the '1.8X10^27th' 98 vs XP thread

[Octopuss]

I liked 98SE. Was extremely against 2000 until I tried it and understood it a bit. No idea when I moved onto XP, but when properly stripped down and tweaked, there's NOTHING better. Memory management in 98 is s*** and the whole thing is SO easy to crash. Not to mention you can't run most of more modern applications on 98.

Don't get me wrong, in it's time it was really good, but sorry - not anymore. Of course, if you still use old apps and have ancient hadware, then yes, it's the way to go. Otherwise - stripped XP SP3 all the way.

Just for the record - played with Vista twice. First time year ago - it just didn't even boot properly, crashes, gazzilion of error popups... This time it boots and WORKS (doesn't crash), but that's it. Even stripped down with vLite it's still utter crap.

I'm sticking to my tweaked XP

[SlugFiller]

Memory management in 98 is s*** and the whole thing is SO easy to crash.

There are around 7 or so computers in this house. Aside from my 98SE and a couple of linux boxes, most use XP. So far, the XPs have dominated the top spots in crash frequency.

The thought that XP is stable is quite simply a myth. XP is to 2000 what ME is to 98 - an unstable downgrade.

That being said, XP tends to run through the memory alot faster than 98 does. I can tell you this from empirical evidence. My 98 has had better up-times than most of the would-be stronger XPs.

Not as much as the linux boxes, but hey, you can't win 'em all...

As for resources, there's a 512 MB limit for memory usage.

I've been fully using 1GB on my 98SE without any special configuration since it's latest installation. No issues. According to certain threads, 98 can natively handle up to 1.2 or 1.5, so I don't know where you're getting that silly 512MB figure.

With patching it can easily go up to 3 or 4.

Apart of this, the lack of drivers makes it impossible the use of a SATA HD.

I have a SATA HD. Did have problems with it at first, until I dug up an older version of the via driver and, voila, it works like a charm. The real issue there wasn't 98, but via's fullish insistence that the new NT drivers could work on 98 (according to their web-site). Performance wise, it works just as good as when I've used a linux live-CD, so no complaints there.

The same thing happened with USB2 drivers and it was sorted out in the unofficial SP2!

Don't think I have unofficial SP2, my USB2 worked and is still working with the original vendor drivers.

Win98, even out of the box, is much better than what most people seem to credit it for. If you treat it right and don't randomly install odd drivers or run rampant with the system configuration, it can easily be more stable and better performing than the so-called "modern" versions. You should really give it more credit, it definitely has its flaws, but it is, still, quite reasonable.

And, on a final note:

Concerning games I mean the ones designed for XP or Vista.

KEx makes short work of that. Hopefully, it will make short work of most other software compatibility issues soon enough. And, needless to say, those same games seem to get quite a boost from running on the OS they aren't meant to support.

[Octopuss]

Memory management in 98 is s*** and the whole thing is SO easy to crash.

There are around 7 or so computers in this house. Aside from my 98SE and a couple of linux boxes, most use XP. So far, the XPs have dominated the top spots in crash frequency.

Without wanting to fall into flaming and stupid arguing - dude, this is SO clueless statement. User's inability to properly configure the system has nothing to do with its stability whatsoever.

Yes, back then I though 98SE is stable. Everyone who knew a little though - and it was pretty much true.

But now that I can compare - no way in hell.

I could start going into argument abut 98SE vs XP but that would take pages and each side would still figh for his truth.

That being said, XP tends to run through the memory alot faster than 98 does. I can tell you this from empirical evidence. My 98 has had better up-times than most of the would-be stronger XPs.

No sh*t? XP NOT being graphical UI over DOS and all?

On my work PC which I do pretty nasty stuff with I had well over 1000 hours of uptime - those being hours the PC was actively used. I only had to restart cause of an update to some software.

XP is to 2000 what ME is to 98 - an unstable downgrade.

We are getting into ridiculous grounds here and I don't really think this needs further commenting.

[cannie]

As for resources, there's a 512 MB limit for memory usage.

In fact I never tried to use more. That's what MS says.

Apart of this, the lack of drivers makes it impossible the use of a SATA HD.

I never tried to use SATA. I've read it in forums.

The same thing happened with USB2 drivers and it was sorted out in the unofficial SP2!

The drivers for every USB2 device are supplied by vendor, but if you use a generic driver you don't need a different driver for each device.

About the final note:

Concerning games I mean the ones designed for XP or Vista.

I don't use my computer for games. I've been told it.

Even when Windows 98 SE is not what it could have been with a little help of Microsoft (they abandoned it in their own interest and so opened the door for future problems in the supply of motherboards and periphericals) it is great and I'll never upgrade, for as long as I can. Of course I find it perfect if other people "fall in love" with Vista, Linux or XP. Love is blind. But I think we the Win98 "lovers" deserve the same respect, hopefully also from MS and the hardware providers.

[SlugFiller]

Yes, back then I though 98SE is stable. Everyone who knew a little though - and it was pretty much true.

But now that I can compare - no way in hell.

Compare what, the 98 you no longer have with the XP you now do?

Like I said, I can compare them as they run concurrently, and more than once I was able to say "Hah, my 98 wouldn't crash when doing that", and demonstrate to that extent.

No sh*t? XP NOT being graphical UI over DOS and all?

The impact a DOS back-end has on the memory is insignificant compared to the sheer amount of running services and unwarranted extra memory use by the GUI itself generated by XP.

Consider this: Under the most extreme circumstances, the DOS back-end can take up 640k of memory. The average XP background service (RPC, firewall, etc) usually takes a minimum of 10MB.

On my work PC which I do pretty nasty stuff with I had well over 1000 hours of uptime - those being hours the PC was actively used.

Well, congratulations on your hard-drive not failing, as I've seen XP do twice.

Not to mention the relative difficulty of bringing up a failed XP system (for whatever reason), compared to doing the same with 98.

I'm not talking speculatively here. Like I've said, I've seen quite a few systems perform, and I know their crash-frequency. People who talk academically are simply spreading myth and falsehood.

I'll admit to this much: Win2000 is a solid platform, and is far less likely to crash than 98, perhaps even coming close to linux in that regard. XP, on the other hand, is not, and I have personally seen it go down quite a few times.

In fact, if it wouldn't have hogged this thread beyond what it should, I would have described my brother's odyssey trying to install a PixelView PCI video capture card on his XP. The short version is: People shouldn't be so quick to point 98's driver availability as its shortcoming to its successors.

Of course I find it perfect if other people "fall in love" with Vista, Linux or XP. Love is blind. But I think we the Win98 "lovers" deserve the same respect, hopefully also from MS and the hardware providers.

Well, people are free to use whatever they like. In the case of Linux, I may actually recommend it, depending on your experience (installing is a bit of a b*tch) and what you're using it for (wine doesn't exactly work as advertised).

I do resent people who spread myths to justify using one over the other. Having actual experience with most of the most-commonly used OSs, I find some of the arguments people throw around to be the exact opposite of the empirical facts.

Edited June 11, 2008 by SlugFiller

[cannie]

I find it totally silly to make this a bone of contention. Nothing is perfect under the sun, and preferences don't need to be justified.

Edited June 11, 2008 by cannie

[cannie]

In any case I would demand from Microsoft and the hardware providers a little more sensibility towards Windows 98, XP, 2000, 2003 and most probably afterwards also Vista users.

Edited June 11, 2008 by cannie

[Fredledingue]

Nothing is perfect under the sun... However we (w9x users) all feel deception that M$ dumped this serie to the trash bin with contempt.

W98 shortcomings have been fallen one by one since 1998. Last updates are as new as april 2008.

With minimal efforts and investments M$ could have improved w98 even better. It's already quiet stable (far from the nightmare of w98FE on old computers - w98SE is much more stable on new computers). With M$ team of developer it could have been possible to make it realy stable. Some are saying "it's impossible because the kenel is such and such". BS: it's always possible to improve things as long as you have the source code.

And they would be selling this OS by the millions as we speak.

Instead they followed a line leading to Vista, the "Frankenstein OS", sold almost only as pre-installed platform (EOM) on new sold computers. No way you install Vista on a computer more than 3 years old. That's pretty silly from M$ management.

Some of those who'v got this EOM install of Vista are asking where they could buy XP. And M$, who is not afraid of ridicule, anonced, as if it was huge +, that owners of "pro" version of Vista will have the "right to downgrade (to XP)" [sic]!

Hallucinating

[Octopuss]

Compare what, the 98 you no longer have with the XP you now do?

Like I said, I can compare them as they run concurrently, and more than once I was able to say "Hah, my 98 wouldn't crash when doing that", and demonstrate to that extent.

Exactly. I can compare the rough percentage of crashes from my 98 era and XP era. XP is MUCH MORE stable and harder to bring down than 98. That's simply a fact. One of the biggest problems I had with 98 was that when an application went bananas and crashed, it usually took the whole OS with it.

Regarding memory management - take this, for example. I used to play Ultima Online. With 98 I could run two instances (two clients at time) at most and only immediatelly after boot. On XP (and 2k of course, they are built on same core/technology), with the exact same PC, the roof was somewhere around ten. Then the system started to swap violently.

The impact a DOS back-end has on the memory is insignificant compared to the sheer amount of running services and unwarranted extra memory use by the GUI itself generated by XP.

Consider this: Under the most extreme circumstances, the DOS back-end can take up 640k of memory. The average XP background service (RPC, firewall, etc) usually takes a minimum of 10MB.

But of course. XP being built on NT technology, which is much more complex. When properly tweaked, XP can use as low as 50MB of memory and still remain functional, btw.

Well, congratulations on your hard-drive not failing, as I've seen XP do twice.

that has absolutely nothing to do with XP. Unless you switch off the whole PC instead of doing start->shutdown (then there's SLIM chance of problems with data)

Not to mention the relative difficulty of bringing up a failed XP system (for whatever reason), compared to doing the same with 98.

Technological differences that say nothing about system's stability/reliability/quality. With 98 you could pretty much boot into DOS and swap a few files (well, based on how bad the problem was) and the system would be good as new. New technologies ask for new solutions I don't totally disagree with you on this, but I can have XP reinstalled with almost all applications I normally use within an hour. I see no problem

I'll admit to this much: Win2000 is a solid platform, and is far less likely to crash than 98, perhaps even coming close to linux in that regard. XP, on the other hand, is not, and I have personally seen it go down quite a few times.

Oh my. When I started working in this department of "my" company year ago, half the PCs were installed with W2000. I almost grew grey hair. They worked, sure, but it's still ages old compared to XP, with outdated components and generally slow. The average amount of random freezes/crashes after performing regular tasks was high. I still am stunned by the fact they still worked after the years and changes people did to them, though. The same machines performed like new when properly reinstalled with XP. I only am talking from my own experiences with doing complete support for up to 700 users (which, I believe, gives me quite a bit of statistical data as well) - which means I got my hands onto ~500 machines.

I am by no means trying to throw garbage on 2000. Hell no. I loved the system and was reluctant to move to XP some years ago. But XP is better. It just is.

For those who still use 98 and got no problems, all I got to say is Hell yeah! Go for it! The whole point, however, is that XP is superior to this and 2k. (sure, if I still had my old Duron/700 with 256MB ram, I probably wouldn't run anything higher than 2k, which WAS a bit less resources-hungry than XP.

Edited June 11, 2008 by Octopuss

[cannie]

All Microsoft OS have advantages and disadvantages. The only problem is the decision of MS and consequently HP and several other driver providers to cut the throat to Win98 and after it to all unsupported operative systems according to the "lifecycle policy".

Their goal is to increase sales by forcing users to buy new machines in which, of course, Vista now and Windows 7 or Windows 8 afterwards, or any other even more hardware demanding OS is preinstalled.

IMO for them we are not customers, but servants, having to obey forcedly their orders. Doesn't matter if you are happy with your present OS: it was sentenced to death at birth.

But many of us wonder why upgrade if we feel comfortable with our computer and our old OS, be it Win98 or XP. In a near future also Vista users will have the same problem: Windows 7 and Windows 8 have been already announced.

Most users are not prone to follow that kind of implicit commands. In my case I'll never leave Windows 98 SE for as long as I can: I have even bought spare parts in prevention of the "blocus". I simply like it.

Ambition must have a limit. Old romans said: "When gods want to destroy a man, they listen to his prayers".

This fight could be their Vietnam...

Edited June 12, 2008 by cannie

[Octopuss]

Windows 7 and 8 is pathetically laughable. Just why the f*** does Microsoft work on new stuff when the already existing barely works. Wtf.

Who needs new Windows anyway?

Edited June 12, 2008 by Octopuss

[SlugFiller]

Exactly. I can compare the rough percentage of crashes from my 98 era and XP era.

"Compare"? When it's years apart, you can't even begin calling it a comparison.

I'm not talking about driver and software versions, or whatever changes you may have made to your hardware. I am talking about something far more basic: Your memory. Your perceived relative stability of the two systems is clouded by the fact that you can't actually gauge how they both actually work, you simply think you remember this or that crashing and stick with that.

I have both systems running now. Currently. At the same time. I can clearly state "the XP crashed now, and the 98 didn't". This is a comparison.

An "I fairly remember the 98 crashing more" is just an anecdote.

At the very least, you should consider time collapse: If you're thinking of all of the crashes your 98 ever experienced, with utter disregard to the amount of time you've been using it, then it will certainly seem more frequent (100 crashes for 1 second of reminiscing) than the fact that, at this current second, your XP is not crashed.

XP is MUCH MORE stable and harder to bring down than 98. That's simply a fact.

That is a claim. Facts are what you should use to back it up, but I doubt you have any of those at your disposal.

A fact looks something like this: Last weekend my brother's XP crashed over 10 times in a single day. He didn't do much, just start up a program.

Pretty much invalidates your claim, no?

Please don't re-spread those same old common myths without actual evidence to support your claims.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

-Albert Einstein

Regarding memory management - take this, for example. I used to play Ultima Online. With 98 I could run two instances (two clients at time) at most and only immediatelly after boot. On XP (and 2k of course, they are built on same core/technology), with the exact same PC, the roof was somewhere around ten. Then the system started to swap violently.

How much physical memory do you have, now and then? What other programs did you have running on your 98? How is your virtual memory configured, now and then? Most importantly: How many patches did Ultima Online run through since then up to today? (After all, a MMORPG's updates aren't optional)

At any rate, 10 instances of any application is fairly crappy, if you ask me. Suffice to say, my harddrive never thrashed.

that has absolutely nothing to do with XP.

That's your theory. But the fact is that it happened twice, not once, and in both cases it was on an XP system. In fact, it wasn't that long after an upgrade from 2000, though I'll admit it's wrong of me to try to gauge that time duration so far after the fact.

I don't totally disagree with you on this, but I can have XP reinstalled with almost all applications I normally use within an hour.

Provided you have a bootable disk, and the BIOS to support it.

Though taking DOS out doesn't qualify as "newer technology" (It's not as if DOS-less systems did not predate DOS itself), you are right that it requires newer solutions. Such as start-up in root provided by the average linux installation as a default grub option (Not perfect, since it still forces full initialization of the PCI bus, but at least you can fix WSOD from there). The fact is, XP doesn't have such a solution, at all.

I am by no means trying to throw garbage on 2000. Hell no. I loved the system and was reluctant to move to XP some years ago. But XP is better. It just is.

While I had far less direct comparison there, 2000 did demonstrate practically crash-less solidity for as long as I've seen it run, and far less bloatiness than the XPs I've seen.

I won't argue about your support history, but you do sound like one of those "tech experts" that think formatting the drive and installing XP is the solution to any problem, even if it's actually a hardware problem. You might not be, but I've seen enough of that kind to have the right to be skeptic.

Most users are not prone to follow that kind of implicit commands.

Optimistic much?

MS stock beg to differ.

I think their business model will continue to work until a completely free, easy to install, and highly application-compatible OS will be made. This may never happen, though. There simply aren't enough people who'd be willing to participate in the creation of such.

Edited June 12, 2008 by SlugFiller

[Octopuss]

Exactly. I can compare the rough percentage of crashes from my 98 era and XP era.

"Compare"? When it's years apart, you can't even begin calling it a comparison.

I'm not talking about driver and software versions, or whatever changes you may have made to your hardware. I am talking about something far more basic: Your memory. Your perceived relative stability of the two systems is clouded by the fact that you can't actually gauge how they both actually work, you simply think you remember this or that crashing and stick with that.

my memory about this is pretty good, thank you. And I stand for what I posted above.

At the very least, you should consider time collapse: If you're thinking of all of the crashes your 98 ever experienced, with utter disregard to the amount of time you've been using it, then it will certainly seem more frequent (100 crashes for 1 second of reminiscing) than the fact that, at this current second, your XP is not crashed.

Ok I will be more specific. I've been using XP since 2002 I believe. Before that I had 98SE. It might even be that I used 98 for shorter period of time than XP. But at least the times were even.

Facts are what you should use to back it up, but I doubt you have any of those at your disposal.

Do you? (to prove otherwise? Else you're claiming just as much as I do)

Regarding memory management - take this, for example. I used to play Ultima Online. With 98 I could run two instances (two clients at time) at most and only immediatelly after boot. On XP (and 2k of course, they are built on same core/technology), with the exact same PC, the roof was somewhere around ten. Then the system started to swap violently.

How much physical memory do you have, now and then? What other programs did you have running on your 98? How is your virtual memory configured, now and then? Most importantly: How many patches did Ultima Online run through since then up to today? (After all, a MMORPG's updates aren't optional)

At any rate, 10 instances of any application is fairly crappy, if you ask me. Suffice to say, my harddrive never thrashed.

Excuse me, are you stupid or do you fail at reading? I stated "THE EXACTLY SAME PC".

that has absolutely nothing to do with XP.

That's your theory.

No that's your CLAIM (*cough*)

I don't totally disagree with you on this, but I can have XP reinstalled with almost all applications I normally use within an hour.

Provided you have a bootable disk, and the BIOS to support it.

Uhm, what? I don't quite get this. What OS doesn't need bootable disk? What PC doesn't have BIOS that supports... what exactly?

Do you find having bootable installation cd for your OS of choice uncommon/problematic/whatever? The bios part is a mystery.

Perhaps it's a misunderstanding? I meant the process of inserting the cd, installing system, then installling drivers and then apps. Of course, I got custom-made "nLited" cd with drivers included and all the crap excluded.

I am by no means trying to throw garbage on 2000. Hell no. I loved the system and was reluctant to move to XP some years ago. But XP is better. It just is.

While I had far less direct comparison there, 2000 did demonstrate practically crash-less solidity for as long as I've seen it run, and far less bloatiness than the XPs I've seen.

Yeah XP neds a bit more tweaking than 2000 to achieve very good performance. It's like variously updated and optimized 2000, but unfortunately also more unwanted stuff you need to get rid of. But nothing hard, really.

I won't argue about your support history, but you do sound like one of those "tech experts" that think formatting the drive and installing XP is the solution to any problem, even if it's actually a hardware problem. You might not be, but I've seen enough of that kind to have the right to be skeptic.

I'm not calling myself expert, but I don't think I'm complete lamer either.

I ONLY was talking about one specific case when you either want to get rid of crap that accumulated over five years of heavy use of the pc, where people installed millions of apps, uninstalled, installed over, deleted, loaded with spy- and whatever-wave etc etc or when you want to move onto new version of the OS. Installing say XP over 2000 is one hell of bad idea. Seen that and similar cases as well. Just yuck. The results were pretty scary (though average George would say "it works").

Of course I didn't mean reinstalling is a good idea to fix a problem that showed up. Only had to solve something maybe three times in total in last years this way. BUT it's also true that sometimes it's faster Like when you're testing something (specific).

[cyberformer]

Imagine this scenario:

Just suppose Win 98 and 95 had never existed, and the first major OS to garner the populace had been 2000, or even XP. Now imagine that 98se was the work of someone else, and they were releasing it only now, as "obsolete" as it supposedly is--and as Open source like Linux. --Imagine that the Dos era had stopped after 6 or so, then no Windows 3.11,95. 98, 98se------but 2000, or XP, or even Vista---instead; and what we know as 98se--but not by the Big M--would be coming forth now--in 2008. ---Well?

I think it would catch on like wild fire! People would be saying wow! --look how great this OS is--and it could be exactly the same as what was released in 98, and it would not be considered obsolete. Odd and unique--but definitely not obsolete.

Or,---Imagine if there had only been 2000, and XP, and a perfected 98se had been just now introduced (not having a 98 in it of course) and not Vista---and promoted by the Big M as "the triumphant return of Dos"! Ridiculous and strange, but---

I think it would be just the success it was then, but Now! It would be embraced as simple, and useful! even today. As a breath of fresh air! in a resource hungry world--sort of like DamSmallLinux, and Puppy Linux!

Imagine for a tad--if Windows 7 was going to be a redone and perfect 98se--updated and super fitted to perfection? The redemption of the Big M!!!!

But what need would the people have for such powerful PC's needed to run OS bloat ware, and upgraded hardware?

And someplace, someware--I hear Ed Big Daddy Roth--laughing at my mad notions--whilst his RatFink friend and companion wispers in his ear "But he's right you know".

Edited June 12, 2008 by cyberformer

[Roostron]

Hi again!

Hey, Octopuss and Slugfiller... as the originator of this thread, I'm finding it annoying and somewhat alarming that you two are trying to turn this into another Win98 vs. XP trashing session. Aren't there already about 1.8X10^27 threads already in existence on that topic where you can slug it out in until you're both blue in the keyboard?

This thread was supposed to be about the current state of various OSs, and related thoughts - not another "My OS is better than your OS" thread.

Please... drop it... if you are men enough to do so.

Roostron