Windows 98 VS Windows Vista

[Offler]

Lets begin with hardware configuration (as always):

Board: Abit Vh6T mod "Immolator'

Intel Pentium III-S 1400mhz

1,5 gigs of ram

Ati X850XT w 256mb ram

Adaptec 19160, Seagate Cheetah 15k, Intel Pro GT, Creative soundblaster LIVE 5.1.

OS used:

a) Windows 98SE, kernelex, SESP, and many other usable upgrades

B) Windows Vista Home Basic (and business) 32-bit

First of all i would like to say that after more than ten years it is first OS upgrade i did on my main machine, and for that i am thankful to people here, which made my Win98SE able to skip whole NT5 Windows family.

Main differences:

I have been stunned when i realized that whole Vista is programmed in .net C#. that makes vista bit more efficient than NT5 family windowses. Also i like the way when graphic card is responsible for all graphic effects on desktop (finally Graphic user interface is not handled by CPU).

but at this point most of good news are gone.

Drivers:

Vista 32bit and Windows 98se are able both use same WDM drivers. only difference is that ati released wdm drivers only for windows 2000 and newer, and especially for vista there are DWM capable drivers.

In Win98 i have full 5.1 surround with all possible sound effects and with ASIO function enabled. In vista i have churming stereo. The Creative's policy of vista drivers is just not acceptable for me, but at all this is not problem of OS.

In TV tuner i found errors on PCI bus (errors in image). Later i discovered that it was caused by "CPU to AGP bridge" driver which has been provided as a generic driver by microsoft. i tried to solve this and i found very strange behaviour.

But before that i found big issue in generic graphic driver - no OPENGL available. after upgrade by ATI drivers also i found extreme low performance of graphic card - surely caused by driver, which was also solved by newer versions of Catalyst 9.x. Later the ATI dropped the support of my graphic card completely, so i tried the 6.2 catalysts from year 2006. They worked seamlessly except missing DWM support (and thus aero was not available).

later i found another connection. "CPU to AGP bridge" driver from year 2002 by Via works with Catalyst 6.2 perfectly. I get best performance, driver related errors were fixed, but 3d accelerated desktop became unavailable due missing DWM support. New AGP driver with new Catalyst can fix performance errors, but not driver related errors on PCI bus caused by AGP driver, but the AERO and 3d acceleration of desktop is available. Old AGP driver, and DWM enabled graphic driver are not compatible.

At this point it is question if i want to have stable and functional system, with slow desktop, but realy good memory and cpu management, or system with hidden issues, bit lower performance but nice and beatiful 3d accelerated Aero. in my opinion... i hate disguise, and Vista Home basic (single cpu version, without aero) seems more suitable for my old computer.

Also the most funny thing is that Vista 32bit is able to use same drivers as Win98SE which is 10 years old system, but Vista 64 bit is completely different cup of tea.

3d game performance:

The Vista looks a bit faster than windows 98 for many reasons and in more than one games. the reason seems to be connected with the graphic card driver and also in more functional opengl support for some products. Also the cpu management (and app management) is really better when it comes to it.

App support:

Some programs from era when games were made both for DOS and WIN95 are not able to work with vista correctly, and dos programs are out completely. This makes vista only a bit worse that its predcessor. 64bit version should not be able to work with any 16bit apps (even with those which were created for win3.1 and win9x on 16bit), but this doesnt apply to my old 32 bit processor and windows.

It will took another 5 years until 64 bit become more used for app creation in way when common user will be able to see the difference in performance and appearance of those applications.

Potential:

Vista offers potential for the old machines, but in many cases it is wasted by very bad driver support. At all only few applications were able to run better on vista. Right now it offers some features which are better like on XP, but i cannot use most of them, and nice design of desktop is not the main goal of any the system upgrade - for the same reason i didnt install XP i have to smash Vista. Too few things to offer, althought more than XP.

Generally from my point of view i have to downgrade most drivers to 2000/XP versions, disable Vista themes to get Windows 2000 like system with a bit better core, but with extremely large disk footprint and at all slower desktop performance, lower backward app compatibiliy, better forward app compatibility, but faster app performance.

the difference between 9X/2K/XP and Vista is that fewer drivers in vista works correcly, sound is impaired, and hardware support is worse, althougt Vista core is better.

to remind Win98 vs XP article i just say, that XP core was not so good at it was described by MS, and all drivers worked for both systems in exception of graphic card, also application compatibility was also very close because of KernelEX. Even today only 10 percent of all apps are not able to run on win9x. Vista has indeed better core as win98 and XP, as first system in 10 years, and thats also the reason why i write such article.

Requirements:

They are not so high as it was believed. Big ram? NO. I have 1,5 gigs and 1 gig is still free. Disk? Partially yes, but do not forget to disable automatic defragmentation and to setup a pagefile with same maximum and minimum values. Thats also the thing that was never mentioned before and never applied before. I was wondering what it is doing all the time but i didnt realized that there is defrag running invisibly on the background.

CPU? Absolutely NOT. Vista can supress background processes to minimum to speedup the main application. Graphic card? YES. here is the main point. But even onboard Intel graphics can run Vista Aero safely.

At all Win98 has surely lower requirements.

Impact:

Well. Vista is not bestseller. Question is if Win7 will break this, but it is question. If the users will stick with WinXP 32bit to prefer backward compatibility of all apps instead of complete rebuild of all systems to 64bit Windowses the Win9x projects will still have potential to live on. Right now it seems that newer OS will be more reliable on newer hardware and it is not sure that this will apply during financial crisis.

I am one of the few who believes that Vista is better than XP, but i really doubt that vista and 7 will spread massively as XP did few years ago. The transfer from 32 to 64 bits will be painful for many users...

Conclusion:

I believe that vista is a choice of secondary system when win98se with all updates cannot handle everything that is needed, but nothing less and nothing more. List of new features is quite interesting, but half of them are useless, and quarter has to be disabled. Vista has only few things to do in 32bit space.

[specialbao1]

Windows 98 is good beside bsods.

Jackhammer reduces number of bsods.

I beleive windows 98 has poor support other than msfn for skinning, kernel,updates etc.

Windows 98 is difficult for work.

Edited August 15, 2009 by specialbao1

[Leo Natan]

I have been stunned when i realized that whole Vista is programmed in .net C#.

Lmao, right from the start you show how much you know about OS development in general and Vista in particular.

.net C#. that makes vista bit more efficient

Then you show how little you know about programming in general.

You expect anyone to take you seriously?

Edited August 25, 2009 by Leo Natan

[BenoitRen]

Thread going down the drain in 3... 2... 1...

[Leo Natan]

Thread going down the drain in 3... 2... 1...

It was in the drain ever since the OP posted it.

[bristols]

I have been stunned when i realized that whole Vista is programmed in .net C#.

Lmao, right from the start you show how much you know about OS development in general and Vista in particular.

.net C#. that makes vista bit more efficient

Then you show how little you know about programming in general.

You expect anyone to take you seriously?

@Leo Natan:

Unless you explain and elaborate upon your comments in this thread - for those not as 'skilled' as you clearly think you are - then your input is useless. If you can explain, please do so, and show some respect while you're doing it. If you can't - or won't - then refrain from posting here.

Bye.

Edited August 25, 2009 by bristols

[Leo Natan]

Do I really need to elaborate? Really? Google has all the answers, you know. Do I really have to find and explain how managed code can never be used for complete operating system? Or how managed programming frameworks can almost never keep up with unmanaged programming? There are countless such comparisons on the internets. I may have sounded harsh, but come on! I only waste time finding sources for what I say when it is not as obvious as in this case. But then again, you are using Windows 98 in 2009, you probably haven't heard of managed code, so what he says may indeed seem logical to you.

http://www.developer.com/net/cplus/print.php/2197621

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system_development

Edit: Bye.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Leo Natan

[Queue]

Bye.

You've made 5 posts and they're all garbage so far. Are you sure you're at these forums for the right reasons? Because it looks like you're just going around picking fights.

Queue

[Leo Natan]

It is interesting how you guys only comment on my style of posting, which is aggressive, sure, but has all the facts correct. Instead of thinking critically, checking when the guy writes, you cry about attitude. Maybe you guys don't like facts, or the idea of learning something new, or digging for information might seem like huge no-noes to you, but to me these are the most important things. Maybe none of you care about the facts, after all, the dude has posted something that fits your way of thinking, so hey, who cares about the facts or the truth, right?

"Right reason", what is that exactly? Getting along with everyone, regardless of what they say? Posting happy smiles after every word? Here you go: :)

For me right reasons are correcting misleading information first and foremost. Not being politically correct with a bunch of people I don't even know.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Leo Natan

[bristols]

It is interesting how you guys only comment on my style of posting, which is aggressive, sure, but has all the facts correct. Instead of thinking critically, checking when the guy writes, you cry about attitude. Maybe you guys don't like facts, or the idea of learning something new, or digging for information might seem like huge no-noes to you, but to me these are the most important things. Maybe none of you care about the facts, after all, the dude has posted something that fits your way of thinking, so hey, who cares about the facts or the truth, right?

"Right reason", what is that exactly? Getting along with everyone, regardless of what they say? Posting happy smiles after every word? Here you go: :)

For me right reasons are correcting misleading information first and foremost. Not being politically correct with a bunch of people I don't even know.

You make all kinds of assumptions, all in favour of yourself, you give no-one but yourself any credit, and you're rude. It took calling you on your attitude (which was completely uncalled for, and yet fairly common from non-9x users here) to even get any facts out of you. Since you are so fond of facts - no doubt you are a real defender of truth and, I dare say, a hero - you should know that facts and knowledge ought to be shared, not kept for the sole exclusive bragging rights of individuals.

Of course, I did ask you to substantiate your assertions (preferably with facts), more than I called you on your attitude. In response, you asked whether you need to bother to substantiate your assertions:

Do I really need to elaborate? Really? Google has all the answers

It is exactly posts like this that start the flame wars in these forums so complained about by mods. @Mods: please take note.

Edited August 26, 2009 by bristols

[BenoitRen]

But then again, you are using Windows 98 in 2009, you probably haven't heard of managed code, so what he says may indeed seem logical to you.

Know your history. Managed code has been around for a long time. I know Visual Basic and Java were at the time.

[Leo Natan]

But then again, you are using Windows 98 in 2009, you probably haven't heard of managed code, so what he says may indeed seem logical to you.

Know your history. Managed code has been around for a long time. I know Visual Basic and Java were at the time.

Oh I know, managed programming has existed in one form or another from the late 70s, and that's just from what I know, so could be that it has existed even earlier. However at that period (late 90s), programming in general wasn't as popular as it is today. VB, Java and, certainly to a much larger extent, .NET have brought programming to the "mainstream". This is what I was referring to, C# and .NET were only in various early design stages at the time Windows 98 was released.

[dencorso]

It is exactly posts like this that start the flame wars in these forums so complained about by mods. @Mods: please take note.

Note is being taken, rest assured. We won't have any other flame war here, no way!

[Offler]

First of all, Managed code can be and is used in Windows 98SE daily. Install .net 2.0, then install DirectX 9.0 and check what has changed in the list of DX files in dxdiag. Of course - DX managed code will appear.

Several benchmark test which i used to see if DX managed code does something or does not gived me results where my computer has aproximately 5-10 percent better 3D performance based on DirectX. Later i read some articles about .net and its possibilities and i was quite impressed. Right now i am betatesting a software which is being developed in C# and based on Dx managed code...

I belive that .net is really good way how to create a program, althought i know it needs a bit more hardware.

Later i got some minor issue with my hardware - it was the memory, and the betatested application returned an error. Later i discovered that memory modules were not connected correctly. Before the issue was fixed i have seen same memory error in vista regarding to Explorer.exe. If this core part of Vista is .net based it means that i am really sure that more of them are .net based.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Offler

[Leo Natan]

If you are interested in game development (or 3D applications in general), and would like to code in C#, I suggest staying away from Managed DX, as it is fairly outdated and has some compatibility issues. Instead take a look at XNA, which may seem at first like it has been developed solely for games, but it is usable in all fields of 3D application development, and unless very high performance is needed, XNA is perfect for C#. [Let's face it, if very high performance was needed, C# and managed DX would not have been used in the first place.] I'm not sure if you can run the latest version of XNA on Windows 98 (it requires .NET Framework 3.5 and VS2008), but even XNA 2.0 is much better than Managed DX.