It has been 7 years since Win98 was released

[smokeyjoint]

mmmm pintos i saw one in a museum .good 2 see u chuckleheads fighting over oses its simple if u run a older pc p2 or less 98 is the ticket or u have small hardrive or u cant afford xp or your a REMOVED who refuses 2 change but if your a gamer into multimedia xp is the way 2 go .you all have a great night party on garth.

1. This is not a warez site! Links/Requests to warez and/or illegal material (porn, cracks, serials, etc..) will not be tolerated. Discussion of circumventing activation/timebombs/keygens or any other illegal activity will also not be tolerated. If you ignore any of the aforementioned you will receive a final warning. If you choose to continue, you will be banned without notice.

Edited February 14, 2005 by Drewdatrip

[un4given1]

I'm very much on your side there smokeyjoint... but that's not how most of these guys feel. They are saying that even if they had the PC (and some of them do) they still woulnd't run XP.

[azagahl]

This thread seems to be full of opinions and anecdotes on which OS is faster or more stable. Plus there are the emotional rants like "Windows XP is better, hands down!" and the cute car analogies. And finally name-calling and racist insults.

So far Fredledingue is the only one who went to the trouble of doing an actual test, and it shows that 98 SE is faster. If someone can produce actual data on which OS is more stable please come forward.

FWIW, I have more problems on my XP PC including locked files and inexplicable slowdowns and I have to reboot more frequently. I also have random reboots during heavy processor usage. I guess this could be a hardware problem but this is a standard PC from DELL whereas the Athlon 3400, 1 GB RAM, 300 GB HD PC running 98 SE is one I pieced together from random components.

Do all the posters here actually have access to 98 AND XP? Or are some of you XP users speaking about your memory of 98 SE from many years, and many patches, ago? 98 SE is running better than ever for me, especially with the recent upgrade packs some of the users here have produced. Maybe you should give it a try?

[tim_horton]

hey im running a dualboot 98se/xpro sp2 now with the same setups msn yahoo etc i find 98se runs faster and shuts down like lighting now ive got all the updates 4 98se known to man as far as lock ups go i get a few when trying 2 open up 2 much at the same time.as 4 xp its handy having it load all the drivers 4 me less visits 2 driversguide .com lol but never the less xp is grapical prettier but if all i did is chat surf id use 98se its zippier i find pintos are good on gas does that make me the pacer of oses lol anyway i like them both i test everything on 98se before i put it on xp . take care boys and hail 98se

[matrix0978]

man we lost another one to 98SE

[Whimsy]

I have a client that had to stay with 98 because a program he used for a database did not function properly with XP or 2000. Random fields would blank out if changes were made. Also, the movement of his documents folder caused me a day worth of headaches. I offered to give him a discount on the software when we ended up upgrading (out of my pocket ).

On older computers with 64 MB RAM (which would be in most computers off lease as of last year), a 98 license is generally included, and it runs a lot better, especially if those computers have 3-6 GB Hard disks and Celeron-P2 level processors. I had a few MMX 200's a while back, and set up XP on an AD for a test I was running - NEVER AGAIN! The AD Server took about 15 minutes to boot, and I never shut that baby off. I shead a tear the day I reformatted that sucker.

Also, Soldier1st, I hope you don't mind me picking on you a bit. Most of your post is a perfect example of the confusion I've seen about Windows XP Vs 98, so don't take this personally, as it applies to many would-be users of XP.

* Why I still use Windows 98/98SE over Windows XP

Windows 98 Has A large User Base Meaning More People Use It

Actually, a large user base is not necessarily the biggest user base. XP has, by my server's count, surpassed 98. Most machines I've worked on are 98. THe point is, this is variable information, and there are no numbers that can proove this.

Besides, if the people in North America drive on the right side of the road, does it make it a good idea in the UK?

Windows 98 Works On Every New System that XP Can

Windows 98 Can Run Better Than XP

Windows 98 cannot properly support more than some high number of RAM on a new computer. And XP, with it's disk driver optimizations, improved disk cache, memory management, and other countless reasons, can theoretically run faster than 98. NTFS provides some overhead, however.

Lets not forget that most computers have over 1GB of RAM, which causes 98 to crash on bootup

Windows XP Is Too Expensive

Windows 98 Is Cheap

This is the same as saying that WIndows 95 is better than 98 because 95 is 'cheaper'. The truth is, for the time frame, and the feature set, XP is far better than 98.

You Can Do Almost Everything on a 98 pc than on a xp pc

How is it that having the ability to do less is considered a positive reason to use an older OS?

Windows XP Has That Dreaded Product Activation where 98 does not have it

Actually, I agree. WPA is a stupid "feature" that hampers legit users. So why not consider Windows 2000?

On Windows XP you need to have a virus Scanner on it,with 98 you don't

Viruses effect all versions of Windows, and DOS. Windows 98 is actually partly effected by DOS viruses, being based essentually on DOS(In effect, you could argue that Windows 98 is a DOS Shell, but that's another debate). Granted, there are more documented ways for them to effect 98, they still effect them both heavily.

Windows 98 Has Far Less Bugs Than XP Does.

I think that it's more accurate to state that 98 has more patched bugs. I can't forgive the fact that XP, being newer, is as full of holes.

System Specs

Athlon 2600+(Barton), 768 RAM, NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128 MB RAM,  120 GB Hard Drive.

* Have you ever tried Windows XP or do you just hate it so much you won't?

I Have To Use It Because i Cannot Have 1 Partition over 32GB And Before I Hated It For So Long,I Still at times have my doubts about xp,sides i know many ppl who have to use xp.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, XP will not natively let you create a FAT32 partition over 32 GB because FAT32 is highly unreliable. You have the option to create a large partition with a boot disk if you want to, and XP will use it without a problem. If your complaint is that they hide that feature, I'd agree - It's irritating.

You can also create NTFS Partitions of as big as you can imagine (as long as your imagination is under 2 TB or so ).

[Whimsy]

This thread seems to be full of opinions and anecdotes on which OS is faster or more stable. Plus there are the emotional rants like "Windows XP is better, hands down!" and the cute car analogies. And finally name-calling and racist insults.

So far Fredledingue is the only one who went to the trouble of doing an actual test, and it shows that 98 SE is faster.  If someone can produce actual data on which OS is more stable please come forward.

FWIW, I have more problems on my XP PC including locked files and inexplicable slowdowns and I have to reboot more frequently. I also have random reboots during heavy processor usage. I guess this could be a hardware problem but this is a standard PC from DELL whereas the Athlon 3400, 1 GB RAM, 300 GB HD PC running 98 SE is one I pieced together from random components.

Do all the posters here actually have access to 98 AND XP? Or are some of you XP users speaking about your memory of 98 SE from many years, and many patches, ago? 98 SE is running better than ever for me, especially with the recent upgrade packs some of the users here have produced. Maybe you should give it a try?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you want more speculation and anecdotes, I'd sooner blame the Dell. I's start with the memory, but I'd be afraid to test the power supply.

[un4given1]

Whimsy, I would have to say your post is definately the most intelligent I have heard so far.

azagahl, If working for 2 large corporations running a mix of NT, 98, 2000 and XP isn't test enough, I don't know what is. What kind of test you want me to run?

What are all of you going to do the day software won't work on 98? You are goign to be walking into XP for the first time. How long do you think programmers will make things backwards compatable? Many of them have stopped, and every day more. Hell, Microsoft doesn't even support 98 with most of their new software. Why do you think that is?

[un4given1]

Yeah, I'm going to have to say if you are having problems with Windows XP it's most likely because you have not installed it correctly. I almost swore off Windows XP when I first started using it because I just couldn't get my system to take to it very well... Well, it ended up that the MB chipset and the video card weren't playing together well... It had nothing to do with Windows XP at all.

[azagahl]

On older computers with 64 MB RAM (which would be in most computers off lease as of last year), a 98 license is generally included, and it runs a lot better, especially if those computers have 3-6 GB Hard disks and Celeron-P2 level processors.

Yes, 98 SE is much better for older computers than XP. And on newer computers, 98 SE still runs better than XP.

XP has, by my server's count, surpassed 98.

Not sure what the counts are, but it seems like XP is the target of far more hacks, spyware, and viruses. Which is fine with me.

Lets not forget that most computers have over 1GB of RAM

Really? I don't know anyone with more than 1 GB RAM!

Windows 98 cannot properly support more than some high number of RAM on a new computer.

I've heard there are problems with 1.5 GB RAM. But I think they are solvable. Also, I think that you can have Win 98 exploit even multi-gigabyte RAM systems by creating an enormous RAM disk and setting the swap disk to be the ram disk. You can even use a compressed ramdisk. I don't have the DIMM's to test any of this however.

FWIW, I have no problem starting 98 SE from a fresh install and I have 1 GB RAM. Currently I'm running 98 SE with 1 GB RAM, 1 GB swap partition, 128 MB disk cache, 128 MB AGP aperture, and 32 MB RAM DISK.

Fortunately 98 SE's memory usage is so low that with 1 GB RAM, I seldom need to swap anything . I have 100's of MB of soundfonts loaded typically and my swap is used occasionally by some programs like Office that go straight to it for certain things. Running out of memory becomes more of an issue on my XP PC with it's bloated memory footprint.

And yes, you should install all patches for the greatest OS stability. The unofficial SP for 98 SE fixes is compact and fixes basically everything. This is unlike like XP where you have to download monumental service packs and install critical security fixes continually.

And XP, with it's disk driver optimizations, improved disk cache, memory management, and other countless reasons, can theoretically run faster than 98.

I don't know about theory, but so far the posts here about actual practice show 98 SE runs circles around XP.

This is the same as saying that WIndows 95 is better than 98 because 95 is 'cheaper'.

Actually 95 IS better than 98 SE in terms of cost, just like 98 SE is MUCH better than XP in terms of cost. Unfortunately for me 95 is unacceptable as it does not support all my hardware (scanner, printer, digital camera, MP3 player) like 98 SE does. If 95 did everything I needed I might be using it instead of 98 SE.

Actually, I agree. WPA is a stupid "feature" that hampers legit users.

No argument there, I am oppposed to all Marxist software protection features. FYI, I have a valid license for XP but I still will not use it.

So why not consider Windows 2000?

I haven't used it very much, frankly. Most likely it's slower than 98 SE, which does everything I need. What do other forum members think about 2000 vs 98 SE?

Actually, XP will not natively let you create a FAT32 partition over 32 GB because FAT32 is highly unreliable.

Too bad. In win 98 SE I have a 200 GB FAT32 partition w/o problems. Also I have files about 20 years old so I am not sure what you mean by "highly unreliable".

FWIW, it was actually my XP PC that booted badly once - the IT admin said it had a corrupted and unrecoverable FAT or something and they had to format the disk!

if you are having problems with Windows XP it's most likely because you have not installed it correctly. I almost swore off Windows XP when I first started using it because I just couldn't get my system to take to it very well..

But I thought XP was supposed to be easier to use?

If you want more speculation and anecdotes, I'd sooner blame the Dell. I's start with the memory, but I'd be afraid to test the power supply.

You mean bad memory or power supply causes locked files and slow downs?!

[un4given1]

Windows 98 cannot properly support more than some high number of RAM on a new computer.

Yes, you should install all patches for the greatest OS stability. The unofficial SP for 98 SE fixes is compact and fixes basically everything. This is unlike like XP where you have to download monumental service packs and install critical security fixes continually.

FWIW, personally I have no problem starting 98 SE from a fresh install and I have 1 GB RAM. Currently I'm running 98 SE with 1 GB RAM, 1 GB swap partition, 128 MB disk cache, 128 MB AGP aperture, and 32 MB RAM DISK.

I also susect that you can have Win 98 exploit multi-gigabyte RAM systems by creating an enormous RAM disk and setting the swap disk to be the ram disk. You can even use a compressed ramdisk. I don't have the hardware to test this however.

Fortunately 98 SE's memory usage is so low that with 1 GB you seldom need to swap nything . It's with XP's bloated memory footprint when swap becomes more important.

Windows 98 does not support more than 512MB of RAM. While you may have more than that installed, your system will not utilize it.

In case you want proof... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q253912/

[azagahl]

Windows 98 does not support more than 512MB of RAM. While you may have more than that installed, your system will not utilize it.

Really? That's funny because SiSoft Sandra says 1997 MB total system memory, 977 MB total physical memory, 395 MB free physical memory, 1020 MB Page File size, 1020 MB Free Page File. Update: I shut down some programs and now have 605 MB free.

And when I play Morrowind with hundreds of MB's of user mods installed, it drops to a few hundred MB free.

Any ideas?

In case you want proof...

And I have never seen this "Out of memory" error. Could it be because I have the unoffical SP installed??

Sounds like you haven't used 98 SE in a while, dude. Again, I urge you to actually TRY 98 SE on a modern PC with ~ 1 GB RAM. Don't bash 98 SE by comparing your use of it on an old unpatched, untweaked computer 3 years ago vs XP on a modern PC with the latest drivers and freeware. That's not really a fair comparison

[un4given1]

Don't be ignorant. Windows 98 never supported more than 512MB, and never will by itself. Now, there may be a 3rd party program that allows you to utilize more than what Windows 98 supports, but I can't really speak on that as I am not really sure.

Regardless of how well you may have Windows 98 running... there is no way in hell I will EVER switch back to that piece of crap. When is the last time you tried XP? Maybe it will better suit your needs now. With all of the multimedia enhancements XP offers, why would anyone choose less?

[Fredledingue]

With the implementation of 1Gb memory support in W98SE-SP2.0, you are finished Un4given!

W98 perfectely suits our need. remember that we don't have the same needs as yours. We don't have to remotely administrate hundreds of corporate computers all day long.

Even for a simple 3 or 4 computer local network, W98 fits albeit XP might be better.

But talking about that is like recomanding NT over W98... It's just two diferent things. With XP we are forced to have W98+W2000+NT+XP.

If W98 didn't crash, 95% of PC users wouldn't need to upgrade to XP. And with the unofficial SP that M$ never wanted to make available it will make XP obsolete.

With all of the multimedia enhancements XP offers, why would anyone choose less?

There is absolutely ZERO multimedia enhancement in XP, from W98. It's just a rumor.

I'm using my PC as a video recorder, a DivX compressor, a sound recorder, a cd player, a Tv, a telephone, a video conference, etc all this on W98 without problem.

Even better: when W98 crashed, it was always when I didn't do these type of things.

When I'm on XP , I see nothing that makes these task easier or better.

Noh, those who need XP for some good reason are those who needed NT a few years back. That being said, XP is much better than NT, I agree.

[azagahl]

Don't be ignorant. Windows 98 never supported more than 512MB, and never will by itself.

Dude, you're totally wrong, on my PC it supports 1 GB just fine from a fresh install! And if you have any problem the very article you posted a link to tells you how you can use a single line to clamp the disk cache! Did you even read your own link??

Maybe if you fired up 98 once every few years you would be more familiar with it.

When is the last time you tried XP?

I use it all the time. That's why I am able to make a comparison!