98 to 2000

Put a windows 2000 CD in and follow the onscreen instructions to upgrade! Simple as that!

Add another hard disk and dual boot.

Then you have a choice!

You could always try doing a search for *.SAV files on the local C drive which should bring up all CM saved games. Then burn them onto CD or copy them to a slave Hard Drive and then format and install 2000. Why not XP???? Thats even gonna be outta date next year when Vista comes along. Good luck anyway.

Stick with 98, it was by far & away the most reliable version of windows (sp5)!
Complete ****** since then.

AndyMac i beg to differ 98 was a great leap forward from 95 but it is so unstable. Get a driver wrong for a pheriperal and it crashes. Uninstall somehthing and likely it will crash. 98 is crap mate and you always have to monitor the hardrive and make sure you regularly defrag or it will crash. XP isnt perfect not by a long shot but compared to 98 its leaps and bounds ahead. I'm looking forward to Vista being available next year myself so see what happens then but as far as OS goes the more recent the better especially to take advantage of todays technology.

I was referring to running 98 sp5 on a feeble P3 600 which probably only has 256MB RAM and trying to get Win2K to run on the same machine.
Yes XP is better but only if you're running it on a machine from this millenium.
98 is great if you have a limited spec machine.
As for crashing, I can make Win2K crash at will. Deinstall software and it's still there in the registry, open/close PShop a few times and the O/S runs out of memory, ummm very impressive memory management!

Ah ok i see. Yeah must admit 2000 aint great either BSOD all the time on it! PC's are extremely cheap so there really is no reason why people should be using technology which is pre 2000. Go on TQS spoil yourself....for a couple of hundred quid you can get something much better /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

win 2k runs just fine on my P3 700MHz. My laptop was built for Win95. I skipped Win98 completley. I agree it would struggle to run XP but there are still loads of machines loaded up with Xp with little processor speed.

From MS

Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional
• PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

• 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

• 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

• Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor

• CD-ROM or DVD drive

• Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

However, in the real world..

XP may indeed phsically operate with just 128MB Ram

But even forgetting games, install a full copy of Office etc, try and actually do something useful with it..

Having just migrated a couple of hundred varying spec PCs and laptops to XP pro and Office 2003, plus other essential apps - after some UAT was carried out we settled on a minimum spec of 1.6Ghz and 512MB Ram, to provide an acceptable performance.. Bloat ware yes, necessary? yes..

Why did we do it - standardisation largely, MS withdrawing support for 2000 in July was another factor..

properly service packed 2000 boxes were pretty stable though..

I can't believe someone is actually quoting Microsoft minimum spec requirements!
Of all the unreliable sources of info they have to be worst.
These are the people that provide inane warnings like "you didn't shut down your machine properly" when it was their OS that caused the thing to lock up in the first place!
As CurryMS says it maybe technically possible to run just the OS on that spec but all it will allow you do afterwards is play Solitaire.
I'm sorry but Windows is the VHS of the computing world, it was the worst one available but succeeded through marketing alone.

Microsoft is crap...give it 10 years and the majority will be using Linux by then.

Its difficult to predict this.. Ive worked in IT for over 20 years now

I detest MS - not as much as some Linux zealots do, but the supreme arrogance of the company and thir policies winds me up, as for many others..

Linux? I feel I am fairly open minded - but while I am very impressed with some linux applications, particularly infrastructure / server side - I am much less so at desktop level - and am thinking for business apllications here. Most of my criticism is less about functionality or stability, and more about compatibility, support and user education.

For most businesses, for as long as schools and colleges continue to train on MS (ironically because thats what business are percieved to have, so its recursive) then the folks they employ will need (costly, in time and ££) training to use any linux based alternative.. add in the file compatibility issues involved in a move to Linux at desktop level, (not just internal compatibility, but also with suppliers, customers, anyone you may need to exchange data with), as well as all your own historical and legacy MS format files, and it becomes very difficult for a company to consider a move to linux based desktop working as being practical - it is NOT just about savings on licensing..

Good work is being done - there are excellent LInux Office apps, that will work with some word / excel docs for example - but what about all the MDBs etc - havent yet seen something that does this properly.. and even if it did there is still the issue of training.. And even if you find potential employees who are familiar with Linux, what are the odds that they are familiar with the exact Linux desktop system you are running, out of the what 40+? that are currently available.. its bad enough when users migrate to a new version of Windows, and there are FAR less options there!

I appear to be ranting... and have completely deviated off topic!!