It has been 7 years since Win98 was released

[azagahl]

My W98 is not gray

Mine neither, I use MDGx's 98SE2ME and Tihiy's Revolutions programs and use XP-style icons. I have every animation and special effect turned on and its still more responsive than XP with every animation effect turned off.

I also like Webshots a lot and recommend it for good desktop wallpaper.

[johnny_9x]

My W98 is not gray

Mine neither, I use MDGx's 98SE2ME and Tihiy's Revolutions programs and use XP-style icons. I have every animation and special effect turned on and its still more responsive than XP with every animation effect turned off.

I also like Webshots a lot and recommend it for good desktop wallpaper.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

more responive hardy har har you must be in a timewarp hey 1998 called they want their cinderblock back .

[un4given1]

W98 loads slightly faster (not very noticeably) but it shut down much much faster: almost like swithig off a TV set, while XP takes ages to save some file settings or I don't know what. There is always a progress bar that seems to never end.

WHEN I do shut down I click it and walk. I don't care if it takes 5 minutes to shut down. Why do I need it to shut down the moment I click the button? Also, boot times are better with Windows XP. You need to check this out again. The only time your Windows 98 PC would boot faster is if it has no NIC and the XP machine does. That's one of the things that impressed me about Windows XP at first was it's boot time. Although I don't see much of it anymore since I don't ever really restart.

I also like Webshots a lot and recommend it for good desktop wallpaper.

talk about a resource hog. I hate Webshots. I have always hated Webshots. As an administrator I hate Webshots. I hate backgrounds too. They do nothing but waste resources too.

[azagahl]

more responive hardy har har

Um, it's true, if you have a properly optimized 98 SE and XP on similar hardware you will see. If you are too lazy to try, well then you won't see.

they want their cinderblock back .

What are you talking about? Are you trying to insult my hardware?? I use 3+ GHz CPU's with 1 GB RAM.

BTW, if you hate 98 so much why are you in a 9x forum? Is that the best troll you can do?

talk about a resource hog. I hate Webshots. I have always hated Webshots. As an administrator I hate Webshots. I hate backgrounds too. They do nothing but waste resources too.

I turn off most of its annoying functions but keep it as a screensaver. Also I like having a wallpaper even if it wastes on the order of 3 MB. Fully bloated win 98 uses well under 40 MB so I have a lot of memory to spend on things I like.

[un4given1]

more responive hardy har har

Um, it's true, if you have a properly optimized 98 SE and XP on similar hardware you will see. If you are too lazy to try, well then you won't see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can put a V8 in a geo metro too if you want.

they want their cinderblock back .

What are you talking about? Are you trying to insult my hardware?? I use 3+ GHz CPU's with 1 GB RAM.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just goes to further prove that you have no clue.

talk about a resource hog. I hate Webshots. I have always hated Webshots. As an administrator I hate Webshots. I hate backgrounds too. They do nothing but waste resources too.

I turn off most of its annoying functions but keep it as a screensaver. Also I like having a wallpaper even if it wastes on the order of 3 MB. Fully bloated win 98 uses well under 40 MB so I have a lot of memory to spend on things I like.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Windows takes longer to redraw your windows when you have a background. Streching a background takes up even more resources and takes even longer to redraw.

[azagahl]

deleted

[un4given1]

Where in my post did it have anything to do with a cinder block? My post was simply my way of saying that you are wasting your PC on Windows 98.

[azagahl]

you are wasting your PC on Windows 98.

Actually you are right because I have a 64-bit processor. But XP does not do any better here.

After XP 64 is out for a while and patched somewhat I may switch, but I don't really want XP 64 because it has the same activation requirements as regular XP. Maybe someone will write a 64-bit extension for 98 (There are 32-bit programs for pure DOS mode...)

And I don't really want to switch to 64-bit Linux. To me that feels like being a geek just for geekdom's sake. I want to actually use my PC.

[un4given1]

Maybe someone will write a 64-bit extension for 98

HA! Now you are dreaming. The FAT32 file system isn't capable of it first off.

[Tihiy]

HA!  Now you are dreaming.  The FAT32 file system isn't capable of it first off.

So you want to say that Windows XP x64 won't work with FAT32?

[un4given1]

HA!  Now you are dreaming.  The FAT32 file system isn't capable of it first off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you want to say that Windows XP x64 won't work with FAT32?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep

[JoeMSFN]

WHEN I do shut down I click it and walk.  I don't care if it takes 5 minutes to shut down.  Why do I need it to shut down the moment I click the button?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not sure about you, but on my jobs I get paid by the hour. It might be great for me moneywise, but I do get frustrated when I'm not being productive. Such as waiting for PROPER shutdown to remove/change components or whatever reason I need the PC off. Oh yeah, and for my personal use... laptop. I hate the HD spinning and the cooling fan blocked in the carrying case.. thus I wait...

Although I don't see much of it anymore since I don't ever really restart.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure Microsoft programmers spend all that effort on that XPerience, and you don't even use it, you ungrateful little so-and-so

Actually on my own machines, the only one I shut down regularly is my laptop (which travels with me regularly).

[JoeMSFN]

HA!  Now you are dreaming.  The FAT32 file system isn't capable of it first off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you want to say that Windows XP x64 won't work with FAT32?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course (assuming file access code were optimized) a 64 bit CPU could handle a fat32 partition twice as fast... get it? 32 times 2 = 64... (OH wait... April 1st was a quite a ways back sorry )

[azagahl]

HA! Now you are dreaming. The FAT32 file system isn't capable of it first off.

Um, I was thinking of extensions to utilize a 64-bit processor. I don't see how a 32-bit FAT would preclude this. I can use a FAT12 (floppy) on a 32-bit processor and it seems to work fine.

So you want to say that Windows XP x64 won't work with FAT32?

Yep

Then I am definitely not upgrading! All my data is in FAT32 format and there is no way I am converting it. I still use FAT16 for my swap partition. I also have the ability to set up a FAT12 ram drive. Is XP flexible enough to do that? This sounds like another example of reckless handling of backward compatibility.

I don't care if it takes 5 minutes to shut down. Why do I need it to shut down the moment I click the button?

I dunno, but I don't like waiting for XP to shutdown. I just press a different button now and it shuts down almost instantly.

[un4given1]

Windows XP is a 32bit OS and will work with FAT 32. It will run on FAT32 or NTFS. Windows XP 64 is a 64bit OS. Why don't you switch to a 9600baud modem while you are at it? Even though your phone line is capable of 56K+ why should you be bothered with that much speed? Arguing with you is like bashing my head against a brick wall repeatedly. STAY WITH WINDOWS 98! (yes, I am yelling) Windows XP will still exist without you running it. I'm pretty sure you not buying a license for XP will not bankrupt Microsoft either.