un4given1

http://www.illwillpress.com It's Foamy the Squirrel. I like him. It's not to depict who I am, it's simply what he says. Your answer shows your immaturity. "I can't answer the question or show proof, so I am going to poke at something else..."

And this too... http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/eva...eaturecomp.mspx

Here's a little something for you... http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/eva...wxpvswin98.mspx Now, watch them all. Try to look past the stupid role playing.

Well, I thought that's what we were discussing too... then you questioned my background. I'm going to guess at this, but by your arrogance and your attitude I believe you are probably not out of school yet, or may have just gotten out. I'll bet you don't have an IT career yet. (don't try to convince me otherwise... noone in IT would EVER rave about 98... atleast not the hundreds I have worked with... they would say 2000 before they would say 98!) You are me, years ago. You think you know it all and won't let anyone teach you anything. I hope you grow out of this quickly... it won't get you anywhere.

Is Open Office Microsoft Office 2003 compatable? I am currently using the Access 2003 runtime to run an access application. It's a low cost alternative to upgrading 20+ PCs to Office 2003.

Don't be lame. When we say "Windows 98" we are refering to SE. And, I hate to tell you, your page file isn't just used when your system has used up all of your physical ram, it's constantly used. Also, I am actually Director of IT. My credentials include full administration of Windows 95/98/ME/2000/XP/2003 in large corporate environments. I have experience with MS SMS, AD, Exchange, RIS, SharePoint Services and many other MS tools. I concider myself an expert with Command Script (you may call it Batch script, but that's incorrect) which you can so some searches on my old posts and verify this. I have been doing unattended XP installations for nearly 3 years now. I am fully capable of building, upgrading and troubleshooting both desktop and server hardware. I am very well versed in Windows XP registry. I have been interviewed by a member of Microsoft Press for my unique unattended methods for RIS installations, and am supposed to be featured in an upcomming book. I have used just about every piece of software and have a basic understanding of how to install, configure and use just about anything. I worked for Compaq, building high end servers. Now, while I may not ALWAYS be right, I will bet you will find when it comes to anything computer related I am probably pretty close, or completely correct. Now, I'm sure you will see that as arrogant. I don't care. I am good at what I do, and I completely believe that. I used to think that I knew everything... until I started working in corporate environments... then I got a kick in the face and realized that I didn't know sh*t. If you wish to give me a little background on your credentials, I will gladly listen.

I had been a PC technician back in the days of Windows 98 and Windows 98SE. When I say "Windows 98" I am meaning SE. Regardless of what you think of Adobe products, Premiere is the best out there, and it's what I was running. I couldn't very well let my $900 license for the software go to waste, now could I? @Drewdatrip: Thanks for the backup.

Don't be ignorant. Windows 98 never supported more than 512MB, and never will by itself. Now, there may be a 3rd party program that allows you to utilize more than what Windows 98 supports, but I can't really speak on that as I am not really sure. Regardless of how well you may have Windows 98 running... there is no way in hell I will EVER switch back to that piece of crap. When is the last time you tried XP? Maybe it will better suit your needs now. With all of the multimedia enhancements XP offers, why would anyone choose less?

Windows 98 does not support more than 512MB of RAM. While you may have more than that installed, your system will not utilize it. In case you want proof... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q253912/

The Server Management Wizard will probably walk you through it... but here's how you would do it if it doesn't. START>ADMINISTRATIVE TOOLS>LICENSING Good luck! Let me know if you need any other help

Yeah, I'm going to have to say if you are having problems with Windows XP it's most likely because you have not installed it correctly. I almost swore off Windows XP when I first started using it because I just couldn't get my system to take to it very well... Well, it ended up that the MB chipset and the video card weren't playing together well... It had nothing to do with Windows XP at all.

Whimsy, I would have to say your post is definately the most intelligent I have heard so far. azagahl, If working for 2 large corporations running a mix of NT, 98, 2000 and XP isn't test enough, I don't know what is. What kind of test you want me to run? What are all of you going to do the day software won't work on 98? You are goign to be walking into XP for the first time. How long do you think programmers will make things backwards compatable? Many of them have stopped, and every day more. Hell, Microsoft doesn't even support 98 with most of their new software. Why do you think that is?

I just noticed something new... When you are viewing a post, you can look at the bottom where it shows who is viewing the post, and it will show you if someone is replying. That's kewl.

I'm very much on your side there smokeyjoint... but that's not how most of these guys feel. They are saying that even if they had the PC (and some of them do) they still woulnd't run XP.

most home ISPs have clauses that do not allow you to run a server from your service. You could try using a domain redirect service, other than that you could contact your local phone company and look into a T1, but get ready for a $500-1000 a month bill.

Yeah, I noticed the "On" and "Off" button below the posters names in the forums. That's a nice addition. I didn't really notice any differences up front, but slowly I am. I like it. The only thing I think needs to go is the picture in the header of each quote. That's just my opinion. Great job guys.

@Fredledingue: You want to assume that I use Windows XP because of my job. This is not true. When I was using Windows 98 the problems I had was, crashing during Adobe Premiere which I was creating videos, which is one of my hobbies. This happened often in Windows 98, almost went away completely in Windows XP. Crashing during use of Fireworks or Dreamweaver, which I used to create my own web pages for my video editing projects. Crashed more often right in the middle of a great deal of games. It's frustrating to deal with a crash already... but it's more frustrating to deal with a crash when you lose data because of it (I was comming a pro at saving after EVERY change... but when you made a change and it crashed during the render or something else, that was enough to make you give up) I understand why some people may still run Windows XP. That's all well and good. But, if you drive a Geo because you just can't afford to drive the Ferrari, don't try to say the Geo is better. Sure, you could pump up the HP by adding on a "fart pipe" and dumping some money into some customization, but it will never be the Ferrari. Nuff said!

Show me proof of this? I think you have it all wrong. It's wellknown. It's all over the press. There never has been so many issues with XP as with W98. Because XP is server-friendly, it's also hacker-friendly. That's in XP why there is an inbedded firewall (that you need to switch off any time you install a software or do something special) and that's why I never installed a firewall on my W98. If you are running without a firewall (i recommend hardware over software) then you are plain stupid. Also, lets just think here for a moment. Windows XP and the cost of XP has caused a boom in the number of PCs on the market. It's just common sense to assume that with more PCs comes more problems. You have yourself wrapped up in the hatred for something you dont know so much that you are disillusioning yourself. Hoo, yes they said that. XP was supposed to be the solution against W98 crashes...Windows XP crashes next to never. (once a week? maybe once a month..) Windows 98 crashes atleast once a day. I wasn't sayign you HAD to have XP in this situation. I was arguing with someone who said that Windows 98 was better because of all of that. I was simply saying that if you installed all of the same on Windows XP you would have a better OS and they would all still give you the functionality you were looking for. For them to say Windows 98 was better because they could install those was ignorant.

You think I'm a moron? I did these 2 tests on the same machine, both with completely reformated harddrive and fresh default install +Ms Office97. I opened a large doc file in Word and asked to change, for example white spaces, by "xxx".(That it's the kind of task, you excpect to do often and would want to do fast.) I did the test first on XPn then on W98SE, and also on the old computer also on W98SE. The I counted the time before the "100000 items replaced" poped pup. The new computer was 10x faster than the old one on W98 and only 7x faster on XP: difference 30%. You know with all the useless built in features, it's normal XP is slower... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wow... you based your whole opinion of Windows XP on how quickly Office replaced 100000 words? Windows XP starts up faster than Windows 98... why didn't you base your opinion of it on that? Windows XP removes memory allocation from any minimized or background windows, making it available for open windows where as Windows 98 keeps memory allocated for any minimized or background windows. Why didn't you base your opinion on that? Windows XP doesn't require a reboot once a day... as a matter of fact, I don't beleive I have restarted my PC in nearly a month... try doing that with Windows 98. To all you Windows 98 users: If you system won't run XP and you run 98, then I understand that. That's a good reason. but if your argument is that Windows 98 is better... you really need to get a clue. If Windows 98 was better then you would have to believe that Microsoft would never have stopped working on it, huh? Time to move on to bigger and better things. Oh, yeah... Windows 3.11 only took up like 30 MB... Windows 95/98 takes up 10x that... think you need to rethink downgrading to 3.11. Wait... DOS 6.22 could be installed from 2 floppies! There you go! Be realistic. Are you not going to install a game that's 7 CDs because old games used to be on a couple floppies? Dont' be ignorant.

So far from the truth. I am the Director of IT for a debt settlement company. I have worked for large corporations including Liberty Mutual Insurance which has hundreds of offices across the US, JD Byrider, which is a used car franchise which has almost 200 offices across the US. I worked for Compaq, assembling high end servers. Now I work for a company that is fast growing (looking at moving to a new corporate headquarters that will hold nearly 200 people) I just know that Windows XP makes my life easier. About activation... Don't be cheap. Buy a valid copy... it's as simple as that.

You may want to look at your device settings and make sure that card is not set to go to sleep. That's the only idea I have.

I will bet you will find that this is not so much the norm anymore. PCs are becomming a way of life. People use PCs not just to type letters but as reference tools, finances, games, chatting, and a whole sleu of other things. Do you believe it's Windows 98 that recently created the boom in PCs? Sure, it helped... but let's be truthful here... Windows XP has been made so easy that just anyone can use it. PCs are now so cheap and easy to use that everyone has one. I remember my first PC. It was a 486SX 25Mhz. It ran Windows 3.11 and Dos 6.22. It cost me over $5000! Windows 3.11 certainly wasn't very user friendly. Now, I am a manual kinda person. I have read the manual on every piece of software and hardware I have ever touched. I like to believe I was on the pioneering front for RIS installations and even unattended installations. I have been using a computer for nearly 15 years now. I know everything from Batch Scripting (or more properly refered to as Command Scripting) to SharePoint Services 2003. I seek new things to learn just so I can use everything to it's full potential. Probe into Windows XP and you will find a whole valley of amazing tools that just make your life so much easier. I administer servers as well as all of the PCs that run beneath them. I have worked with just about every Microsoft product and have a good grasp of how to use them to automate every aspect of my life and work. I wouldn't dream of using anything less than Windows XP at this time. Windows 98 just couldn't stand up to what I need from an OS. You will all slowly find this out. Then you will find yourself being in a position where even your little brother knows more about XP than you. You are all afraid to move to XP for the simple fact that you think you know just about everything about Windows 98 and you don't want to be put at the bottom rung of the ladder again. Well, when I reach the top of a ladder I like to find a new one to climb.

A T1 is full duplex, which means you can send and receive at 1.54Mb at the same time. Cable upload lags when you are using a great deal of your download bandwidth because it's only half duplex. Also, Cable is shared bandwidth. While most of the time you won't see much of a slowdown, there are times you will. T1 is basically guaranteed bandwidth.

So you are assuming because I am speaking of the ease of use of Windows XP that is how I want it? I want it the exact opposite, and I get it in all the advanced features available in Windows XP. But when I speak of those everyone says "Well, not everyone wants that..." and "Windows 98 is just easier to use... more user friendly" So, I explained how it is more userfriendly, and we are back at square one... You Windows 98 guys wanna go in circles. If you want an OS that is easy to use Windows XP is a cut above the rest, even your precious Windows 98. If you want a robust, stable PC then Windows XP takes the cake on that too. Anyone have any valid reasons why someone should choose 98 over XP? Give me proof or sources... Every one of you wants to fight about how 98 is better... I don't think one of you has just said, "I'm not too keene about learning something new and Windows XP intimidates me..." i know that's a good reason for many of you. How about, "I can't afford to purchase my OS and Windows 98 is easy to pirate..." That's a good chunk of you too. How about "Hey, I just like knowing I can reverse engineer this OS, and I just like it." Instead, "I like Windows 98... because it's better." If it was better then Microsoft would have extended it and you would still see them advertising it.

OK... sorry about the multiple posts... Windows 98SE was realeased May 5, 1999. So it's 3 months off... whoopee