It has been 7 years since Win98 was released

[Fredledingue]

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.

What are you talking about? Wallpapers doesn't need to be redrawn...or maybe on XP...

I used Webshot and I liked it, but it was a too big program for what it is. When I'll have time I'll write a cool little vbScript to do the same. (except downloading pics from the net)

About 64bits processors, I also thing that it might be possible to use it with W98 or if not it will not be because of FAT32 (that's just data storage not data processing).

But I'm curious if a benevolent geek will one day write something like that.

Double processor support should be possible too.

My only chance to switch to XP one day will be such hardware upgrade consideration. But then I will tweak my XP to behave as much as W98 as possible

[prathapml]

FYKI, screen-redraws are very much a part of your windows - no matter which version.

And this "redraw" is what he was mentioning.

@un4given1

Uh, do you really mean to say FAT32 partitions are not accessible from Win x64?

I believe you thought something and azagahl thought something else, based off your reply. A clearup:

• For NT-systems the OS necessarily should use NTFS anyway, so x64 also will run better off an NTFS system partition
  
• Win x64 will still be able to read/write fine to FAT32, I don't know where you got the idea that it can't.
  

[un4given1]

I'm sure it can read and write just find to FAT32... but doesn't it use a 64bit file system to run? Just like Windows XP will read FAT32 even if it's NTFS.

[Tihiy]

Just like Windows XP will read FAT32 even if it's NTFS.

Syntax error

[dman]

According to MS, XP64 will install on NTFS or FAT32

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...roduct=winxp#15

[azagahl]

FAT32 is an enhanced version of the FAT file system that can be used on drives ranging from 512 MB to 32 GB

Does this mean if my drive is > 32 GB I can't use XP64 and FAT32 on it? All of my drives are MUCH larger than 32 GB.

Maybe they meant to say that FAT32 can be used on partitions up to 32 GB?

BTW is this 32 GB an XP limitation? I have had 100 GB FAT32 partitions on 98. If my FAT32 partition is >32 GB, will XP 64 not be able to read it??

Syntax error

[DiGGiTY]

I'm sure it can read and write just find to FAT32...  but doesn't it use a 64bit file system to run?  Just like Windows XP will read FAT32 even if it's NTFS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The operating system files for Windows XP Professional (32-bit) can reside on either FAT32 or NTFS v5 or higher. Windows Professional x64 must be installed on a GPT partition (legacy partitions are known as MBR or master boot record partitions).

The GUI in WinXP x64 only allows you to create NTFS volumes within a GPT partition. However, you can create a FAT32 or FAT partition from command line. These plain old FAT partitions are mounted, but not exposed--theycan only be accessed programmatically.

If you want to read up some more on this, check out this link:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/storage/GPT-64bit.mspx

[DiGGiTY]

It's been 7 years since Windows 98 was releasead.....

and it still sucks!

[un4given1]

OK, I don't know much about Windows XP64... So I will not speak on it anymore. I have not had any experience with it yet.

[prathapml]

It's been 7 years since Windows 98 was releasead.....

and it still sucks!

haha

great way to put it!

I'm sure it can read and write just find to FAT32...  but doesn't it use a 64bit file system to run?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Noop, it does not use such a thing - that kind of a thing is found on Itanium with EM64 instruction sets.

This is why AMD64 is better since its easier and maintains most older standards.

Does this mean if my drive is > 32 GB I can't use XP64 and FAT32 on it? All of my drives are MUCH larger than 32 GB.

Maybe they meant to say that FAT32 can be used on partitions up to 32 GB?

BTW is this 32 GB an XP limitation? I have had 100 GB FAT32 partitions on 98. If my FAT32 partition is >32 GB, will XP 64 not be able to read it?? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Relax, XP has nothing to do with any of this.

It will still work just as your 98 does. And even all of my drives are MUCH larger.

Those limitations mentioned above, are technically so, but not actually - since making larger clusters will easily get past the limitation, which is what you have currently (and me too).

But still, unless I have a compelling reason to use FAT32, I don't use it.

Since NTFS is more secure, faster, better recoverability if your drive fails, and so on.....

[un4given1]

But still, unless I have a compelling reason to use FAT32, I don't use it.

Since NTFS is more secure, faster, better recoverability if your drive fails, and so on.....

AMEN!

[Fredledingue]

I realy don't care if my patition is FAT32 or NTFS: There is no noticeable difference, AFAIMC.

My FAT32 system with w98 is secure, fast, and I never had a drive which failed yet. And I don't know what these "and so on" could be...

Of course the NTFS system with XP is also safe and fast and I wouldn't see any reason to switch from NTFS to FAT32or vice versa (except to play the geek and gloat on the forums about my exotic partitions maybe).

[DiGGiTY]

I realy don't care if my patition is FAT32 or NTFS: There is no noticeable difference, AFAIMC.

My FAT32 system with w98 is secure, fast, and I never had a drive which failed yet. And I don't know what these "and so on" could be...

Of course the NTFS system with XP is also safe and fast and I wouldn't see any reason to switch from NTFS to FAT32or vice versa (except to play the geek and gloat on the forums about my exotic partitions maybe).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's a little education for you. First of all, FAT32 is not secure. It has no security system. Can you assign permissions for one user of your Win98 machine to have read only access to a file and another user to have full control? No... Nuff said.

As to relaibility, consider the following:

FAT32 has just one copy of the boot sector, NTFS has two for greater RELIABILITY

FAT32 has no security or encryption, NTFS has both for RELIABILITY

FAT32 will be crushed with repeated GPF's that force you to hard reboot while the OS is running, NTFS has state of the art recoverability--thats why it is used on Windows NT,2000,2003 servers -- its for RELIABILITY

FAT32 performance on large volumes is terrible, NTFS performance is top-shelf

If you don't believe, just go over to Microsoft's site and search for FAT32 versus NTFS -- or go to NTFS.com.

FAT32 is and extension of FAT16... It's old... Hence NTFS (New Technology File System)

[Fredledingue]

DiGGitY

Can you assign permissions for one user of your Win98 machine to have read only access to a file and another user to have full control? No... Nuff said.

if it's about documents, there are plenty of file encryption/protection software for w98, free or commercial. I dunno about theyr effectiveness on system files since I never considered the question. But then in this case there might be an advantage: paranoia.

As to relaibility, consider the following:

All this is very beautifull, DiGGity, but in practice it doesn't realy make any difference: on both W98 or XP, files are still poping up open when you doubleclic on them.

It's been 7 years already and I still didn't met any problem with that respect.

While NTFS is indeed newer, I hope that it has some advantages.

But reading the whole debate, you will notice that the main argumentation for w98 is for home users like myself, NOT for server, network management, cyber-café platforms etc

________________

We often compare OSes to cars:

XP is like a truck and W98 is like a car: the XP truck has huge advantages over the W98 car (can carry more), but does everyone need to drive a truck all the time?

[azagahl]

main argumentation for w98 is for home users like myself

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. 98 is fine for home use, especially with all of the Windows patches that have been released for it over the years and the new, fast hardware that's out now and that 98 supports. The user-created upgrades from MSFN users have also been a big boon.

As to relaibility, consider the following:

I have 20 year old files on my HD. FAT32 seems to be reliable enough. There is also no shortage of free backup, data recovery, or partition imaging software designed to work with FAT32.

On the other hand, my XP PC once rebooted randomly once (this was about a year ago) while doing some heavy processing and it couldn't boot up again due to a corrupted NTFS partition. Thereafter the PC would reboot continually, failing to load Windows each time. The IT guy spent some time on it but told me the FAT tables were unrecoverable and I would have to reinstall completely.

The lesson is to make frequent backups of data and do not just depend on the file system to magically fix things.