The only reason you would choose to install NT4 instead of Windows 2000 is
size of hard drive and amount of resources. I have NT4 SP6a Workstation
installed in a 300 meg partition on a old 486 DX4 100 with 32 megs of ram
and a 500 meg hard drive. It is a single task PC and it performs it's job
just fine. This would be impossible with Windows 2000 and probably Win98.
Windows 2000 has a lot of error checking and redundancy and requires a lot
of space. Windows 2000 installs in a 500 to 900 meg directory. Windows 2000
reminds me of the first versions of NT ...back in the Windows 3.1 days. The
more resources you provided NT with the better it ran. The same can be said
for Windows 2000. Any modern processor 300 and above with 128 megs of ram (
you can probably get away with 64) and a modern hard drive should work fine
with Windows 2000. However more is better.

Many tests from many sources including PCMAG have shown that Win98  <feels>
faster then NT4 to most users and is far easier to troubleshoot and
configure then is NT4. I  previously ran NT4 as my primary OS for many
years. I am now using Win 2000 on two PCs as my primary server and for one
workstation. Both dual boot to Windows 98 and my subjective opinion is that
while Windows 2000 is faster then NT4 it still does not feel as quick on
the same PC a does 98.

Windows 2000 and NT4 share one important feature that provides them better
stability.They will not allow software to directly access hardware. This
means that a lot of games won't run on NT4 and some games won't run....or
won't run well on Windows 2000. The problem is that many games provide
their own drivers and NT4 or Win 2000 just won't allow this. If you are a
gamer ...or are building a PC with games in mind then 98 or the future
Millennium  is your best choice.However if you must install Windows 2000
then it will easily accommodate a dual boot with Windows 98.

Being a new OS many devices still do not have drivers for Windows 2000 and
some that do still haven't worked out the bugs. I am waiting for drivers
for my UMAX scanner....and hoping that they actually get written. I am
waiting for better drivers for my TNT2 ULTRA. Windows 2000 like NT4 isn't
crazy about a lot of changes. If you are the kind of user who is constantly
swapping out hardware and removing and installing software then stick with 98.

Fundamentally Windows 2000 and NT4 are security conscious network operating
systems and if you are not participating in a network... do not require the
network security features of Windows NT4 or Windows 2000 or do not have a
dual processor system then I would question the need to run NT4 / 2000 on a
home or SOHO PC.

I realize that many users have lots of problems running Windows 9x however
I have deployed it on many PCs in a business environment that doesn't allow
for constant hardware software changes and employs automated maintenance
procedures and have had few problems. The vast majority of problems I have
had with Win98 have been with hardware and software compatibility in the
initial setup. Once a PC is setup and deployed I see few if any new problems.

I think NT4s primary market use has a lot to do with NT4s reputation for
stability. NT4 has predominantly been deployed in a business environment
where little or no gaming occurs...few changes are made to an office
computer ...and they are overseen by a professional staff. Most of the
Windows 98 problems we see here on the LISTs have more to do with the
expertise of the user then it does with the stability of the operating system.

Mark Rode
The NoSpin Group

>I don't really buy into the notion that windows nt is for
>'business' users.  I know microsoft positions it that way,
>and prices it that way,  It's true that nt tends to be a
>little behind in terms of availability of certain video
>technologies, but that's much more a function of microsoft's
>marketing focus than of the os itself.

         PCBUILD maintains hundreds of useful files for download
                     visit our download web page at:
                     http://nospin.com/pc/files.html