It has been 7 years since Win98 was released

[un4given1]

I'm going to address more of these once I get home...

1. You can disable the restart option, but even with it like it or not xp is still more reliable.

Do you mean it just automatically shuts down ? Or can you disable the feature altogether ?

There are times that an error causes a BSOD in Windows XP. It doesn't happen often, and really I have not had it happen in nearly a year on over 30 PCs (including my home PC) all running XP. When you get a BSOD on Windows XP it is set by default to reboot atomatically. You can disable this very easily and quickly.

[eidenk]

@prathapml

They do the "trick" and "you think" ? That almost shows up how you aren't familiar with this. Firstly, its not a trick, its a science. Next, don't "think" - just look around this forum (uA for XP) - that's more than I need to say.

Just haven't used those tools since a long time but I used them successfully in the past as I am saying above to bullet.

98 is more stable on a fast CPU? yeah right - why am I not surprised.

But all that power is doing you no good with win98.

As I have said it might be subjective but say you run your OS on a 486 machine. Your right click is slow and almost freezes so you type on some keys thinking you'll somehow unlock something but all it does is that you put more messages in a queue and finally you crash your shell. When the processor and the disks are faster those type of problems simply disappear due to the faster speeds.

VLK editions abound, and then you forget that cracks exist.

Really ?

You will go to mandrake? Yeah right - seeing is believing. And yes, I'm saying this because I know it well - mandrake is not the best linux distro, nor as easy to use as win98, nor as bug-free as it. First time one ever heard of a threat of retarding instead of advancing.

Get a full computer without OS and tell me which OS you are going to install which will allow you be in business with everything you need configured (including hardware drivers) in less than one hour even if you are a total newb ? Mandrake or any version of Microsoft ?

For this last point - the XP sales speak for themselves. I need say no more.

Have you got really the choice if you buy a new computer of which OS you will have on it ? No you haven't. XP is preinstalled on 99.9 of the machines.

[azagahl]

What am I doing with my XP CD if no one answers me in Redmond to give me a new serial number when I upgrade some hardware or does not want to give me one for whatever reason tomorrow ? Just because of that, I would not touch XP. Even if I would feel XP is superior.

My feelings exactly. For each user there is some line beyond which activation schemes / DRM / copy protection (i.e. backup hindering) solutions are too arrogant, instrusive, and irritating to be acceptable. XP crosses that line for me. I do not want a nagware OS.

Have you got really the choice if you buy a new computer of which OS you will have on it ?

Stop complaining, there are plenty of choices in the market place. You can choose XP or XP N

[eidenk]

@azagahl

Stop complaining, there are plenty of choices in the market place. You can choose XP or XP N

I haven't got myself a problem with that as I don't buy new computers. I just do upgrade the hardware when I need. Went from a Celeron 333 to an Athlon 2600 so far. What I meant is that the large sales of XP aren't really an argument as most people buying a PC in the high street won't even be aware alternatives exist.

[prathapml]

Office 2003 still won't install here. Please instruct me how I can get it to install on this.....

Parathapml, it has been mentioned at least twice in this thread that you need to have an earlier version of Office installed first, such as Office 2000. You may then install Office 2003. IF you have time to try this, then thank you and I look forward to hearing if you can duplicate horsecharles' results.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"mentions" in the thread are of no point. Precise instructions please. Or have you ever done this yourself at all?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No responses to this yet.

The conclusion is that this is a dead subject - which is not even possible.

@eidenk

You have used win98 deploy tools in the past. Check out XP's deploy tools and prepare to get amazed. For all else, please read what I already posted in my prev post - the above 6 posts seem to be all talking the same thing, without noticing that it hasd been addressed in what I wrote....

Does anyone even know how much win98 was opposed tooth-and-nail? Now the same ppl wanna stay with it. Here's a challenge. 2-5 years down the line, lets see whether you stick to win98, or instead start saying that XP is best for you and that longhorn and blackcomb are not good. Anyone take up this? Or do you accept defeat already?

[azagahl]

Does anyone even know how much win98 was opposed tooth-and-nail? Now the same ppl wanna stay with it.

I didn't oppose Win 98 so I guess I am not one of these "same ppl".

Here's a challenge. 2-5 years down the line, lets see whether you stick to win98, or instead start saying that XP is best for you and that longhorn and blackcomb are not good. Anyone take up this? Or do you accept defeat already?

What is blackcomb?

I doubt I will ever warm up to XP. I am curious about Longhorn. However, when Microsoft decides to finally release Longhorn as Windows 2012, I cannot be sure that I will even accept its license agreement.

[randiroo76073]

I would still like to know what a bunch of highbrowed XP'ers are doing in a 95/98/98se/ME forum? Who are you trying to convince of your superiority, us lowbrow types or YOURSELVES! Kindly return to your forum & please leave us to ours. Your slumming belies your intelect.

[bullet]

I would still like to know what a bunch of highbrowed XP'ers are doing in a 95/98/98se/ME forum? Who are you trying to convince of your superiority, us lowbrow types or YOURSELVES! Kindly return to your forum & please leave us to ours. Your slumming belies your intelect.

I like that. It's funny

We all could argue this topic until the end of time. The only reason that I wrote anything in this forum to begin with is because I felt people were not being INTILECTUALLY honest. I still feel the same way. If someone wants to use 98 or if they are afraid to give the evil giant Microsoft money and use Linux then more power to them. I really am not trying to persuade them otherwise. If you are like I said intilectually honest, whether you have never seen a computer before or if you are the creator of the internet, if you compare 98 to XP, you will choose XP every single time. There really is not much of a comparision in my opinion.

[un4given1]

I would still like to know what a bunch of highbrowed XP'ers are doing in a 95/98/98se/ME forum? Who are you trying to convince of your superiority, us lowbrow types or YOURSELVES! Kindly return to your forum & please leave us to ours. Your slumming belies your intelect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Easily answered if you read the whole thread. Thanks for asking!

[tim_horton]

back in the beta days of 98 the diehard 95 users argued that 98 was only a cosmedic change not worth the upgrade and 98se users argued me was likewise then the same applied to 2000 and xp when clearly ever new os advanced the last which means they get better .u peeps fight over a dead point windows xp is vastly superior to its preacessor and cant be topped until the next os-longhorn but the fact that 98se is still widely used and somewhat adequite even in todays pc use .im aware that 98se is used alot in new emerging markets third world and xp starter was oftered to allow newbies a look into xp and of course all new pcs come with xp thats a fact and like all others came with the os of the day aswell. if u want to praise a os its impracitial to compare its like a model t to a porche but a model t will still gets you around and if u cant afford it or your pc is older than u might aswell make the best of what u got and just install sp and fixes to keep the old girl running.but the 12 reasons why xp is better than 98 speech cracks me up.its pointless cause we all know theres like 100 reasons xp rocks. maybe instead of defending a os we should offer help in maintain a os whatever tricks tweaks we have .isnt that the purpose of msfn to share knownlegde to help newbies get their os running better .have we forgot our roots?this thread will last forever and solve nothing replaced by longhorn is great xp sucks etc lol and still people will continue to use 98 me 2000 and the beat goes on .and on..

[un4given1]

@tim: I can agree with that. Well said.

[randiroo76073]

Bullet, if you were intellectualy honest you wouldn't even be posting in this forum, you wouldn't waste your time. That you do tells me where your intellect lies.

Unforgiven1, your name says it all, & your avatar tells what you think about other people besides yourself.

[un4given1]

It's just simply Foamy the Squirrel. If you had read the complete post you would see that I have said that quite a few times. The nick has been what I have used for 14 years, ever since my days of IRC. I really have said everything I would like to say, I just like hanging around seeing you all defend Windows 98SE and argue why it's "better." You are like the pot heads that argue that it should be legal... Windows 98 has rotted your brain so much you can't see the facts!

[brian873]

bullet: Yeah, they are pretty secure they sit on a netware box in a secure room. I mean it would just no be right for the plumbers to be intimate with each other !

[Fredledingue]

Un4given

none of the Windows 98 users care about the business application of an OS because they don't use it that way.

I fully agree with you. We, W98 home-users (if we can be called so) don't give a **** about the heap of features that we will never use in XP.

We even care less about an OS that we can't use on an older machine (No way XP works with the P200 I'm using now, but it rocks with W98SE-SP2rc3)

Slower, taking more HD space, taking more memory, more complicated, unreliable activation sheme... How can you call XP a better OS, Idon't know, unless you realy need these network administrator tools that you find in XP.

XP is not as good as W98 (supposing it's SE with unoficial Service Pack by Gape), but of course XP works also very well and can also be used to type texts, play games, edit videos, make graphic design, using heavy software almost as well as on w98.

With slightly less performance, that's why XP users brag so much about the possibility of using 4Gb of memory.

But there are as many media components on XP as on w98 and still the possibility to install the DivX codecs as easily as on w98. So XP is not that retarded bastard some are trying to depict here.

For a large company (yourself mention "corporation") XP might be usefull in some cases. It even has a DOS emulator and support for old softwares.

And if you have enough knowledge in the XP technology (Of course if you want to upgrade to a new and better OS you need to make some effort of learning the new system) you can even configurate it! How cool! B)