Win98SE vs Win2000

win2000 is more stable than win98se
win2000 ships with a great deal more drivers than 98.
after installing apps, win2000 requires fewer reboots than win98se.
win2000 is a network operating system, and win 98 is not, which is to say, that it can be a member of a domain.
win2000 offers multiple user logins/profiles (multiple desktops).
if using the ntfs file system, win2000 offers file level security, and win98se does not.
win2000 managers memory better than win98 (but not by much).

> #1) Does it the same Hardware limitations as Win98SE? (I recall it doesn't, but I'm no Win2000 expert, that's why I'm asking)

You can search the Windows Hardware Compatibility list if you have specific hardware you are concerned about:
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdq/hcl/search.asp

> #2) What exactly makes Win2000 better than Win98SE?

It runs on the nt kernal, where Win98 is still really running an top of DOS.  Win2K is much more stable and far less prone to crashing than Win9x or ME.

> #3) What's better about Win98SE?

For some end users it would be easier to support, however in that situation I would recommend XP Home edition.  

> #4) What kind of flaws does Win2000 have?

That depends on whether you are talking to a MAC Guy, Linux Guy, BeOS Guy or a Solaris Guy.  Every OS has flaws, any in paticular that you should be concerned about, depends on what your intended use is?  

What is it you do like about Windows XP?  The way the interface looks?  Thay can be reverted to look exactly like Windows 2000.  XP is the next replacement for 2000.

#4), meaning 98 is nothing compared to 2000.. 200 is 100x better

Hardware-wise W2K is more demanding than W98se.  If you have a decent Pentium and 256K or more of memory you'll get pretty good performance.  W2K is "better" than W98se in that it is a very stable operating system - it runs programs in their own memory space so one crash doesn't cause the whole system to crash.  I'm a software engineer at times and this feature alone was worth the upgrade.  W98se is better in that it boots very fast.  W2000 has an impressive list of device drivers that come standard so you generally don't have to go fishing for drivers when you install it.  Like any OS of it's size, W2K does have some bugs and flaws, but the benefits outweigh these minor problems (IMHO).  If you have some old games, W2K might not play well.

Paka

But is Win2000 good for gaming? I mean, I'd get XP if it wasn't buggy, and TOO user friendly. And I wouldn't install ME on my computer if I got it for free.

Is Win2000 better for Gaming Purposes? Also, does it have that 256MB RAM glitch that Win9X has? (that's what I meant by hardware limitations, and the redundancy of 1ghz+ (so I hear))

 About the hardware limitations u should't worry but it's true that there are several games that don't run under W2k version. About stability I think there's no need for further comments. Try Win 2k , it's the most stable version, excepting W2k server, but u don't need that one.

No it doesn't have the 256 mb bug, and yes if you install the most recent directx you won't have any probs with games...my experience.. its faster, better and more stable.. i would say.. try and see..

Thanks alot everyone.

Thanks for all of the input goldwing.