It has been 7 years since Win98 was released

[Controller Khan]

Ntfs is not secure.

Use Ntfs4dos by Sysinternals to read Ntfs volumes or knoppix

with captive using Winxp Files to read and write on Ntfs volumes.

The encryption is on Windows 2000 useless.this was fixed with WinXp.

Ntfs is said to be a journal file system,however it completely sucks.

But Ntfs offers hardlinks and streams,which can be usefull

but aren`t useful for normal users.

The only advantage of Windows 2000 is hibernation,which I use

on my laptops and desktops.Under Windows Xp it does not work.

about Athlon 64 one can use the registers of 64-mode,but it interferes

with Windows 98.

Windows Xp 64-bit on a athlon 64 is complete loss,as it as slow as in 32-bit.

Use Linux to advantage of it.

[azagahl]

Use Linux to advantage of it.

What distribution would you recommend?

[un4given1]

Agreed, I thought the point of the thread is why are we still using 98, not what extra features does XP have that we don't need.

No, it was not. You are absolutely correct. It turned into this when YOU started stating your MYTHS about Windows XP and I defended them. But, every time we try to put it back on track, you continue to spout off. Think we can try this again?

[un4given1]

Ntfs is not secure.

Use Ntfs4dos by Sysinternals to read Ntfs volumes or knoppix

with captive using Winxp Files to read and write on Ntfs volumes.

IF you have access to the local box, yes, you can do this. BUT, over the net you will find it's VERY secure.

Ntfs is said to be a journal file system,however it completely sucks.

How so? If you are going to post something like this, back it up.

The only advantage of Windows 2000 is hibernation,which I use

on my laptops and desktops.Under Windows Xp it does not work.

You have some hardware or installation issues. It does work.

Windows Xp 64-bit on a athlon 64 is complete loss,as it as slow as in 32-bit.

Use Linux to advantage of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have no clue.

[prathapml]

Windows Xp 64-bit on a athlon 64 is complete loss,as it as slow as in 32-bit.

Use Linux to advantage of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes, so what?

It _will_ be slow for all normal operations. It makes its power apparent only when you run apps specifically written to take advantage of it.

Okay, lets settle the issue of linux once for all in this thread, since so many of you seem to be saying go to linux rather than XP.

1. In what way EXACTLY is the 64-bit (linux) kernel optimised, that it can take better advantage of the hardware than XP ? Specialised apps? Well, those apps exist for windows x64 as well.

2. Next, lets take you up on your offer of moving to linux. Yeah, do it. Lets see how comfortable you are on it.

3. Are you REMOTELY aware of the distribution/compatibility mess that linux is? Something that you got working finally after 5 days of slogging on RedHat won't work on Debian, and so on...... Forget it, I won't bother telling all this, just see for yourself.

In future, when telling that your upgrade path upwards from Win98 is linux rather than WinXP, see the 3 points stated above, and do your homework on it.

[eidenk]

Are you REMOTELY aware of the distribution/compatibility mess that linux is?

There isn't really any mess there. Each major distro has its own collection of thousands of precompiled software packages. Before installing any of them them you know in advance you won't have any issue with them unlike when you install anything on Microsoft. Before running an installer on Microsoft you never can be sure it won't mess badly your system. Of course trying to manually install a deb package on Red Hat is almost certainly doomed to failure unless you are an expert. But you can't do it by mistake through the Red Hat package manager. If you want to be able to install anything on any distro you've got a single thing to learn, it is compiling packages from sources at the command line. When you know how to do this you can compile and install any program from its source tarballs on any distro.

2. Next, lets take you up on your offer of moving to linux. Yeah, do it. Lets see how comfortable you are on it.

Well, the Mandrake installer really shames Microsoft installers. After less than an hour from inserting in the drive the install DVD you boot into the KDE desktop shell with its hundreds of various professional apps. Couldn't be easier. Try Mandrake Move, the live CD. Or Debian Live Knoppix, you'll be amazed and soon you'll dual boot your Windows box with a flavor of Linux. Handy anyway as Linux systems can read and write NTFS and FAT so you can perform backups and recovery operation of your Windows OSes without having to resort to console command line tools.

The cons

X11 doesn't match the Windows graphic subsystem.

A bad shutdown is followed by a far too long and boring fix/recovery operation of the filesystem that forces to reboot the machine twice. I never bother to properly shutdown Windows. I just switch the computer off when I have finished with it. That's a very nice feature of Windows I personally find.

Finally

There are the similar heated debates within the Linux community than there are in the Microsoft one. One of them is KDE versus Gnome as a desktop environment of choice. In my opinion Gnome sucks as much as Longhorn does (according to reports) and KDE rocks as 98-2000 does. Another of those debates are the filesystems. Ext2 Ext3 versus Reiser. Pretty much the same arguments as FAT32 versus NTFS. Speed versus "security" of journaling. Anyway Ext2 allows already the system administator (root) to set per user permissions on files or folders.

[jaclaz]

quoque tu, prathapml?

Sorry if I say so, but I quite frankly expected by Moderators (and I am thinking about un4given1's posts, that often show a pretty useless aggressivity) a less simplicistic and more mature approach to a debate.

My personal PC experience:

1) I went from DOS/Win 3.1 directly to NT4 (skipping Win95), then upgraded to Win2k (skipping over Win98)

2) I never used professionally Win98, but in my business environment MOST machines are/were Win95/98 so I can say that I know quite well all MS systems

3) I have quite a few XP machines that from time to time help mantain, though I, due to the limited hardware I own, and the cost of a legitimate copy of Windows XP, still use only Win2k

Every one of the above OS has its good and bad sides, but a discussion should be based on mutual respect, it is incredible that I, that NEVER liked Win9x, should feel compelled to post in this board to actually defend Win9x fans.

It already happened here:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=39573

Quite obviously a newer OS, AFTER SOME INITIAL PROBLEMS, has:

- more features

- better handling of problems found in previous version

- better security

- better support (drivers and devices)

BUT it:

- requires more powerful hardware (processor speed, HD size, memory size, etc.)

- requires additional "training" on the user part

- is more targeted by hackers/virii

So it all depends on how you use it, WHICH features do you need, how MUCH money can you spend on it, I'll make a few examples:

roughly 15 years ago I started using Excel 3.0, and Word 2.0 on a DOS/Win 3.11 platform, I did then, more or less, the same job I do now.

Do you think that you need Office 2003 to make a simple spreadsheet or write a letter?

I ALWAYS take the Audio card off my work PC, (I don't like sounds when working)should I need to upgrade to another OS because my NT 4.00 (running smoothly on a 64 mb 450 Mhz PC) has not good Audio Drivers?

I have a subnotebook with 48 Mb of Ram 133 Mhz Processor, after MUCH experimenting, I found that it worked very well with a "Lite" 98, allowing me to do my normal work (with all the limits of the small screen), read my mail, go on the Internet whenever I connect it through a PMCIA Lan adapter.

Should I spend some $ 1,000÷2,000 to buy a new one?

I recently helped out a friend put up a small server in his design office.

I forced him to spend the extra-money needed to buy 10,000 RPM SCSI RAID disks, and Windows Server 2003 as I reckoned that was what was NEEDED.

Should I have said to him "Save the money and buy a normal PC with XP and normal ATA disks?

I bought a computer (together with all the family) as a present for my cousin, which is an almost complete computer illiterate, but likes a lot music and videos, I chose one with XP Media Center Edition 2005.

Should I have chosen a REDHAT Linux OS?

My nephew is 14 years old and likes a lot computers, he views himself as a small hacker, he already has a PC with windows XP (re-installed n times), I helped him install KNOPPIX Linux as dual boot, he likes it a lot better than XP, do you think I should not have done that?

When comparing Operating System there is NO "better" or "worse" OS, there are "newer" and "elder", "advantages" and "disadvantages", "brighter" and "darker" sides, as in MOST things in life.

Again:

XP is more secure and has more features than 98, BUT needs newer hardware and uses more space and resources

98 is leaner and faster (on the same hardware) BUT is less stable and lacks advanced filesystem features

Linux is more difficult to setup and requires learning a lot of new things, has poorer hardware support, BUT it is free and has some outstanding features, like VERY advanced filesystem features, a high level of security, an enormous amount of free applications

BSD is even more difficult to learn, BUT it is free and has exceptional security features

jaclaz

[johnny_9x]

that was beautiful well written and very true,i totally agree.

[prathapml]

Thanks for your opinion jaclaz.

I just had to clarify the purpose of my previous post - it was for those who just talk of linux without half-knowing anything about it. It has become something of a bluff to threaten that one would move from windows to linux if Microsoft did not heed to the person's desire. This hypocrisy had to be seen through.

As far as myself is concerned, my past posts right on this board is proof enough that I am not biased against any particular OS, be it any distro of linux or versions of windows.

@eidenk

Nice post!

But it only goes to prove what I said. Technically well-competent windows users moved on to newer versions (and use an older version only if there's compelling reasons). Excepting those already on the linux platform, most of those who stayed back with win98 probably don't even understand half of what you posted.

BTW, good to see people that understand "free" as in choice, present here. Most windows converts are stopped in their tracks by the dependency-hell, or the tremendous choice available in the free-software world, since they are used to a monolithic base and unified ways to make things work.

[Fredledingue]

Pratapthml

So you mean, we, w98 users are ignorants?

But we base our choice on empirical experience, not on theories (such as ntfs is more secure etc).

[prathapml]

So you mean, we, w98 users are ignorants?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not at all!

I already said that when there's good to stay with win98, then knowledgeable users do use it....

As for empirical evidence.

Now this one I'm sorry to say that all evidence points towards ntfs being a better FS (MS would not have went forward with it, if that was not so ). Now if you refer to security loop-holes in NTFS, then please consider that:

1. Any software WILL have unplanned-for circumstances where loopholes begin exhibiting themselves.

2. Seasoned NTFS users would ask "loopholes exist, so what". Because NTFS has atleast this much of security.... what does FAT have? 3rd-party solutions is not an answer, they have a million times more holes. Plus, why bother going to 3rd parties?

Also, I believe I know what it takes to test performance, and I've found that on most modern machines, disc operation on NTFS allows the OS to fly faster, than FAT16/32.

[Fredledingue]

Prathapml

Also, I believe I know what it takes to test performance, and I've found that on most modern machines, disc operation on NTFS allows the OS to fly faster, than FAT16/32.

Yep, but did you realy see a perceptible difference between the two system in the way files are opening and editing?

(other than on the scale of a milisecond?)

I feel that the only difference is only when you transfer large amount of data from one disc to another....

[prathapml]

True, as you said.

The difference is clearly noticeable when transferring lots of micro-sized files, or a few HUGE files. And under normal circumstances, NTFS drives just plain gives a very responsive "immediate" feel, unlike FAT32/16.

And of course, on NTFS, you can have your partition fragmented into thousands of fragments and still see decent operation, unlike FAT32 which gets bogged down.

[soldier1st]

plus Fat 32/16 can have file allocation errors(i used to get them and had a friend fix them cuzz back then i knew little about pc's) and be hard to fix it,with NTFS because it is not based on fat32/16, you will not encounter those same errors,what prathapml said is true about fragments, even if an NTFS drive is like 75% fragmented it will still operate quite well,if fat32/16 were fragmented at 75% then performance would drop dramaticaly and you could face random errors on a fat32/16 system.if you tweak the NTFS file system then it could perform quite well even if it is very fragmented.

jaclaz:i started from win 3.0 and went on to win95 then 98 then i tried me for a week but hated it cuzz it did weird things to me then i went to w2k pro then xp pro.

[Fredledingue]

I never got any error or slowdown with my fat32 partitions... but of course i'm not alone in the world and ntfs is probably better. (Ijust didn't want make this thread dying...)