azagahl

although i do agree that 98 tends to crash a lot I think this is no longer true. With the easy-to-install unofficial SP 2.0 RC2 and 98SE2ME upgrade, my system is rock solid. I have more problems with my XP system actually - crashed or hung processes that can't be ended (and it warns you it can cause system instability even though it doesn't end them), files that stay locked until reboot, and mysterious slowdowns (like my mouse updating at 0.3 Hz). I can't remember the last time I had to run scandisk on my 98 SE system. i need the XP for the remote desktop Are you sure? You can install the remote desktop client component on 98 SE. I dont use IE, as there is too much spyware which hijacks it and i just cant be bothered to clean it out anymore Have you tried firefox? I haven't had such problems with firefox. And firefox is much more convenient to use with tabbed browsing, RSS support, easy search engine usage, and extensions. It seems a lot more responsive and less bloated than IE. I'm not sure how well it handles Chinese webpages though

Search for Ranish partition manager. It's free and I use version 2.44 beta all the time. I used it to set up my FAT16 swap partition. Ranish partiton manager allows much faster formatting than FORMAT. It doesn't allow tuning cluster size (like undocumented format /Z parameter), but anything is better than klunky fdisk interface! Also you can go back after with FORMAT /Z and change cluster sizes.

windows Me and windows Me PRO Never heard of ME Pro, maybe you mean ME OEM? Me Full and Me OEM are basically the same - as long as it is the English version it should be suitable for installing 98SE2ME.

7 years! Die ... Die ... Die! You're wrong, 98 SE is only 5 years old. Madars: I'm not even going to say anything about your post except, with your systems specs it may be the best for you. (128MB RAM) *Shrug* I have 1 GB RAM and 98 SE is still the best for me. Regardless of your RAM amount, why waste it on unneeded OS features? Not mentioning that 98SE is most transparent and secure of all Micosoft OS'es ever. True, I've run 98 SE for years without a firewall and only had a problem with one browser hijacker a couple of years ago when I visited a bad page, and that was easy enough to remove. I don't remember anything like Blaster happening to 98 SE. The problem is that XP is bloated with tons of unneeded features and it bears a huge attack profile for hackers to target. installs in minutes. Actually 98 SE takes hours to install with all the programs, hardware and doodads I have. So I just use free disk imaging software (savepart) to save + reload partitions. It's very easy and due to the smaller image size it's quite fast and I can store multiple backups. Also, with 98 SE you don't have to worry about activation, which is nice.

Please explain alittle more here , whats 98SE2ME.exe do ? Isnt this bascially just upgrading to Windows ME ? My understanding is that 98SE2ME gives you all the good parts from ME; but without the bad parts such as reduced performance, System Restore bloat, and trying to pretend DOS isn't there. I also download the generic USB drivers from Gape's post ...found herein this post http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=41684 ......... do i need them ? I think this is so you can insert generic USB hard drives into your PC and have them work automatically. I've not tried it as I usually just install the drivers that come with my hardware. BTW, watch out for this bug if you use Win 98 SE and IE 6 SP 1: when you delete a large number of files in Explorer, your system resources will leak away. This will cause huge slowdowns and crashes. Try deleting 1000 files and you will probably see the bug. The best fix for this bug is to install the old BROWSEUI.DLL and BROWSELC.dll from IE 5.5 into your C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM directory. I am not sure where the best place to get these from is.

I got the 'unofficial' service pack ( from here (Thanks BTW) Did you get 2.0 RC2? It's the newest. i knoticed on MS website that they have more security updates SP 2.0 RC2 has everything you need for Win 98 SE. If it doesn't have a certain patch it's probably because that patch causes more bugs or is just worthless. You should still go to Windows update to get IE 6 security updates though. Is there an 'order' i need to install everthing in ? It doesn't matter much but this is good: 1. 98 SE 2. IE6 SP 1 3. DirectX 4. Drivers 5. Unoffical SP 2.0 6. Everything else and if someone could let me know if i have everything i need ........ If you have Windows ME CD then also get 98SE2ME.exe to install upgraded ME files on top of your 98 SE installation. do i need the .net framework? whats exactly does that do ? Some new programs need this to run. Kind of like how some programs need VB6 libraries. Version 1.1 is all you need and there is also a SP for it. There is also a 2.0 Beta but I don't use it. Or you can just not get any of it. also do i need the directx 9.0c download ? what does THAT do also ? Tons of games need DX. It is mostly a graphics and sound library. Get 9.0c because it has security fixes.

What is 99? An alpha version of ME or something? Or just someone's customized / reshacked version of 98? Changing graphics and making fake dialogs isn't that hard. If its an alpha version of ME, maybe the user is one of the developers of it - I don't see what this has to do with piracy. Maybe MCT should keep his mouth shut.

Tihiy, for a good task manager program please try to search for "Niresoft Solutions", "Task Manager", or tm9xME.zip. I'm not sure where I got this but it looks good.

Is it possible to use an usb devices support like winxp in win98 ?? I dunno . I use many USB devices in 98 SE but I always install the drivers first. Also, I have a USB harddrive but it does not work in 98 or XP unless drivers are installed first.

A lot of times in XP I start a program and it locks or hangs up. Often it cannot be killed. I press Ctrl-Alt-Del, select the process, and then choose End Process repeatedly. It warns me "Terminating a process may cause system instability, etc." but I select Yes and it still won't terminate it! I don't think this is a permissions problem since I have admin permissions, plus I started the process in the first place Any ideas? BTW, another problem is that if I do sucessfuly terminate a process, a lot of times it leaves locked files behind. The only way I know to unlock the files is to reboot XP. Is there a bettter way to handle this problem?

19 apps loaded, same basic win install as azgahl, 48mg ram used, no lite prgm either. Do have Prgm files,My Docs on D: & E: respectively, for my own convienience. Oh yea, 386 is on begining of hdd #2, average useage=30-40mb, would disable, but it gets used in PSP running This sounds like an opinion. Where is your proof? Where is the link?? un4given1 does not have any 98 SE installation discs currently. So, please ship your PC to un4given1 so it can be examined for PROOF. Come with the facts and proof What proof? That my memory usage is lower? That I don't have to activate? That I burn CD's fine without needing Integrated CD burning? That 98 se installs fine on my 1 GB system? That XP feels sluggish and causes far more problems for me, everyday? If there is something you feel I haven't proven it is probably due to A. I cannot readily find links (and the existence of a link seems to constitute proof in your view) or B. I'm too lazy to investigate/measure myself. Having set up 1000 PC's but refusing to try 98 se on a 1 GB system would be a good example of B. BTW, you said earlier that you wouldn't install XP on a PC with a slow CPU. Why is that? If XP improves performance, wouldn't you want to install it? "Windows 98 is better than Windows XP" conversation. Windows 98 certainly is better than XP, for me anyway. But if you need Resultant Set of Policy that XP gives you, then more power to you. I'll tell you what... if you hate Microsoft so much Who says I hate micros~1? Their OS is great and they do a great job of supporting it. I just don't believe all of their marketing materials and I dont' agree with buying every single OS upgrade just to support their monopoly. Also I am opposed to buying software I don't have the right to use. I'm sure Linux would welcome you with open arms... No thanks, I do not like linux that much. Running elf files on a gnome desktop doesn't really amuse me.

I'm sure that anyone who has followed my posts over the years LOL. You've been registered barely over a year. And FYI even puny companies have multi-million dollar values. One place I worked a decade ago had only 600 employees yet spent 20 million a year on IT. Anyway, please stop posting self-important drivel. It's off-topic and no one gives a crap. With 98 SE I have a fair amount of junk loaded right now (connected to internet obviously) and I have only 45 MB of RAM usage. I do not need to be an nLite expert or third-party software user to reach this, this is just a normal installation with everything (except WebTV) enabled and I have about 20 apps loaded right now including Winamp. I guess I could try turning off my 16 MB RAM disk; that might help decrease memory usage further. Obviously 98 SE has less memory usage. I haven't amassed a multi-year wealth of knowledge like un4given1, so I'll leave it up to him to find "proof" (i.e. using google to locate Microsoft marketing material).

What kind of input devices do you guys use/recommend for 98 se? Do any of you use USB for mouse/keyboard/joystick? Are there any problems from using USB for this? (I work in DOS mode occasionally and I have not tried getting USB mouse/kbd to work in DOS.) Does anyone use bluetooth devices on 98? I never looked into but erpdude claims it can be done: "bluetooth devices made by companies other than Microsoft like the 3Com Wireless Bluetooth USB Adapter [3CREB96B] can be used under W98se, 2k, ME & XP as noted on the hardware's system requirements specs." I am using a 101-key PS/2 keyboard and a Micros~1 Wheel Mouse Optical USB (but I use an adapter to connect it to the PS/2 port). These all work fine and the mouse is great - it has a wheel, it never needs a mouse pad or cleaning or charging. Also I like Gravis Gamepad Pro (not USB) a lot, but the drivers really blow. Some versions of the drivers are 20 MB just to use a game pad, plus they have bugs and Gravis is basically defunct now. I have some Unofficial drivers that seem to work best.

I have a 100 GB partition in 98 SE. I also use 1 GB of RAM (plus 1 GB swap). Some tools show strange numbers when you have > 128 GB, but they basically work. I was using a 200 GB partition for a while.

Is it mostly an extension to Add / Remove windows components? It sounds analagous to 98lite. The uattended installations features are probably neat, but not necessary for a home user like me.

not yet got 1 GB,98 sees it,maybe in a few years i'll go past 1 gb I also only have 1 GB. Perhaps 2 GB could be possible by running XMSDSK and setting your swap drive to be on the ramdisk. Maybe in 2008 I will have that much memory. wish we could slipstream the 512 mb fix into the 98 install so we would not need a limit of 512 the to put the rest of it in.maybe the only way is to rewrite 98 se or take parts of it out and put em back in with the fixes. FYI I can install fresh on 1 GB machine w/o problems.

Also have they tried any Linux Distros? Yes, mostly Slackware. In my opinion 98 SE > Linux > XP. Linux is very stable but the GUI's tend to freeze, requiring reboots anyway. Have the people who use Win98, tried a 'nlited' XP with SP2 slipstreamed? No, how much does nlite cost? Will it help reduce the bloat of sluggishness of XP? Activation is the worst feature in XP so nlite will probably not convince me to use it. When I buy software, I want the right to use it. It's a good indicator when you have someone complaining about the extra 2 gig of space that an OS takes up when they have a 120GB+ drive I have 300 GB so free space is no problem for me. But that does not mean I want to just clog my drive needlessly with bloat. Furthermore, I keep a number of backup images so that 2 GB is likely to be amplified many times. The gentleman you are speaking with is a moderator so... The moderator is probably mature enough to handle dissenting opinions - not everyone here has an infantile ego. It's odd that he hasn't moderated any of the inane insulting messages you've spewed here. FYI posting your life history also wasn't on-topic.

The performance page you listed links to here: http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/msxp.pdf I have doubts about how applicable these test are and whether they are unbiased. They are about 4 years old and deal with only release candidates of XP. Most people use actual XP releases with SP1 or SP2 service packs. Also, "Microsoft selected the nine test systems we used for this test." Furthermore, Microsoft funded this study. Finally, 98 SE is excluded from most of the tests. And in some of the tests it actually does the best. For example, in Business Winstone 2001 Results Systems G and H. In WebMark 2001 System F, 98 SE trounces XP. Overall I am having trouble finding a lot of direct comparisons between 98 SE and XP on the Internet. This review sounds particularly bad for XP though: http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/0...029tcwinxp.html "In the most extreme scenario, our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as did the Windows 2000 client... Overall we are quite disappointed with Windows XP's ability to pull serious weight when compared to Windows 2000. " I would like to see a more recent test and applicable test (e.g. 98 SP 2 vs. XP SP2) hopefully not funded by Microsoft. In any event, it doesn't change the fact that other users here have reported performance problems in XP and personally I experience the difference every day.

Bigger target (both bigger OS and more visibility) for virii and malware Prove it! Your[sic] incorrect. The windir directory is substantially bigger on XP as reported above. A greater number of bytes means more machine code to locate security flaws such as buffer overruns and integer overflows. Even at micros~1 software development, reducing attack profile of code is a good reason to cut features. A greater number of users, with on average more cash and better candidates for zombie PC's, means criminals prefer attacking XP. I don't have exact measurements but everyone knows that micros~1 has been gushing forth streams of patches for XP's security problems. As an IT worker surely you know all of this. Good luck trying to get a job in the IT industry Aboo ahoo ahoo... And I wanted to be an IT director when I grow up. Then I could have a bloated ego and shove my OS of choice down everyone's throat. I absolutely guarantee that Windows XP boots faster than Windows 98... ABSOLUTELY! That just sounds like an opinion. I'm seeing 98 SE boot up nearly ten times faster on equivalent hardware. What ratio are you seeing? Waste of disk space Yeah... wouldn't want you to lose out on 2 gigs of warez or illegal MP3s or movies... becuase we all know that it's SOOOO easy to fill a 200GB HD with all legally purchased programs and songs. Um, I'm not sure about what you are doing with your PC, but even on a nearly empty disk, extra bloat is still a burden. It increases the installation time, it increases the amount of time your disk spends seeking, it increases the time required for scandisk/defragmenting/backup/searches/virus checkers/etc., and it results in slower access to files due to decreased velocity of the disk at inner tracks. "Why would I need server?" Well, I use it to log into my PC from other locations. But I don't need to log in from other locations, nor do I want to. It sounds like another security risk for me. The only time I have come across a situation where Windows 98 is better for a system is if it has less than 256MB of RAM and lower than a 700Mhz Processor. Ahh.. that is due to the significant memory consumption and performance degradation associated with XP. You will never get it... You are like a linux user or a Mac user. Are you implying linux and mac users are dense? In your estimation are you much smarter than Linus Torvalds and Steve Jobs?

if u have xp it would be dumb to use a older os but u cant put 98se up to xp its a no brainer xp wins hands down. Whatever, I have been granted a genuine xp license but I do not want it. I much prefer using 98 SE to my XP system. And I have apps from older OS's such as DOS 5.0. If something works fine and has not produced a bug in 15 years, should I throw it out just because its old? if u cant use xp because of processor etc then 98se is the best bet Actually my main PC has Athlon 64 3400+ with 98 SE. So I can run XP. But why would I want to spend money on a fast processor and then let 100 XP services I don't need sap all of its power? Disk access in XP is demonstrably slower, as shown earlier in this thread. Should I buy an even faster PC to compensate for needless bloat like Resultant Set of Policy dragging my disk access down? My 98 SE system boots up on the order of 10 times faster than the equivalent XP system. From a 98 SE user standpoint, every aspect of XP feels sluggish, unresponsive, and superfluous. FYI Longhorn reputedly fixes a lot of these performance issues. I may consider upgrading to it. i heard the the reson 4 98se as followed. 1-easy to use 2-no activation 3-most games work yada yada yada I gave about 10 reasons, not counting "yada yada yada". All of them are legitimate. Here is an 11th reason: stability. I haven't seen a single crash on my 98 SE system crash in about week. My XP OS, while rarely crashing (although it has crashed before, and taken out the partition with it), requires frequent rebooting due to crashed apps leaving locked and undeleteable files on my hard disk. My disk is usually full of files like "deleteme", etc., from trying to work around this continual annoyance. The fully-patched XP system also requires rebooting due to keyboard and/or mouse lock ups, inexplicable slowdowns, or all windows disappearing when I hit Ctrl-Alt-Del; I have no such problems on 98 SE. I think 98 se wasn't like this when it came out, but several years worth of patching have definitely made a difference. My system is not that carefully maintained, but I know one user who claims to have not seen a crash in a couple of years. as for xp -more in step with todays multimedia/networking etc etc. Really? I can play 3D vertex- and pixel-shaded DirectX 9.0c games, watch streaming video, edit video imported from my digital camera, compose music and write it to my MP3 player, and use Remote Desktop all from 98 SE. I also have Firefox, e-mail, packet sniffer, a firewall, HTTP server, and use P2P programs. What multimedia / networking features am I deprived of exactly? 98 SE is a fine OS and using it is an exciting and dynamic experience. Micros~1 just released upgrade patches for it just a couple of days ago and 98 SE SP 2.0 is due to come out soon. And there are still supported hardware possibilities I haven't fully explored - e.g. SATA and Firewire. I truly feel sorry for home users who paid hundreds of dollars to upgrade to a sluggish, malware-infested, communist-activated OS like XP and helped support the micros~1 monopoly. You fell for it.

Real issues I see.. Cost "it ain't broke so don't fix it" Activation woes You forgot a couple: -Bigger target (both bigger OS and more visibility) for virii and malware -Signifcant performance degradation -Significant memory consumption -Waste of disk space -Backwards compatability problems -Cumbersome interfaces (e.g. Find) -Poor troubleshooting (e.g. Shift-F8). I have based my opinions of both 98 and XP on hundreds of systems that I have built and or administered. If you are having an issue with speed or something else maybe you should determine if it's your system and it's incompatability or of it's a true issue. I thought XP was supposed to be easy to use. Does a home user really need the experience of having set up a hundred systems to avoid all of the problems us forum members are reporting? If you need to hire someone with so much experience to help set your PC up then that is a significant cost that has to be added for this OS. If you retaliate and argue about what one can do that the other can't, when it can... You mean like using 1 GB on 98 SE? BTW, I think one big reason people like XP is because its "newer". Not actually better, just newer. And some people just buy a PC and it comes with XP installed, and they don't know any different. Micros~1 has been in trouble before for strong-arming manufacturers into distributing their OS, so the number of users of various OS's isn't necessarily a good measure of which OS is better. Personally I am still waiting for a good reason to upgrade to appear in this thread.

Cool, some new security patches for 98 SE. http://www.msfn.org/comments.php?shownews=12193 Another reason to use 98 SE. Prompt support from Microsoft without the instrusive big-brother activation features and gigabytes of disk-thrashing bloatage. FYI, I installed the latest 98 SE SP on a 1 GB 98 SE Athlon 3400+ machine last night and it's just unbelievably smooth, stable, and responsive. It's a real pleasure to use when compared to my similarly equiped XP PC. It does take a few seconds to boot up, but I am loading a pile of TSR's. I may try rebuilding vmm32.vxd, which should help a bit. this is just an ignorant statement. NTFS... that's all I have to say Actually I'm using FAT16 for my swap partition and RAM disk and it works quite efficiently. The RAM disk slows down a bit if I turn on drvspace compression though. Your responses all seem hateful, derogatory and hostile. You only get to act like that when you are Bill Gates' personal IT admin. My credentials aren't sufficient yet.

"It has been 7 years since Win98 was released" Why did the title of the thread change to this? 98 may be 7 years old, but I thought the thread was about 98 SE, which is only 5 years old.

randiroo, I think the answer is yes. (But make sure you have everything backed up if I'm wrong!) I recommend using the free Ranish partition manager (part244.exe). You should be able to delete the partition and reinsert a FAT16 one without disturbing the other partitions. It won't let you choose cluster size, but once you've made a partition FAT16 you can then go back and run "format X: /Z:64" to format with 32 KB clusters.

I had more annoyances with XP today For a while I could click on an text editing window but it wouldn't actually change the cursor position. Then I'm typing along and it freezes up inexplicably for nearly a minute. Grrrr! I definitely find 98 SE to be more responsive and stable.