Link21

Windows 2000 supports multiple CPUs. It actually can work with hyper threading, but the scheduler is not optimized for it. It treats it as if it were two physical CPUs. Windows NT even supports multiple CPUs. Windows 98 cannot use more than one CPU no matter what you try.

No. MS isn't retared. They had the marketting control. They just happened to not own the licensing rights to the code they would have needed to build a superior real 32-bit OS that had great emulation for DOS programs. And because having great backwards compatibility with DOS programs was so important back then, that MS couldn't market only an NT based OS to home users because NT had very poor compatibility with DOS programs. Instead, they had a build an OS based on ancient technology to retain backwards compatibility with DOS programs and add 32-bit extensions to it. OS/2 WARP which was a full 32-bit OS had very good backwards compatibility with DOS programs through excellent emulation. However, Microsoft didn't own the licesning rights to use it. And because Microsoft had the control that IBM (or whomever they sold their OS/2 division to) did not have, a superior OS in OS/2 WARP that would have blown away Windows 9X from a technical standpoint didn't stand a chance in the market place. As a result, a far inferior OS in Windows 9X became the dominating force in the home consumer market. One of my professors who used to work for IBM and Microsoft from 1990 to 2000 told me this. That very thought on how a superior OS failed all because of a marketting control issue has really bugged me to this day about continued Windows 9X support and has lead me to believe how inferior Windows 9X was and is. That is why I feel the way I do today. I guess you can't fret on the past on what would of, could of, or should of. Because it doesn't matter at all now, We are now 10 years into the future and what has been done cannot be undone.

You may a great point. Windows 2000 Professional is a great OS. If you don't like Windows XP, use Windows 2000. At least it is a decent respectable OS for multi tasking and semi-resource intensive or higher 32-bit computing. The Windows 98SE lovers just throw out the excuses that Windows XP is too bloated and that is why they wanted to run Windows 98SE for a lot longer. They completely overlooked the fact that the archictecture in Windows 2000/XP is completely different and far superior to what the architecture was in Windows 98. And the fact that the bloat in Windows XP could easily be removed. Or that they could use Windows 2000 which wasn't bloated. Anyone with at least a little bit of logic would have dumped Windows 9X four years ago for the sole purpose of modern gaming and resource intensive modern computing. Support for Windows 9X when it comes to the latest hardware and software would have likely been dropped at least three years ago if it weren't for the Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers.

MS sanctioned scorn?? I am not at all biased towards MS. In fact, I actually don't like MS very much. Why would anyone think just because someone bashes Windows 9X that they are someone biased towards MS?? I praise Linux. I think Linux is a great OS. It is Windows 9X that I think is crumby. I dual boot between Windows XP and Linux. If it werne't for hardware manufacturers and software manufacturers supporting Windows 9X for way too long, those resources could have been devoted to maming better Linux drivers and software. Linux is another great quality OS. Windows 2000/XP are also respectable and fine quality operating systems. Windows 9X is not. It is Windows 9X I am bashing because it is technically a horrible OS compared to other 32-bit operating systems. It has nothing to do with me being biased towards MS. In fact, I am very skeptical of MS and don't trust them much. WHat I mean by Windows 98SE obsessers and lover, I am referring to the fact that it is because of people like you (the ones who want to run it on the highest end hardware for the latest software) that have caused hardware and software manufacturers to support way too long. I don't mean anyone who uses the OS. People who run it on old slow machines are using it for the right purpose. It is a limited OS and should be used for limited purposes. Windows 98SE obsessers should have been left on their own 3 years ago to have support. All high end hardware and software developed 3 years ago should have ditched support for Windows 9X and been Windows 2000/XP only when it comes to the MS OS world. Linux support would have been great too, and in fact, Iit would have been best if the whole world moved to Linux and all software was devloped for Linux. But unfortunately, it is an MS dominated OS world, throwing out any chance of that ever happening. But in the MS OS world, I feel to at least use a decent respectable 32-bit OS. If it weren't for Microsoft's marketing control, the whole computing world would have been running a superior OS compared to Windows 9X and maybe even Windows 2000/XP the last 10 years. Instead, it was Microsoft's anticompetive practices that forced an inferior OS to dominate the market. OS/2 WARP swould have been a great OS for everyone to use had it been given a better chance 10 years ago.

What means "good quality 32-bit operating system" for you ? Just a simple fact: on a clean install of XP Pro, after a visit to Windows Update site and a web-based mail site, i got at least 5 spy/addwares added to the system startup. This never happened to me while using 98SE. Not to mention the countless cryes from my friends, like "My XP system is sluggish like hell, un/installing a single app takes ages to finish, even startup/shutdown lasts 15-30 minutes. Please come and see what you can do about it..." If you call this "good quality", then...No, thanks!... you can have it all. I'll keep my "low quality" P.S. I'm reffering to XP/NT only. Linux and other mentioned non-MS OS-es are fine The kernel and memory management and how efficeintly an OS can utilize a large amount of RAM for best performance. Windows XP is a good quality OS for that. As for installing XP Pro and getting infected with spyware and malware after visiting Windows Update website and a few other websites, did you have Service Pack 2 installed? Were you behind a hardware firewall? You know what I do, I slipstream Service Pack 2 and all post SP2 hotfixes into my XP installation. Then I don't have to worry about getting infected by anything. And Windows 98SE is not better just because of that. The only reason it didn't get infected is because nobody writes malware for it anymore because it is such a low end old technology based OS. If hackers wanted to break Windows 98SE, believe they would easily tear it apart far more eaisly than they can tear apart Windows NT/2000/XP. Heck, if hackers were trying to target Windows 98 like they intend target Windows 2000/XP, Windows 98 PCs would probably explode. and ruin your whole OS install and possibly your computer.

Windows 9X was a terrible OS from the very beginning. Microsoft should have designed something different for the home consumer OS market from grounds up, not some OS based on an ancient native 16-bit architecture. They should have designed an efficient full 32-bit OS that was simple from day one for the home consumer market. Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS/2 WARP, MAC OS X, and Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 are all good quality 32-bit operating systems. Windows 95/98/ME are not.

Ok then, that makes sense. But support for Windows 98 should have been dropped with the Radeon 9600 series video cards or higher. As for NVIDIA, support should have been dropped with the GeForce FX 5900 series video cards and higher. At the very latest, support should have been dropped with the GeForce 6200 series video cards and higher. I just cringed in disgust to see Windows 9X support for the GeForce 6800 series video cards. A video card that high end never had any place in a 9X machine. In 2002, things were different as 54% of the population was using Windows 98. Statrting in 2003, Windows 98/ME support should have been dropped for the latest video cards and motherboard chipsets. Also, in 2002, I bet 99% of that 54% of the population using Windows 98 had slow systems with CPU speeds less than 1GHz. The Radeon 9000 series video cards and higher and especially the Radeon 9600 series video cards and higher were meant to be used in PCs with fast CPUs. By far the majority of systems with fast CPUs were already running Windows 2000/XP even back in 2002. The majority of the population was still using slow systems back in 2002. Of course most of them were going to be using Windows 98 on them. Hardware designed for only fast systems, had no place supporting Windows 9X as far back as late 2002 or early 2003.

I am not by any means a Windows 98SE user. I ditched Windows 98/ME over four years ago. It has been all Windows 2000/XP and above ever since for me when it comes to the MS OS world. I do use Linux as well.

I am not talking about just Microsoft. I am talking about third party hardware and software vendors who support operating systems. Third part hardware and software vendors have supported Windows 98/ME much longer than Microsoft ever did. Or so it seemed. If Microsoft really wanted to try and act as if Windows 98 never existed, why was DirectX 9.0 made compatible for Windows 98/ME. Why is .NET framework 2.0 compatible with Windows 98/ME? Here is my take on the issue. There are always going to be multiple platforms that vendors will support. I am all for continued and increased Linux and MAC OS X support. Basically, vendors had a choice of three primary operating systems to support. It was the Microsoft OS world, the MAC OS world, and the Linux Open Source OS world. So vendors have to support three different operating systems used in the home consumer market by three different entities. But one of those entities has two completely different OS platforms with one intended to replace the other. The NT based OS from Microsoft was intended to completely replace the 9X based OS. So now, developers had to write drivers and software compatible with four different operating systems, and not just three. Why should developers have had to focus on supporting two completely different operating system kernels developed with the same OS market name made by the same company? That probably hurts performance. If Windows 2000/XP were based on the same OS platform as Windows 98/ME, it would have been totally fine with me if they continued supporting them. But why support two completely different OS cores made by the same company for way too long after the newest NT core came out and was intended to replace the old completely different OS kernel for the Microsoft computing world? It was one thing if your applications were designed to run on slow and old hardware that they supported Windows 9X because most older systems had Windows 9X on it back then anyways. But the newest hardware and cutting edge games even as far back as three years ago? I mean come on. The newest hardware and cutting edge software should have supported only Windows 2000/XP at the very latest three years ago. It took all the way until the NVIDIA NForce 4, Intel 9XX chipsets, GeForce 7800 video cards, and the Radeon X600 series video cards for Windows 9X support to be dropped. That was irritating. As far back as the Intel 855 chipset, the NVIDIA NForce 2 chipset, the Radeon 9000 series video cards and higher, and the GeForce 5200 series video cards and higher, all drivers and support should have been for Windows 2000/XP only on that hardware I listed and higher end. When I say for Windows 2000/XP only, I mean when it comes to the Microsoft OS world!! Of course Linux and other high quality 32-bit opertaing systems should have been supported as well. Look at what developers did once MAC OS X came out. MAC OS 9 support and prior quickly went away probably because MAC OS 9 was a completely different OS platform than MAC OS X. I am sure it was easy and not a problem at all to continue supporting MAC OS 8 once MAC OS 9 came out because MAC OS 9 was based on MAC OS 8. Same thing with Windows 95 once Windows 98 came out. Because Windows 98 was based on the same OS heritage as Windows 95, it was probably very easy for developers to support both Windows 95 and Windows 98. But Windows 2000 and Windows XP aren't even close to the same OS heritage as Windows 98/ME. And with the release of Windows XP until present, the whole MS OS world was supposed to migrate to the much better and superior NT based platform. Then developers were stuck in a situation to add the burden of supporting another completely different OS made by the same company sold under the same name and same interface. Stick to one based OS platform with the same name and designed by the same company. Why didn't MS design one real32-bit OS heritage 10 years ago, and stick with it until this day? That way, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. People can run what they want on whatever they want. I just wish hardware and software manufacturers stopped supportiung Windows 98/ME a long time ago. Shouldn't the majority of applications written be native to a specific OS for performance to be best? So for almost the whole time over the last four years, applications written weren't even native to the OS sold on almost all new PCs since then, and rather were native Windows 9X applications that would just run on Windows 2000/XP only because Windows 2000/XP have emulation to run Windows 9X applications? That is just sad if that is the case. Is that really truthfully the case in all aspects? The mere thought of specifically this has bugged me about continued Windows 9X support. Or you know, how about this. If Windows 9X support was to continue on for this long, why didn't software devlopers write a separate version of the same application with one version specifically for Windows 98/ME, and one version specifcally for Windows 2000/XP. For instance, why didn't games have separate version with one version specifcally for Windows 2000/XP and one version specfically written for Windows 98/ME? Instead, all games were written natively for Windows 98/ME, and just relied on the backwards compatibility in Windows 2000/XP to run 9X applications so that those games would run on both of them. The mere thought of all applications being emulated on Windows 2000/XP and not being real native 2000/XP based applications the last few years has drove me nuts to this day.

That is another good reason to run Windows 98SE. If all you use is older and slow PCs to play old games, and basic e-mail and Internet browsing, then Windows 98SE will be ok and in fact may be required to run some much older games on much older hardware.

Actually, I believe Windows 2000 will be supported until June 2010. It is in the extended support phase though. This support is from MS though. We also have to consider the support from third party software and hardware manufacturers.

Cross platform using the same friggin files and installer! Answer this for me. What would be better. If applications were written natively to support Linux and thus had their own version of the same program written natively to run on Linux. Or if the applications were native WIndows applications and just said they support Linux because Linux can run Windows applications through WINE and Cedega? Of course the performance would be much better if the application was written natively to run on Linux. Same thing with MAC OS 9 and below and MAC OS X. Performance will certainly be much better if applications are written natively to run on MAC OS X, rather than just written natively for MAC OS 9, and be compatible with MAC OS X only because MAC OS X has a simulator to run MAC OS 9 and below programs. Windows 98/ME are based on a different OS heritage than Windows 2000/XP. Thus it proabbly makes it so much harder to write drivers and programs supporting both. When Windows 98 came out, it was probably very easy for developers to still write drivers and programs that are compatible with Windows 95 as well because Windows 98 was based on Windows 95. Windows 2000/XP are no where near based on Windows 98/ME. So write applications for the native OS heritage made by the same company Since the release of Windows 2000 to present and especially since Windows XP to present, the intention was for the whole MS OS world to migrate to a completely different OS kernel being the NT based platform. It wasn't the nearly the same thing as the transition from Windows 95 to Windows 98 or even from Windows 98 to ME. It probably won't be much of a transition from Windows XP to Vista either because they are both based on the NT platform. If all applications until recently have really been just native Windows 98/ME, but only run on 2000/XP because 2000/XP provide emulation for properly written Windows 98/ME applications, that is just sad. SO another words, almost every application written that is compatible with the NT based OS isn't even native to the NT based OS, but only realying on the backwards compatibility in 2K/XP that emulate Windows 9X. That is really sad if that is truly the case for all applications written the last 4 years. That very thought has really bothered me to this day. WHy should all 2K/XP users suffer the fate of having to rely on emulation for their software to run. Emulation hurts performance and performance would be much better if applications were written for the native OS heritage instead of emulated on a completely different OS provding emulation for a completely different OS.

Here is real proof that why Windows 98/ME should have been trashed all together a long time ago. There is an intrinsic limit on how well Windows 98/ME run period. http://www.apptools.com/rants/resources.php Windows 2000/XP don't have that limit. The results of this poll really show the ignorance of the Windows 98SE obeseers and lovers who lived in this fantasy world and blindly believed that Windows 98SE was by the best version of Windows ever made. It is flat out rubish as demonstarted at link to the webpage I posted above. I want to see a lot more votes for poll choice number 4. It is 2006. I find it embarassing for software and hardware released as far back as 2003 that it would say on the box that it was compatible with Windows 98/ME/2000/XP. It all should have said compatible with Windows 2000/XP only. How bad does it get when software is listed as being compatible with two completely different OS architectures branded together as one operating system. That falsely advertises that Windows 98/ME are based on the same platform as Windows 2000/XP when they are not. It is embarassing to see such software in a modern era support two completely different operating systems made by the same company (aka Microsoft) using the same files and installer, and thus relying on backwards compatibility in 2000/XP that run 98/ME applications. That is sad.

If you were running Windows 2000, you can do the exact same things that you can do on Windows XP for the most part. If you were running Windows 98, eveyrone should have upgraded to at least a decent OS in Windows 2000 at least four years ago. There is an intrinsic limit to how well Windows 98 runs. Windows 2000 and XP don't have that limit. http://www.apptools.com/rants/resources.php That is what the Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers don't realize. If you don't like XP, use Windows 2000. Everyone should have been required to upgrade to Windows 2000 four years ago if they wanted to run the latest games and applications on the latest hardware. That way, all applications would have been native to one MS OS heritage the last four years, and cross platform compatibility with two disticntly different Microsoft OS cores wouldn't have had to be dealt with, thus not hurting performance. Why did all software developed the last 4 years have to be native 9X applications that just rely on backwards compatibility in Windows 2000/XP just so they work in Windows 2000/XP. So all people who were running Windows 2000/XP weren't even running applications natively written for the OS they were running, rather just relying on the automatic backwards compatibility in Windows 2000/XP that provides emulation to run Windows 9X applications the last 4-5 years. That is just sad. That would be like all applications written for MAC OS 9 and also supporting MAC OS X, but only running on MAC OS X because of the simulation MAC OS X provides to run MAC OS 9 and prior applications, and thus the application written wouldn't even be considered a native MAC OS X application. Almost all applications written for the MAC the last two years at least have been native to the OS heritage sold on Apple MAC computers. WHy in the heck couldn't almost all applications written the last four years for the Microsoft OS PC be native to the OS heritage sold on almost all PCs since then. If Windows 2000/XP were from the same OS heritage as Windows 98/ME, then it would be ok to continue and support them. But the fact is, they were from a completely different OS heritage.

What about games and high end 3-D graphics programs? Do you think those take have taken up too many resources the last 10 years?

There is more than one svchost.exe process. Are all of them together eating up 100MB+ of system RAM, or just one of them? I have 5 svhost.exe processes running on my system. One of them takes up about 14MB of RAM. All the others take up about 3-4MB of RAM

Are there any free DOS emulators that you can download that are for Windows 2000/XP? I thought there were some of those? Windows 2000 has been rock stable since SP2. It is a very impressive OS overall. Uses little system resources by today's hardware standards and is still a very good quality OS. Windows XP doesn't take up too many either by today's hardware standards, but it still takes up more than 2000.

Windows 2000 is a good OS and still based on the NT heritage. Supporting it for a lot longer is fine with me. Vista will be based on NT, so supporting 2000 will be fine.

The bottom line is, why did Microsoft decide to build all future Windows operating systems based on NT rather than 9X? If performance was really better with 9X, Microsoft wouldn't have decided that the NT platform was by far better for future versions of their product. They did so for a reason. The fact is, ever since the release of Windows 2000 almost 6 years ago, Microsoft and all software developers have been providing two support paths for two completely different operating systems. When one core was intended to completely replace the other for all Microsoft based operating systems, developers should focus on supporting one native based OS platform made by the same company. The bottom line is, the future is NT based opertaing systems and has been that way for a while. SO why should developers be constrained to support two completely different OS platforms made by the same entity (Microsoft) when one OS core has been intended to replace the other for well over 4 years by now??If Windows 2000/XP were based on the same OS family heritage as Windows 2000/XP. But the fact is, they are not. And knowing that has really bothered me with continued support for WIndows 9X the last 4 years. I mean, do you see software written for the MAC that is compatible with MAC OS 9 and MAC OS X using the same files, but relying on the MAC OS 9 backwards compatibility simulator built into OS X in order to say it supports MAC OS X when in fact the application is truly a native MAC OS 9 program?? I am bothered by a similar thing happening with Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000/XP for the past 4 years or longer. Windows 98 is to Windows ME as Windows 2000 is to Windows XP. MAC OS 8 is to MAC OS 9 as MAC OS X 10.2 is to MAC OS X 10.3. ANd WIndows 9X may have been faster on slow hardware back in the day, but with today's hardware and lots of RAM, Windows 2000/XP are faster or just as fast. Windows XP flies at lightning speed on a system with 256MB of RAM or more with all the clutter stripped out. WIndows 2K is even faster in my experience. The only advanatge Windows 9X had on systems with 256MB of RAM or more is that it used less RAM for the OS to run. But with the amount of RAM in today's system. that is totally irrelevent. WHy didn't MS just slap the WIndows 95 GUI on the 32-bit Unix, Linux, or OS/2 core and name it Windows 10 years ago. That way, we wouldn't even be having this discussion and performance would have been far superior the last 10 years? But if they didn't, at least support only one OS core made by the same company, and support the better of the two for today's technology which is the NT core. I didn't. But whenever I would even attempt the slighest bit of multi tasking, Windows 9X would sh*t on itself real easily. It didn't matter how stable the hardware and drivers were. Multi tasking was a big no no with Windows 9X. Wrong. All versions of Windows from Windows 3.0 are affected. http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/#00000762 Windows 98 isn't any less vulnerable to viruses than Windows 2000/XP. It just isn't targeted by hackers because it is so crumby and and anceint technology that hackers don't want to target it. If hackers actually tried to harm WIndows 98/ME systems, they would and those system would probably get fried.

Whenever I installed a lot of programs and loaded a lot of clutter at startup on Windows 98/ME, the system would sh*t on itself real easily and performance degraded faster. Laggy performance on the desktop was very common. The only time Windows 98/ME could even be half stable was with only a few programs installed on very little loaded at startup. WHat crap those operating systems were.

I am NOT at all spouting off the same proganda as Microsoft!! I am merely stating facts. I am sick of it for all those people that try to point out that games only supporting Windows 2000/XP is only a nod to Microsoft. That is completely wrong. If games started to support only XP and not 2000, now that is a nod to Microsoft. Windows 2000 is still a quality OS, so people running Windows 2000 would have every right to complain about games not supporting. But in no WAY would peiople running Windows 98/ME have the right to complain about games, software, and hardware not supporting them because those opertaing systems originate from an ancient heritage and nobody should be using them for any kind of modern computing the last 4 years. WIndows 9X/ME are dead. They should have died years ago. Performance suffers because Windows 98/ME are completely different from Windows 2000/XP, and it is probably a pain for developers to have to write software using the same files and installation programs that is compatible with two comppletely different OS cores. I mean imagine how things would be if developers had to write software that was compatible with all of Linux, MAC OS X, and Windows 2000/XP using the same files and installation programs. Performance would certainly suffer. SO why do you see developers that write software fro MAC OS X, Linux, and Windows NT/2000/XP release a separate version of the same titled software for each separate platform I know someone who is a highly skilled progarmmer and OS engineer. He told me that all programs written that say they are compatible with Windows 98/ME and WIndows 2000/XP are really just properly written Windows 98/ME OS based programs that work on Windows XP because Windows XP is compatible with properly written Windows 98/ME programs. So another words, if that is reallyt true, most of the programs written the last few years aren't even native NT based programs?? That is really sad if that's the case. So for the past few years, everyone of us who is running Windows 2000/XP are runnibng most of our prograns on it through so called backwards compatibility because Windows 2000/XP can support Windows 9X programs and we aren't even using many programs natively written for a Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 based platform? That would be like say if all Linux distros started integrating WINE and Cedega into them and developers writing native applications ofr Windows and stating on the box they are compatible with Windows/Linux, and only being compatible with Linux because they were tested on Linux through WINE and Cedega. But in reality, the applications wouldn't be native Linux applications. I have been bothered about continued support of Windows 98/ME by that very thought. I don't think all of it is completely true, although some of it is probably true, but still, focus on supporting one based OS heritage from the same company. Why should applications and drivers be written that are compatible with two distinctly differnet opertaing systems that originated from a different heritage?? There is no doubt that performance has already suffered because because of that. There may be no proof because you know what, it has already been happening the last 5 years, and today, it probably doesn't really matter. If you could go back in time and everything was written again from scratch to only support a native NT based OS, you would see proof. It is sad that inferior Windows 98/ME hav been supported way too long!! What is even more sad, is if it weren't for Microsoft's anti-competive practices that gave them control in the market place, the whole home computing world would have been using a 32-bit OS far superior than what we had the last 10 years. That would have been OS/2 WARP which was far superior to Windows 9X and even better than Windows NT. But it never stood a chance because Of Microsoft's superior control they gained over the market place using anti-competitive practices. Knowing that, I have been very irritated by continued support of Windows 9X for the last four years to this day.

Exactly!! Windows 2000/XP/2003 kick the living day lights out of Windows 98/ME any day. You can't even compare how Windows 98/ME to Windows 2000/XP/2003 because Windows 2000/XP/2003 are far superior in just about every way shape and form!! It was a far bigger upgrade and change from Windows 98/ME to Windows 2000/XP than it ever was from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. Thus you can't even compare how Windows 98/ME were back in their heyday to how Windows XP is now!! WIndows 2000/XP are by far better now than Windows 98/ME ever were for their time!! Unfortunately, the Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers who lived in this fantasy world where they blidnly believed that Windows 98SE was by far better than any version of Windows every created has caused hardware and software manufacturers to support them for way too long which has only hurt performancer and stability the last 5 years. It is called the tremednous differences in the core OS kernel that make Windows 2000/XP far superior to Windows 98/ME in every way shape and form. Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers never relaized how different they were under the hood and blindly continued with their fantasy belief that Windows 98SE was the best version of Windows egver released. In reality, Windows 95/98/ME were by far the worst core 32-bit operating systems ever made!!

For your AMD system, you should already be running an OS like Windows 2000 or Windows XP. Running Windows 98 is a mistake on a relatively fast system like your AMD 2600.

Windows NT/2000/XP is way better than 9X will ever be. Linux is awesome and far better than anything MS ever designed. Windows 9X and 16-bit legacy DOS was a disgrace to the whole computing world. At least the NT code base was respectable, but still can't touch Linux. But the NT based Windows OS blows the legacy ancient 9X DOS kernel out of the water. Operating systems based on far inferior technology like Windows 9X should have died a long time ago!! It ought to be a Linux, Unix, Windows NT, and all other quality operating systems based world by now. How could anyone want to run Windows 98SE? It isn't even a true 32-bit OS? It is a 16-bit OS with 32-bit extensions. I thought we left 16-bit computing on modern hardware a long time ago.

You can't look at that alone to determine whic is really faster. Sure, 98SE may take up less total system RAM, but it also doesn't use large amounts of RAM efficeintly. Windows 2000/XP does.