RAM (128 MB recommended)
* 500 MB HDD (1 GB recommended)
* 800x600 or higher display resolution

Thank you. Most of my questions have been answered.

But I still need answers to my security-related question. How would you protect files in a multi-user environment?

ucosty wrote:XP has a normal Administrator account and on the first boot you create a named Admin account.

I don't know about that as I've never installed it myself. But some computers I've seen have no visible users (admin or not), no user listview, no login window and the Start > Log off button has no user name next to it.

Hi,

Yes - on NTFS you can restrict access on a folder-by-folder basis. I believe (although it is a while since I have done network admin) that this is easier if you are using network Domains (I think you get more options). There also used to be a disk that came with Win2K called the 'high encryption pack' that gave you a few more security options too.

I believe that if you install users with appropriate permissions, their 'My Documents' space is automatically protected from anyone other than admins anyway.

Cheers,
Adam

MessiahAndrw wrote:Why don't you use Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs (WinFLP)?

According to Microsoft you can only get it if you are a Microsoft Software Assurance customer.

Microsoft Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, available exclusively to Microsoft Software Assurance customers,

The following Volume Licensing programs are eligible for this benefit:

# Select License Software Assurance Membership
# Enterprise Agreement
# Enterprise Subscription Agreement