It has been 7 years since Win98 was released

[tim_horton]

this is my favorite threads makes me laugh .if u have xp it would be dumb to use a older os if u cant use xp because of processor etc then 98se is the best bet.or use both.but u cant put 98se up to xp its a no brainer xp wins hands down.i heard the the reson 4 98se as followed. 1-easy to use 2-no activation 3-most games work yada yada yada as for xp -more in step with todays multimedia/networking etc etc. if u just wanta surf play yahoo games pm your mother then stay with 98 its cheaper. but if u love media or lean towards the bussiness side xp pro. ived used all oses and they have their short commings fresh out of betas .but it seems like its like defencing your favorite sports team 2 matter how good or bad. maybe the thread should be why i still use 98se. anyhow one mans ramblings take care the battle rages on lol.l

[azagahl]

if u have xp it would be dumb to use a older os

but u cant put 98se up to xp its a no brainer xp wins hands down.

Whatever, I have been granted a genuine xp license but I do not want it. I much prefer using 98 SE to my XP system.

And I have apps from older OS's such as DOS 5.0. If something works fine and has not produced a bug in 15 years, should I throw it out just because its old?

if u cant use xp because of processor etc then 98se is the best bet

Actually my main PC has Athlon 64 3400+ with 98 SE. So I can run XP. But why would I want to spend money on a fast processor and then let 100 XP services I don't need sap all of its power? Disk access in XP is demonstrably slower, as shown earlier in this thread. Should I buy an even faster PC to compensate for needless bloat like Resultant Set of Policy dragging my disk access down? My 98 SE system boots up on the order of 10 times faster than the equivalent XP system. From a 98 SE user standpoint, every aspect of XP feels sluggish, unresponsive, and superfluous.

FYI Longhorn reputedly fixes a lot of these performance issues. I may consider upgrading to it.

i heard the the reson 4 98se as followed. 1-easy to use 2-no activation 3-most games work yada yada yada

I gave about 10 reasons, not counting "yada yada yada". All of them are legitimate.

Here is an 11th reason: stability. I haven't seen a single crash on my 98 SE system crash in about week. My XP OS, while rarely crashing (although it has crashed before, and taken out the partition with it), requires frequent rebooting due to crashed apps leaving locked and undeleteable files on my hard disk. My disk is usually full of files like "deleteme", etc., from trying to work around this continual annoyance. The fully-patched XP system also requires rebooting due to keyboard and/or mouse lock ups, inexplicable slowdowns, or all windows disappearing when I hit Ctrl-Alt-Del; I have no such problems on 98 SE.

I think 98 se wasn't like this when it came out, but several years worth of patching have definitely made a difference. My system is not that carefully maintained, but I know one user who claims to have not seen a crash in a couple of years.

as for xp -more in step with todays multimedia/networking etc etc.

Really? I can play 3D vertex- and pixel-shaded DirectX 9.0c games, watch streaming video, edit video imported from my digital camera, compose music and write it to my MP3 player, and use Remote Desktop all from 98 SE. I also have Firefox, e-mail, packet sniffer, a firewall, HTTP server, and use P2P programs. What multimedia / networking features am I deprived of exactly?

98 SE is a fine OS and using it is an exciting and dynamic experience. Micros~1 just released upgrade patches for it just a couple of days ago and 98 SE SP 2.0 is due to come out soon. And there are still supported hardware possibilities I haven't fully explored - e.g. SATA and Firewire.

I truly feel sorry for home users who paid hundreds of dollars to upgrade to a sluggish, malware-infested, communist-activated OS like XP and helped support the micros~1 monopoly. You fell for it.

[trickytwista]

win xp compared to window 98 or 98se is a joke full stop..xp beats it down 2 the ground without breaking into a sweat...win 98 users just need 2 know how 2 use xp and it aint hard 2 suss out either....guess just part timers...keep it real..peace..twista

[un4given1]

Actually my main PC has Athlon 64 3400+ with 98 SE

Wow... what a waste. You have a 64 bit processor running a 32 bit OS. You get no added performance from this chip. Granted Windows XP is 32 bit, but they are releasing a 64 bit version. With this processor you should not have any slowdown in Windows XP whatsoever. That would be like running a multi processor PC with Windows 98. Windows 98 is not a multi-thread OS. Windows XP is.

My 98 SE system boots up on the order of 10 times faster than the equivalent XP system

I absolutely guarantee that Windows XP boots faster than Windows 98... ABSOLUTELY!

and use Remote Desktop all from 98 SE.

only the client piece... not the server. "Why would I need server?" Well, I use it to log into my PC from other locations. It's a fantastic tool, all built into XP. You CAN NOT utilize the server piece of RDC in Windows 98.

All along he has been posting into this thread which is now more than 180 posts large..... about how XP is better.

Well, other than that, WinXP when fortified with SP2, is the best desktop OS out there. Reasons? un4given1 posted a lot of them.

THANK YOU! I was gonna say the same thing. If you have just joined this thread spend the next week reading it before you reply again. Thank you!

Bigger target (both bigger OS and more visibility) for virii and malware

Prove it! Your incorrect.

Signifcant performance degradation

If you are noticing any degradation on your 3400 chip then you might want to reevaluate your knowledge of PCs. Good luck trying to get a job in the IT industry... becuause I assure you if you sit in front of the Director of IT of any big company and tell him that Windows XP "sucks" you aren't going to get that job. Try it.

Significant memory consumption

Windows XP runs each program in a seperate protected memory space which means if your program crashes your PC does not. This is not the case with Windows 98. Also, Windows XP releases memory from background processes (unless told otherwise) for use with foreground processes... OK, so where in all of those TRUTHS are you able to make your point?

Waste of disk space

Yeah... wouldn't want you to lose out on 2 gigs of warez or illegal MP3s or movies... becuase we all know that it's SOOOO easy to fill a 200GB HD with all legally purchased programs and songs.

Backwards compatability problems

Name one... Windows XP has "compatability mode" which can be set to allow a program to run in a compatable environment... But since you haven't used XP much you wouldn't know this... It's so easy to setup too... you right click on your shortcut and click Properties and Compatability.

Cumbersome interfaces (e.g. Find)

Win Key + F You know there's a registry key you can run to take away the search dog. There is even a check box you can click when you run it once....

Poor troubleshooting (e.g. Shift-F8)

It's like a Toyota to a Ford... a Ford might be easier to fix but the Toyota probably won't break... I'm not sure if your statement means the "Help and Support" system is worse than Windows 98's help (which you are completely insane if you believe this) or if you mean it just takes a greater skillset to repair it...

I thought XP was supposed to be easy to use. Does a home user really need the experience of having set up a hundred systems to avoid all of the problems us forum members are reporting?

You all keep using my posts out of context. This wasn't to show it was easier or that it takes that much knowledge to use it... I was simply showing that my opinion is not based on one system that might be completely compatable with Windows 98 and not completely compatable with Windows XP. I believe that's your situation. The only time I have come across a situation where Windows 98 is better for a system is if it has less than 256MB of RAM and lower than a 700Mhz Processor.

BTW, I think one big reason people like XP is because its "newer". Not actually better, just newer

You will never get it... You are like a linux user or a Mac user. You don't have to be right, you just are because you said so... right? (and this was not to say those OSes are better or worse... just pointing out how hardheaded you are about this.. give me facts, not opinions.)

[azagahl]

Bigger target (both bigger OS and more visibility) for virii and malware

Prove it! Your[sic] incorrect.

The windir directory is substantially bigger on XP as reported above. A greater number of bytes means more machine code to locate security flaws such as buffer overruns and integer overflows. Even at micros~1 software development, reducing attack profile of code is a good reason to cut features.

A greater number of users, with on average more cash and better candidates for zombie PC's, means criminals prefer attacking XP. I don't have exact measurements but everyone knows that micros~1 has been gushing forth streams of patches for XP's security problems. As an IT worker surely you know all of this.

Good luck trying to get a job in the IT industry

Aboo ahoo ahoo...

And I wanted to be an IT director when I grow up.

Then I could have a bloated ego and shove my OS of choice down everyone's throat.

I absolutely guarantee that Windows XP boots faster than Windows 98... ABSOLUTELY!

That just sounds like an opinion. I'm seeing 98 SE boot up nearly ten times faster on equivalent hardware. What ratio are you seeing?

Waste of disk space

Yeah... wouldn't want you to lose out on 2 gigs of warez or illegal MP3s or movies... becuase we all know that it's SOOOO easy to fill a 200GB HD with all legally purchased programs and songs.

Um, I'm not sure about what you are doing with your PC, but even on a nearly empty disk, extra bloat is still a burden. It increases the installation time, it increases the amount of time your disk spends seeking, it increases the time required for scandisk/defragmenting/backup/searches/virus checkers/etc., and it results in slower access to files due to decreased velocity of the disk at inner tracks.

"Why would I need server?" Well, I use it to log into my PC from other locations.

But I don't need to log in from other locations, nor do I want to. It sounds like another security risk for me.

The only time I have come across a situation where Windows 98 is better for a system is if it has less than 256MB of RAM and lower than a 700Mhz Processor.

Ahh.. that is due to the significant memory consumption and performance degradation associated with XP.

You will never get it... You are like a linux user or a Mac user.

Are you implying linux and mac users are dense?

In your estimation are you much smarter than Linus Torvalds and Steve Jobs?

[un4given1]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/eva...erformance.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/eva...eliability.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/eva.../usability.mspx

There's some proof of everything I have said... Where's your proof?

[azagahl]

The performance page you listed links to here: http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/msxp.pdf

I have doubts about how applicable these test are and whether they are unbiased. They are about 4 years old and deal with only release candidates of XP. Most people use actual XP releases with SP1 or SP2 service packs. Also, "Microsoft selected the nine test systems we used for this test." Furthermore, Microsoft funded this study.

Finally, 98 SE is excluded from most of the tests. And in some of the tests it actually does the best. For example, in Business Winstone 2001 Results Systems G and H. In WebMark 2001 System F, 98 SE trounces XP.

Overall I am having trouble finding a lot of direct comparisons between 98 SE and XP on the Internet. This review sounds particularly bad for XP though:

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/0...029tcwinxp.html

"In the most extreme scenario, our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as did the Windows 2000 client... Overall we are quite disappointed with Windows XP's ability to pull serious weight when compared to Windows 2000. "

I would like to see a more recent test and applicable test (e.g. 98 SP 2 vs. XP SP2) hopefully not funded by Microsoft. In any event, it doesn't change the fact that other users here have reported performance problems in XP and personally I experience the difference every day.

[un4given1]

I could have guessed what you were going to say...

Also, the article you posted was 2000 to XP. And, it compares Office 2000 to Office XP. So, here we are in a Windows 98 thread debating if Windows XP is better/worse.. I give you proof to back up what I say, and you give me proof that Office XP is slower than Office 2000...

Anyways, Office XP is much more stable, reliable and does not crash nearly as often... I'll gladly wait longer for it to load... but back to the main agenda... Give me proof of all of your opinions of Windows XP being true... because so far you have stated opinions which you believe to be facts, which I have denounced by showing proof.

[DigeratiPrime]

Its my first post in this nasty thread, Im curious though.

Have the people who use Win98, tried a 'nlited' XP with SP2 slipstreamed?

Also have they tried any Linux Distros?

Personally I use XP as my main OS, but I am experimenting with several Linux Distros. Namely Xandros, Fedora, SuSE, and Knoppix. I think any of these would be better than win98.

btw Some of my reasons for choosing XP over 98 are: easier to network PC's, Hardware Detection, Built for Broadband, Better File Structure, Better User Management, Easier to Deploy (Unattended), Themes & Visual Styles, Office2003, and compatibility with some (other) new software.

[Crash&Burn]

I'll prolly install linux on my new PC in the next month or so, but I found Cygwin did everything I needed and was a very nice "enhanced dos box"

As for XP? no thanks, I might install Win2K as I don't necessarily want to partition 2 160-200GB drives into 5-7 partitions each.

As for stability claims, my 98se box only needs to be rebooted every 16-24 days, with heavy usage, utilizing CD-Tools, Opera, TotalCommander, etc.

Just tried MDGx's 98se2me after a clean Install, so will see how my system stability performs w/ that.

[randiroo76073]

Please ask them not ot use illegal software. Pirating is an offence, no matter which version.

You would be better off friend to quit accusing people of piracy when you know nothing about them. You may use pirated software, but most of us have plunked down our hardearned cash for the software we run

[un4given1]

You would be better off friend to quit accusing people of piracy when you know nothing about them.

It's a good indicator when you have someone complaining about the extra 2 gig of space that an OS takes up when they have a 120GB+ drive... Besides, you brought NOTHING to this topic. Have anything to support Windows 98 being "better" or "worse" than any other OS? If not please stay out of it. The gentleman you are speaking with is a moderator so... Anyways, like I said, unless you have something to bring to the conversation, stay out. Thank you.

[DigeratiPrime]

sorry, buts that last point is almost the same as saying that everyone that uses nlite pirates software.

[azagahl]

Also have they tried any Linux Distros?

Yes, mostly Slackware. In my opinion 98 SE > Linux > XP.

Linux is very stable but the GUI's tend to freeze, requiring reboots anyway.

Have the people who use Win98, tried a 'nlited' XP with SP2 slipstreamed?

No, how much does nlite cost? Will it help reduce the bloat of sluggishness of XP?

Activation is the worst feature in XP so nlite will probably not convince me to use it. When I buy software, I want the right to use it.

It's a good indicator when you have someone complaining about the extra 2 gig of space that an OS takes up when they have a 120GB+ drive

I have 300 GB so free space is no problem for me. But that does not mean I want to just clog my drive needlessly with bloat. Furthermore, I keep a number of backup images so that 2 GB is likely to be amplified many times.

The gentleman you are speaking with is a moderator so...

The moderator is probably mature enough to handle dissenting opinions - not everyone here has an infantile ego. It's odd that he hasn't moderated any of the inane insulting messages you've spewed here. FYI posting your life history also wasn't on-topic.

[un4given1]

FYI posting your life history also wasn't on-topic.

It sure was... it was to back up facts and show that I have an extensive knowledge of the subject. If you did not wish to question me then it would have never come up. Like I said... where's YOUR proof?