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

[SlugFiller]

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

Everyone thinks that. Even the ones that "remember" being abducted by UFOs after being hypnotized to "help them remember". But 6-year-old memory is nothing more then anecdote. Even if it was only a few months old, it's simply not the same as concurrent comparison, and can never be.

"Was then, is now" is simply not reliable comparison. To deny that is to deny the very foundations of empirical science.

Maybe if you were to reinstall 98 today and still believe it's more crash-prone, then you would have a proper argument.

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

I gave it in the following line. Re-read it and you will see.

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

No, you fail at reading. Even if you've change nothing about the hardware (technically, I find it hard to believe you haven't, at least, replaced a RAM chip for over 6 years, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), just by installing XP you've changed all of your memory and cache settings, and, by your own admission below, you've tweaked the hell out of these.

And again: Even if it was the exact same PC with the exact same configuration it would not be, and can never be the exact same Ultima Online.

It's a MMORPG. It updates. Automatically, and forcibly. And continuously at that.

That's another reason why you can't make comparisons 6 years apart: Things never stay the same, and you're a fool if you think they do.

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?

If you must know, I installed my current 98SE from my harddrive. The DOS came from sys-ing from a second harddrive (which is no longer plugged in). In fact, I don't think I have a 98 bootable CD anywhere. I don't really care, since it would take divine intervention to prevent my harddrive from booting up, at least in DOS mode. Can you say the same about your XP?

As for BIOS support, while I've recently replaced my motherboard, the previous one was a bit picky on where it would boot from. BIOSs sometimes do that. If you've never had that problem, you haven't been tweaking with PCs enough.

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.

"A bit more tweaking"...

I shouldn't start listing what I can do with 98 with "a bit more tweaking".

If you're going to invest the time and expertise, there's no real problem making an OS very fast and very stable.

An finally:

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

If you're not an expert, don't label your anecdotes as facts, and don't spread around myths surrounding them.

XP can be a reasonable OS, but it is not be-all-end-all, and it is not crash proof.

98 may crash on certain occasions and conditions, but it does not repeatedly and consistently crash at random, as some would have you believe, and can be fairly stable and fast after long up-times. When actually used, rather than gossiped upon, it does not crash, on average, more than other OSs.

The people who claim that it does are always the people which have not used it in years, if they have ever used it at all.

@cyberformer:

While I'm not completely convinced of your scenario, it doesn't seem that unlikely.

[Octopuss]

SlugFiller, you are a ------. I haven't seen someone so stubborn and pathetic for quite a while. Further arguing with you is absolutely pointless and with that I end the debate.

Roostron: really sorry dude, I originally hoped it would be at least partially reasonable discussion. No flamewar was intended on my side.

Edited June 13, 2008 by geek
name calling removed.

[Fredledingue]

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.

No it isn't. Business-wise it makes perfect sense. Their profits have probably never been higher.

It's also a form of "conspiracy" with hardware companies - bigger software that needs bigger hardware that needs bigger software. The perfect business model to make progressive sales of newer products without worrying about whether people actually want or need to upgrade - simply by leaving them with no choice.

Sure, this sucks royally for the end-user, but they're not aiming for customer satisfaction, only for high profit. That's business for you.

It's too bad the main non-business oriented competition is quite nearly the exact opposite of user-friendly. It has quite the potential, but ends up trying to hard and falling far short. Us end-users end up having only 98 as the middle-ground.

I don't think this model will last forever.

M$ tought they could play that game again. Nope.

XP was a true improvement regarding stability and remote management/maintenance and network but more importnatlt upgrading your hardware to XP specs alone was a huge imporvement technicaly. A few more ram and a faster cpu allows you to install XP but is a huge imporvement for w98's stability so you would upgrade your hardware anyway.

Not today. Today a 1.4 Ghz processor with 512 Mb of ram is enough to run instantly every normal apps (I'm not talking of Adobe Fotoshop or crazy games, I mean consoles used by banks, travel agencies etc) and there is no need to double that.

So where Vista wouldn't install or run smoothly, Vista is not installed and one Vista license is not sold.

The same can be told for the software uncompatible with Vista. Nobody will by a new version of the program just to have Vista. Poeple will simply ignore Vista instead.

M$ profits are stellars just because there is no concurrence (so to speak) and because IT industry has been booming and keep on booming.

What we see now with Vista is finaly discontent from end-users and businesses alike. ...and lower sales.

see my comment on this news

Interresting reading.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Fredledingue

[cannie]

Peace, please! This thread was started by another member and he deserves to be respected. You may open your own thread if you wish. Thank you.

[SlugFiller]

SlugFiller, you are a --------.

Good thing we're not resorting to personal insults, eh?

No flamewar was intended on my side.

Of course not.

You are right about one thing:

Further arguing with you is absolutely pointless

Considering your latest batch, I completely agree. You've proven exactly to what your arguments amount.

@Fredledingue:

I still think you're being optimistic. So long as the latest Windows is bundled with nearly every new pre-built computer, Microsoft's business model will stay afloat. Every new version they make, they can force computer dealers to purchase new licenses, and they have the power to enforce it.

They can also continue to influence hardware vendors, or even software vendors, to only support their new OSs. Even now "Vista ready" is slapped onto every other piece of hardware sold nowadays.

Eventually, you'll need KEx to run any future Windows program on any of the current Windows versions, even if all it does is change the return value of GetVersion(Ex).

Edited June 13, 2008 by geek
name calling removed. thank you for being civil Slugfiller

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

this thread was split from this thread it is an argument between 2 members that devolved to name calling and was split from the thread in an effort to save an otherwise constructive discussion.

i would like to take this oppurtunity to remind everyone of Rule 7b:

http://www.msfn.org/board/Forum-Rules-Upda...ead-t18408.html

7.b This community is built upon mutual respect. You are not allowed to flame other members. People who do not respect personal opinions and/or personal work will be warned in first instance. If you ignore the warning and keep on flaming, you will be banned without notice.

[Ponch]

This is the level of Youtube debates. You know, the one where people claim McEnroe would beat Federer anytime, because he's the greatest of all time... ever !

[SlugFiller]

where people claim McEnroe would beat Federer anytime

Who? ...and, who^2?

[Tarun]

As geek said, keep this discussion clean.

[herbalist]

Good title for this thread, but I think the number is too low.

When used "as installed", XP is more stable, did I say that? Once tuned up and configured properly, the difference isn't nearly as big as some would have you believe. My 98FE box runs for days without restarting, with no problems. So do the 98 units I service and set up for others. 98 is as good as the user makes it. In that respect, 98 is like an older car. Tuning them up was half the fun, especially when you got it "just right." For the typical user with little or no real computer knowledge, XP is probably more stable, but if the user knows how to work with it, 98 can be rock solid. I can't remember the last BSOD I had on my FE box. The SE testbox does see a few but they're not from anything resembling normal usage. Much of 98's alleged instability was caused by the hardware it ran on. Sure, old FE units used to crash on the original hardware, especially if Internet Explorer was used too long on systems with 64MB of RAM. IE was as much as fault for this as the OS. That said, even though 98 would eventually crash on systems with such low specs, XP couldn't run on them at all, so how was that better? When I first got this box, I ran IE6 all the time. I also used NIS 2002, a real resource hog. If I didn't reboot every hour, it would crash. With NIS installed, just starting IE6 put me under 50% available resource. I can't blame the OS when installed software caused the problem. When I replaced NIS with Kerio 2.1.5 and AntiVir free, and started using the Mozilla suite in place of IE6, my system became very stable.

Over the years, I've found that the worst thing you can do with a 9X system is to run MS software on it. I'm convinced that they've deliberately made it to run badly on 98 in order to coerce people into upgrading. I can watch my available resources steadily drop when I use IE6, until I reach the point that the OS becomes unstable. When I switched to Mozilla, that problem disappeared. I've had similar experiences with all the "big name" software and 98, enough so that I'm convinced that it's deliberate. In that respect, XP is better. If the installed software was designed with memory management in mind, the performance difference isn't that much. 98 requires the user to make better choices for the apps they're going to use. It's apparently more sensitive to poorly coded programs than XP is. For the average user that doesn't understand memory usage, XP may be the better choice. For a user that does, 98 can give you much more on the same hardware than XP can ever hope to.

Which OS is best depends entirely on what's important to the user. I'm not a gamer and I don't do much with video. For me, XP has very little to offer that my 98 boxes can't do just as well. My PC has 4 operating systems installed. The primary is 98FE, my old workhorse. It also has 98SE, primarily a testbox. It has an older linux version which is rarely used. It has Win2000 for those rare tasks that 98 won't do and for testing software that's for NT systems only. For most any task that both 98 and 2K can do, on my hardware 98 will always get it done faster, even though the 2K system has been stripped down with the trial version of XPlite/2000lite.

The security scenario is similar. If the user wants to use the latest and greatest, it probably won't run on 98. If the user wants to take control of the OS and secure it with a default-deny policy, enforced with a few good apps, 98 can be almost bulletproof at no monetary cost. There is a time cost with 98. Since security-ware vendors are dropping support, that burden falls to the user. It does cost some time to set up a good security policy, time that the average user might not want to spend this way. If you want security software and its vendors to protect your system, choose XP. If you like doing it yourself, 98 is easy to secure IF the user takes the time to understand his system. A choice between money and time.

Rick

[Zenskas]

Here you all go then. I have had a win 95, 5 pc's with win 98 and 2 with XP. ATM I have 1 xp and 1 98. The 98 is sitting in my room. The XP is the family comp in the lounge. I use both computers very equally. They are both fully updated and 98 is running much slower hardware (2.4ghz and 512mb on the xp and 667mhz and 256mb on the 98) And what do you know I like the 98 WAY MORE. Boot times are THREE TIMES AS FAST! Even when I use XP's fast 'hibernate' the 98 can almost keep up. Using the unofficial updates off this site my 98 looks like Vista and has the functions on XP yet is faster. Anything I use my XP for, I can use my 98 for. And I can play DOS games without an extra emulator which is great. 98 all the way. I wish MS would release an updated version like I have for free or cheaply and be done with it. Plenty of people would use it instead of resource hungry vista which MS has already released a service pack for. They are even already working on a new OS. There you go.