Well, Windows 98 is no longer supported by Microsoft, any new programs, and most, if not all hardware. The 9x code base it uses is practically unsupported these days, so using it is rather unwise. Windows 2000 is also a bit old, but the NT code it uses is much more robust than 98. While you might find that some upcoming games (like Crysis) won't support it, anything for Windows out today should run on Win2k. Also, it's still supported by Microsoft. The installation is different for each, but neither are that difficult. There's less to do with Windows 2000's setup than 98's.
2000 is great. Ive had far less trouble with it than XP. For what I use a computer the only difference to XP is how it looks. Ive not come across anything which wont work on it. Other than a couple of MIDI programs for 9x. It requires half the RAM of XP too which is a bonus. I only use 98 on comuters which are too slow for nt. ie my 133mhz thinkpad!
Windows 98 is based of the 9x line of windows. Its from the DOS and windows 3.1 etc line. It is not 100% 32 bit and does not have some of the fundamantal features of a modern OS. Windows 2000 is NT. This was designed in the early 90's to be used on business computers and servers. Windows 2000 is NT 5 and is very stable. It does not have any DOS layer and is completely 32 bit. Windows XP is NT 5.1. It uses an enhanced windows 2000 kernel and comes with more features for home pc use. Windows 2000/XP are from a completely different code base than windows 95/98/Me. It does however need a more powerfull PC. A minimum of 256MB RAM and 500MHz CPU. Some software for windows 98 wont work with 2000/XP. 2000/XP uses a different driver model so you will need to find new drivers for your hardware.
put simply Win3.1 was basically a GUI for DOS, 95 is suppose to be better than 3.1 cos they said (MS) it was 32bit, actually it did a goot act of a 32bit OS, 98 i think was 32bit, Me virtually is 98 (apart from a few minor GUI differences) 2k then changed all the rules, but i think 2k was more of a "stop gap" for XP (their daddy OS) and no their easy to install
huh? Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1(1), 3.2(yes there was a version 3.2) to put simply was a 16 bit GUI extension to DOS which was also 16 bit. Windows 95(4.0), 98(4.1), and ME(4.9) were basially a enhanced 32 bit OS that build on the old 16 bit DOS system. The 9x line was not fully 32 bit. There were plenty of 16 bit components in them. Its one of the reasons DOS games worked so well on them. Windows 98 was not fully 32 bit and does not have all the features of a modern kernel. ME tried to stip out the DOS layer but suffed horribly in stability. Windows NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51 were a new 32-bit OS that took the GUI of windows 3.1 and had an extended 32 bit API which was designed to be compatible with windows 3.1 programs(in that a windows 3.1 app will run on it). There is no 16 bit DOS system in this OS line. Windows NT 4.0 took the windows 95 GUI and enhanced the API. Essentialy at this point NT 4.0 could run most windows 95 programs as the API's were so similar. Windows 2000(NT 5) was a enhanced NT 4 that took some of the GUI enhancements from windows 98 and made a rock solid desktop and server OS. This has the ability to run DirectX games in full which earler versions of NT lacked. Its a very good desktop OS and can run most software form the 9x era. Windows XP(NT 5.1) was a slightly enhanced windows 2000 kernel all wraped up in a enhanced GUI. There was a home version that was designed to take over form windows 9x on the home desktop. Windows Vista(NT 6.0) is a more modern NT kernel. It has new new driver model for graphics and a new DirectX(10.0). It also has DRM built right into the OS. So you can see there was two lines of windows, the 9x line based form DOS/windows 3.1 and the NT line which is full 32 bit modern OS. I hope that has sorted that out.
Random is correct... Microsoft had this vision in the 90's that Businesses would use the Windows NT(and Windows NT server) operating system(NT has more security) and home users would use the Windows 3.1/95 operating systems, and there would always be sort of a separate track for both. Remember, there was a price difference between NT and 95. Business users(CEO's pushing CIO's) took that marketing strategy and trashed it, MS found out that CIO's installed Win'95 for their userbase, it was cheaper to install, and no difference between what a home user sees at the desktop at home, and what that home user sees when they get to work, so less training. As you see, XP and in the future, Vista, are one operating system environment for all... BTW, I do not work for MS!
