It has been 7 years since Win98 was released

[eidenk]

What about the speed of file operations ?

I do not use XP but I did dual boot my ME with 2000 SP2 for some time and all I can remember is that deleting a file to the recycle bin was painfully slow with 2000 and instant with ME. Almost a second lag between clicking delete and the file icon disappearing. I must say that I did not format the 2000 in NTFS but in FAT32 and that 2000 was totaly unoptimized unlike ME.

It would be interesting I think to hear about people dual-booting 98 with XP, as there are some, with respect to file system speed.

[prathapml]

WinME is a bit faster than Win98 at file operations speed.

Win2k needs 500 MHz and 128 MB atleast, to have the same speed as Win9x on older hardware.

And WinXP needs atleast 1.5 GHz and 256 MB memory for that speed.

So, as you can see....

if you are running win98 on a system with 1.5GHz proc and 256M memory, then you'd rather move to XP.

[azagahl]

And WinXP needs atleast 1.5 GHz and 256 MB memory for that speed.

So, as you can see....

if you are running win98 on a system with 1.5GHz proc and 256M memory, then you'd rather move to XP.

So you are saying that XP requires more resources to reach the same speed?

Doesn't that mean that changing to XP, while your resources remain constant, would cause things to slow down?

There is no problem with people using a 98 machine as long as they don't connect it to the internet.

Unpatched XP machines are very dangerous to attach to the Internet. Unpatched 98 is safer in my experience, and if it's patched its very reliable. There's never been the equivalent of the Blaster fiasco with 98.

[un4given1]

And WinXP needs atleast 1.5 GHz and 256 MB memory for that speed.

So, as you can see....

if you are running win98 on a system with 1.5GHz proc and 256M memory, then you'd rather move to XP.

So you are saying that XP requires more resources to reach the same speed?

Doesn't that mean that changing to XP, while your resources remain constant, would cause things to slow down?

Everything has been said that needs to be said. Stay with Windows 98. Who cares? I work in technology as do many of the people here. It's obvious you do not, and never want to. So, stay with Windows 98SE (can't leave out that SE... you are all so protective of those two letters) Keep thinking your myths about Windows XP. Wait until the Nazi Bill Gates releases another Windows version and then watch as you switch to XP and bash Longhorn. You are all afraid of change, whatever. Who cares anymore.

There is no problem with people using a 98 machine as long as they don't connect it to the internet.

Unpatched XP machines are very dangerous to attach to the Internet. Unpatched 98 is safer in my experience, and if it's patched its very reliable. There's never been the equivalent of the Blaster fiasco with 98.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anything unpatched is dangerous. Your experience? I can't imagine your experience with XP has been very long or you would be a little more informed. There have been big viruses on all versions of windows. How about the Love Bug Virus?

Stay with Windows 98. I'll enjoy the technology. I'll upgrade to Longhorn once it's released. I run Windows Mobile 2003 on my cell phone. I have the newest versions of everything. I don't like to dwell in the past. Arguements with you are like talking to my friend who believes that his 79 Nova is the greatest car that was ever made. He believes it's more reliable, although he has replaced the engine 3 times in a year and a half. He refuses to get a newer car because they have computers in them, and he says they are harder to work on, yet he never does the work himself. Stay with Windows 98... I'll still sleep tonight.

[Fredledingue]

Parapthml,

And WinXP needs atleast 1.5 GHz and 256 MB memory for that speed.

So, as you can see....

if you are running win98 on a system with 1.5GHz proc and 256M memory, then you'd rather move to XP.

what yousay is exact 2000 is slower/heavier than W98 and XP is slower/heavier than 2000.

But a fast computer doesn't justify XP. A staunch pro-XP computer vendor once told me that XP became to be interresting, in the sens that you don't notice too much the slow down with XP, from 2 Ghz systems and above...

It sounded like a confession from him.

But, myself, I would put the limit from which XP start to work almost as fast as w98 at 3 Ghz.

Deleting a file on my P4 1.8 Ghz - 512DDR - W98SE is taking 1/1000 of a second. I don't know if I need it faster. Of course I don't use Windows Explorer (that crap) for such operation but rather Xplorer2 or the likes...

Unforgiven

So you are upset of these little "SE"? Well W98SE is to W98a what XP is to W2000.

But, it's even worse: now you will have to read more and more ofthen not only W98SE but W98SP2.0!

[prathapml]

How about the Love Bug Virus?

You forgot Melissa and all the other email worms. They mostly spread through Outlook Express, and most win98 users use unpatched versions of it.

And WinXP needs atleast 1.5 GHz and 256 MB memory for that speed.

So, as you can see....

if you are running win98 on a system with 1.5GHz proc and 256M memory, then you'd rather move to XP.

So you are saying that XP requires more resources to reach the same speed?

Doesn't that mean that changing to XP, while your resources remain constant, would cause things to slow down?

Hi azagahl,

Yup, needs more resources to reach the same speed. Compare it to a Ferrari guzzling more petrol than the mini-car. But once its turned on, its capabilities is enormous.

And yes, if your argument is that you need none of the extra capabilities, then that is fine too. Go ahead and use it as you like it, since that's your choice. We live in a free world, and choice is always good to have.

[Fredledingue]

Parpathml

Compare it to a Ferrari guzzling more petrol than the mini-car.

Compare it to ford focus, opel corsa, ford fiesta... OSes are not cars.

The differences of capabilities between W98 and XP are not enermous.

My W98SE is driving me fatser then the old guy driving slowly his Ferrari, on one hand for all to see his red sport cabriolet, and on the other hand to save gazoline. But also because he's too old to drive fast.

(except for the rarified network manager like un4Given hwo get lots of useful perks for theyr professional needs with XP...)

[un4given1]

I could care less about the "SE" it's someone else who seems to have a fit when I say "Windows 98" without the "SE." Technically the only difference between the two is that Windows 98SE includes a bugfix that didn't allow Windows 98 to run on 2.2Ghz and higher, Windows 98SE includes DVD-ROM support, Windows 98SE includes Internet Connection Sharing, and has some better power management features. Also, it includes improved USB support. Windows 98SE should have been called "Windows 98 SP1" That's all it is to me. It's a Service Pack that Microsoft required users to purchase if they wanted it's functionality.

[un4given1]

You guys are hopeless. You are so afraid of change and so hard headed that you will defend your precious Windows 98 "SE" until you die. Your misconceptions about it's speed and it's functionality only perpetuate. Like I said... go ahead and continue using it, I don't care. The only thing I care about is making sure your misconceptions are corrected.

[johnny_9x]

win 98se rocks who cares how good xp is im 2 poor to buy it .

[un4given1]

win 98se rocks who cares how good xp is im 2 poor to buy it .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's an honest post. I can live with that. Also, welcome to MSFN!

[johnny_9x]

thx ya un4given . ived used xp at school plenty and friends place .im only on a P2 and its 2 slow we try it once 30 day trial but it was sweet.the thing i found is people back in 2001/2002 resisted change because it was a little different and little getting use 2 and the minute frustration kicked in they curse it and ran back to 98se .one day ill say 98se is fairly simple to operate guess its ok for a newbie on a old box.i even read in forums about people who wanted to make their xp resemble 98 thats silly like having a 8 cylinder and pulling out 4 sparkplugs lol

[azagahl]

Deleting a file on my P4 1.8 Ghz - 512DDR - W98SE is taking 1/1000 of a second.

And deleting a file on my 3400+ 1 GB W98 SE is taking 1/2000 of a second.

On 3 GHz dual-core 1 GB XP, the system often hangs and the disk grinds away for seconds at a time. My disk is not especially fragmented, I have GB's of free space, I have all animation effects turned off, recycle bin disabled, and I have a reasonable page file (1.5 GB). Maybe it is one of the 100 services or 50 processes that are running continously?

[un4given1]

You are arguing that Windows XP is slow to delete files? I can't believe this is one of your problems with it. Is it possible you had the index service still on? Or System Restore? Two services that while they may not be needed by all, they are nice things to have. Also, I would like to know how you went about measuring 1/2000th of a second. I think you are mistaken about the system hanging. Windows XP allocates seperate memory spaces for everything it does. This allows for you to do things without having the effects of a hanging system. Azagahl, I am completely convinced that your knowledge of Windows XP is completely based on myth. Let me ask you... what internet browser do you use?

[azagahl]

You are arguing that Windows XP is slow to delete files? I can't believe this is one of your problems with it.

Everything is slow, deleting files is just one example.

Is it possible you had the index service still on? Or System Restore? Two services that while they may not be needed by all, they are nice things to have.

I believe System Restore is off. I don't know about index service, are you saying I should disable these XP features so my PC behaves as if 98 were installed? Is that what you do?

Also, I would like to know how you went about measuring 1/2000th of a second.

It was obviously just a joke. I meant that the time is negligible. I press Delete and *poof* the file is gone. The disk doesn't grind and the UI doesn't stutter for seconds at a time.

EDIT: deleting a folder is instant on 98 SE. On XP the pain seems to increase as the total number of files recursively selected increases.

This allows for you to do things without having the effects of a hanging system.

I don't know if it's strictly "hanging"; but whatever you call it, it prevents any meaningful work from being performed.

Let me ask you... what internet browser do you use?

Sometimes IE, but usually FireFox. (I like all the features like tabbed browsing, RSS support, extensions, etc.)