paullamhkg is right on the permissions, owner, etc. wich have to be rebuild. But, one more thing, have you tried defragging lately?
Main Topics
Browse All TopicsWhy is windows 2000 so slow copying and pasting files compared to windows 98? 400megs 44seconds in windows 98 28 seconds, quite a discrepancy, i have win2000 streamlined too, many services turned off, ide dma enabled, and disk cahe enabled. If windows 98 supported "prevent applications from stealing focus", i would go back in a heartbeat.( no operating system seems faster than good old 98) Does anyone have any suggestions? something i am not seeing? thxs :)
This Question has been solved and asker verified All Experts Exchange premium technology solutions are available to subscription members.
Experts Exchange has been collecting answers to technology questions since 1996…3 million and counting! If you have a question, chances are we already have your answer.
If you can't find the exact answer you're looking for, ask our exclusive community of 50,000 experts. You’ll get a personalized answer from a trusted professional.
Thousands of free tech tips, tricks, how-to’s and tutorials are available in our peer reviewed articles section. See for yourself how smart our experts are, no login required.
Access the answers to your technology questions today.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Members of the expert community talk about why the experience at Experts Exchange is different than what you will find anywhere else.

Try it out and discover for yourself.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Join the community of experts here and help other tech pros by answering question in your area of expertise. You can earn FREE access to all Experts Exchange's premium features and resources.
this may seem strange, but I had a similar problem on XP and 1 thing made a slight difference:
1. If I used the "Copy - Ctrl+C" and "Paste - Ctrl+V" on the files, then they would copy slow. If I dragged the files (holding the Ctrl key down), they would copy a little faster (still not even close to 98).
On another note, I had problems of slowness copying files to a Win2k server and turning off the QOS Packet Scheduler in the network properties of my local network connection helped.
I agree with you and if I could, I'd go back to 98 as well, it was so much faster than 2000/XP. Good luck, and it'll take about 6 months to get use to the slowness again.
Microsoft just seem to take steps backwards while CPUs get faster.
OK, here is the big missconception. People think that if the put Win XP on their old PC it will be faster. In fact while the OS got smarted, more stable, more sophisticated and in some regards faster, it is much more resource hungry. So if you put it on the same PC that was once sufficient for Win 98 it will choke the machine. Most of the problem is with the bigger RAM memory capacity needed.
If you have an old machine better stick to the matching OS, to upgrade to XP your hardware needs to match.
I would however do a de-frag, clean up the machine with one of the available software apps, and check to see in the system settings if the Virtual Memory is set to let Windows adjust it automatically. (control panel [classic view] -> System -> Performance -> Virtual memory).
Amos - The Keymaker
I am running an amd xp 2100 cpu and 512 megs of ram. Both os's are on one computer on different partitions. When in win2000 it cant see win98 partition and vice versa. Everyone is always talking about upgrading to windows 2000 from 98 for faster performance but from what i see windows 2000 is 40% slower. And windows 98 is stable, i can run 35 mp3s at one time without it crashing, i cant knock 98 down if i try to,, but on win2000 it randomly freezes up when i hit a key on the keyboard win2000(sp4). Maybe win 2000 is better if left running for days at a time but not the case for a home user usually. I went back to 98 and upgraded all the icons to look like xp and changed the drab gray look to a light tan and am going with avant tabbed browser. From what i personally can see with this company, 98 was a fluke because everything they have made since is a dog and sold in beta to suckers who spend hours wasting away to find all their glitches.. :) just my opinion
Actually many OS will perform better with bigger RAM, and have speed improvment, but for the case of win2k vs win98, they are two difference OS, the way of controlling system flow difference, win98 without a nt kernel, where as win2k/winnt did. there is a application layer in win2K/winNT, where win98 don't. so the applications/programs flow already difference, which may also bring up the difference of speed.
But when this two system running for a long time, win98 easy to hang, where win2K/winNT will still fine. running long time didn't mean just stay there without doing anything, say running excel in win98, close the excel, than run the words, close it, and keep running those application, within 4-5 hours, you may need to restart you win98, where as win2k/winNT you can run for 3-4 days before restart (on a workstation basic)
I keep my win2k workstation up and running for a week still working fine, where as my win98 will hang after a day of working, this is what I got.
Business Accounts
Answer for Membership
by: paullamhkgPosted on 2003-11-13 at 00:49:11ID: 9738056
What I think may be the NTFS have the security issue, so that everything you copy across will re build the owner right, the file right, directory right, etc... where as win98 almost no security issue, so that the process faster.