Speed of XP vs 98 ?

[jasinwa]

Yes, on the surface XP does run slower than 98, but do you understand why and the reasoning for it?

IMO, the benefits outweigh the costs. I'd rather have a rock solid system that runs a bit slower than one that runs really fast, but crashes... and I loose my work.

I hear ya but here's my take:

1. it seems a LOT slower, not just a bit slower (3m vs 1.5m)

2. My 98SE lite, totally tweaked....does not crash (well, as noted, maybe once a week but I test a lot of SW that is beta, buggy, etc.). When I run my normal stuff (web, Office and similar), 98 doesn't crash. Believe it or not!

But I did want to play with XP, learn to tweak it, which I have somewhat already.

thx! Jeff

[suryad]

XP is definitely slower than 98 on same hardware...but XP is based on the NT kernel and i dont think 98 is. Hence better all around stability and so on.

[CLASYS]

Windows 98/se unless tweaked all to hell, and registry reworked, is limited only to use resources upto 128 megs. You can have 256, 512, & 1gb, but 98 will see it, but not use anything over 128. Typical M$ thought, and not seeing anything into the future. Now you can rmove those settings in the registry, but it's a pain in the a**, and anything set over 1024 will cause 98 to become even more unstable.

XP doens't have such issues, and it's alot more stable than 98. As for boot time, I dont remember 98, and I have a P4 3ghz and 4gb of GEIL Dual channel on an Asus mobo and a pair of Sata 120's.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is MSFN forums, where we have the PRECISE OPPOSITE of what is implied in this post going on. [Note: I picked the above quote at random to illustrate a mindset problem that goes beyond the specifics in it.] About the only true thing stated here is that M$'s support of ANY Windows sucks to some degree, and perhaps their support of 9x family is even worse than the [already unacceptable] support level of XP family, etc.

On this forum in the 98SE section, the forces of lots of people's experience largely nullifies all of the imprecise statements I am reading here. About all that can be gleaned here is that you all are M$ lemmings and will undoubtledly dump XP for Longhorne which will undoubtedly run a whole lot slower than XP, much less 98.

For clarification, see the 98SE SP forum, but a few quick points first:

1) NO M$ O/S works at initial release. Since XP has had literally HUNDREDS working on THOUSANDS of fixes since "beta-testing" on the public, why should anyone grumble about un-fixed 9x when the fixed version is at hand? Anyone want to run XP sans hotfixes and SP's at this point?

2) 9x is not to be lumped together. Arguably the original 98 [as we refer to it as FE or First Edition] is as dead as Win95. This just means that the next improved system replaces the previously less-improved system. Note that the NT family of systems DOES NOT follow this logic, as it is a separate development. [Note: This notion is contrary to the words of M$'s SALESMEN; this is a technical discussion.]

Arguably the best version is 98SE, since it benefits from having few if any restrictions compared to 98FE. WinME has some really nice improvements, but at the expense of having the entire system dumbed-down [a prelude for what was done out-of-the-box for the next released system--Windows XP, which most of us know how to UNDO to get it back to non-teletubbies usage, etc.]. Fortunately, there are MSFN forum members who have embarked on essentially excising just about anything that ME offers and grafting it onto 98SE if anyone cares. Also, there is a whole lot if misinformation here as well: In point of fact, some FIXES first appeared in WinME that were eventually released to fix the corresponding problems in 98SE, That they were in the initial release of ME and needed to be applied as hard-to-acquire hotfixes in 98SE is besides the point since we have all of this resolved in the Win98SE SP 2.01, a product whose discussion was created on this very forum! This allowed M$'s marketroids to attempt to sell ME as a "better" system than 98SE, and the same illogic is used to sell XP to the uninformed.

3) So where are we? in the world of 9x, experts are making it easier for lesser mortals to upgrade their unfixed 98SE systems trivially. Yes, M$ let us down, but that is moot given the easily downloaded SP. The ability to graft on the ME features is at a more embryonic state; you need to be savvy to apply the fixes, but that will undoubtedly change. Because precisely of this forum, as we all exchange information towards the overall common goal, clearly not only are these frills available, they will get easier to obtain and install. Note: None of these updates are as "hard" as applying any variant of the discussed-to-death XP SP2 problems, which apparently the deluded are willing to overlook, etc. I don't mind expending effort to improve my systems, but I do take exception to anyone suggesting that it isn't work to do ANY update to ANY system, etc.

4) XP can never be faster on comparable systems against properly stabilized Win98SE. In fact, XP can't even RUN on some of these systems! That said, it is true that by brute-force techniques, you can get a machine so fast that you don't mind the overhead, but please don't pretend that the overhead isn't present!

Please note that parts of XP are "virtualized" to the point that they run on virtual hardware that is in itself emulated. [HAL anyone?] Some of this nomenclature goes back to the days of Win 3.1, but the actual implementation is something only found in the NT family.

5) It IS TRUE that XP can handle 2 GB of user memory giving any additional as the place where the O/S lives. I would hate to think that we are seeing 2 GB apps; that's something quite scary. Rather, it sounds more like incredibly poor program segmentation. If a section of a program is rarely used, it can be linked to dynamically when needed, causing an insignificant delay when loaded and then flushed, etc. I can't believe there are many applications that can justify this large space in any constructive way, nor do I think anyone here is actually pointing this out as a got-to-have feature.

Regardless of this, Windows 98SE can "only" use 1.0 GB including for its own usage. This could allow an app to consume all of the additional memory at its own peril, but again, I don't think this is much of an issue.

Yes, you do have to apply a few minor patches to the April 23, 1999 release of Win98SE to get this to work. But after you apply the SP it just works. Thus, doing an insignificant amount of work [far less than XP SP2!!!!!] you get a stable, fast, lean and mean Windows machine.]

I don't doubt that many can quote now largely irrelevant war stories about how they used Win98 out-of-the-CD and had all sorts of problems. This sort of reminds me of the same when many people more than superficially used XP sans hotfixes and Service Packs. The only point that seems to stick is that most users didn't stumble too much on the hundreds of bugs eventually fixed as compared to the 9X family, which ultimately had far fewer things to fix, and perhaps this is more meaningful-- that now ARE fixed. Anyone want to venture a guess as to how many additional [mostly security] fixes we are still in for regarding the future of XP? I can tell you that for a 98SE system with the SP applied, the answer is likely none except for problems related to IE, which seems to be patched just about every month recently [including for 98SE! Note that every IE fix has three binaries: One for 9x, one for XP before SP2 or Win2K and one for SP2-only].

If you haven't tried Win98SE 2005-fixlevel edition, please don't make time-retro comparisons.

cjl

[CLASYS]

thx for the explanation Jaclaz....it helped some.

Zxian - it's not the actual speed of the scan (for me)...it was the curiousity of the diff in speed....but the scan speed (with other tests) points out to me that XP runs slower than 98, which was VERY disappointing....not only a little slower, but quite a bit slower it seems....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, on the surface XP does run slower than 98, but do you understand why and the reasoning for it?

IMO, the benefits outweigh the costs. I'd rather have a rock solid system that runs a bit slower than one that runs really fast, but crashes... and I loose my work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given the last paragraph, why are you even using XP?

I DO NOT ever lose my work in any Windows system. I save it periodically, or I use an app that just does it for me. I have used apps that crash any windows, including XP; the claimed "stability" oftens leaves a lot to be desired.

With 98SE as is practiced correctly in 2005 you can have stability and speed. Wth XP you are a Windows Update mistake away from disaster. Note that M$ recommends corporate types use virtual PC's to test the impact of hotfixes and SP's on their operations before committing. Are you telling me you NEVER apply updates, such as the predictable steady stream of them coming out of M$?

Basically, other than apps-upgrades, the SP applied to 98SE is perfectly stable. If we don't all work together to add frills to it, it just stays constant. To the extent that we all allow M$ to update IE, all of us are in the same instability boat; this is not an O/S issue however.

I guess some of us have a curious definition of "stability". In any case, 98SE properly updated doesn't crash, if that's what's being referred to. And additionally, has the expected value of non-change to its innards, all of which in XP seems to be always up for grabs.

cjl

[CLASYS]

Someone said 98 was a 16-bit OS.  Oh my.  RTFM.  The last 16-bit OS was Windows 3.1.

There's a ton of new hardware that won't run on anything other than 2000/XP.  98 doesn't support HT, can't use sufficient amounts of memory to run the latest apps, and can't utilize hardware DEP.

So yeah, depends on what boat you're in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually Windows 98 was 16 bit, and emulated 32bit, which is why Win 98 was still dos based. Windows 3.1 was 8 bit, 3.11 for workgroups was 16 bit.

I bet none of you have ever used Windows version 1, it was a 4 bit OS, with B&W GUI.

Oh crap, I just revealed my age

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope this post was TOTALLY in jest, as it is totally factually incorrect.

in Win9x, DOS loads the kernel files of Win9x, then largely disappears as it is replaced by real 32-bit drivers for just about anything. One of the nice things is that it is NOT necessary to replace everything, thus some 16-bit apps can still run.

Win31S is an overlay for Win 3.1x that enables a subset of 32-bit mode that is indeed emulated. This allows a few real 32-bit apps, such as freecell.exe to run in Win 3.1x. None of this is relevant to 9x.

Win 3.11 is indeed the precursor to Win95, and it has been shown to be 60% binary identical to Win95. The reason is that unlike Win 3.10, some of it was upgraded to 32-bit mode. In Win9x, more is so upgraded, but still it allows backward compatibility if you need it, something that XP cannot do.

To give credit where due, XP adds some support for quirky 32-bit applications that grew out of 16-bit conventions in terms of .ini files, as opposed to 32-bit environment issues per se. In particular, some early 32-bit apps continued to use win.ini and system.ini etc., just as they did in 16-bit Windows. Thus, while these apps cannot run in 16-bit Windows, they cannot run in a 32-bit Windows without these trappings, and XP is prepared to accomodate such as this better than previous NT family offerings. Of course, if all settings are in the registry, all of this is moot, etc.

cjl (who, to show his age, is known for using 12-bit systems)

[CLASYS]

Dude that says Xp is far superior is wack.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Umm... I'll say that XP is superior anyday.

Windows98 still uses shared memory. This means that the following code would bring down the entire computer:

while(1)
{ 
    *( (char *) random() ) = 62;
 }

If you don't understand C/C++, the code basically picks a random byte of memory and assigns the value 62 to it... forever, until the program is killed or the computer crashes. Chances are you'd never be able to react quickly enough to stop it though.

The driver support in Win98 is horrible as well... ever tried using a simple USB flash drive in Win98? The "plug-and-play" device requires drivers...

And finally... try leaving your Win98 machine running for more than a week... it'll slow to a crawl in no time flat.

If you're saying that Win98 is better than XP because scanning with Spybot is quicker in 98, then you've seriously gotta read up on how things work!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gee, I guess you are right, XP is better because it allows as***** programs designed to do nothing useful to run :-)

Gee, I guess XP is so good, that it also needed drivers before something that became part of SP1 was applied that it couldn't even recognize my old USB 1.1 Belkin Hub that 98SE never had a problem with even out-of-the-CD.

As far as 98SE systems slowing down, I have no idea what he's talking about. Perhaps he is confusing this with XP systems that sometimes mysteriously slow down to NOT MOVING AT ALL with the BSOD.

Long before 98SE got patched, we were all occasionally victimized by memory leaks, something that can still happen with XP. Today, 98SE has no such problem; I had a system up since 2004 I had to take down to install the SP. It's running now as a toy-version file server on a Pentium III-600 with 128 MB of memory.

cjl (who uses 9x and XP where appropriate; no panaceas exist)

[CLASYS]

There is no other word for them. ntfs format crap....And when I delete something, its deleted !

I agree somewhat.....I really like 98se and with the tweaks I've done all seems pretty smooth. I maybe have 1 lockup a week or so and I test A LOT of SW on it!

FYI for XP, I have been able to totally turn off the file thing that when you delete a file, it returns...there's info out there how to do it but I had to then boot to 98SE and replace the file in a few locations....so on that notebook I have, never recopies a delted file!! Yeah!!!

I also formatted the hd with fat32, not ntfs.....(maybe that's whay it's slower in xp, but I can't understand why such a difference, still).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In my experience, XP works BETTER on FAT32, and I really don't need ADS crap bloating my file system. Look at an "empty" NTFS drive as compared to the same size FAT32. More importantly, if the system runs afoul, I can use DOS-based stuff to fix it, if not Win9x-based stuff as well. Case in point:

Thought I had a cleaned-up XP system. Only actually problem was that SVCHOST.EXE was actually trojaned! No program I was able to run on XP found this to be true! [including running stuff in safe mode.]

Trivially located it as follows:

Configuration: XP on drive C:, 98SE on drive F:, Boot.ini set to boot either. Boot to 98SE, run IE and use Trend Micro Housecall. Found it real quick. Note that Trend DID NOT FIND IT when run from the infected XP system.

If I hadn't formatted C: drive as Fat32, I couldn't have run 9x, and additionally, even if I had an alternate drive arrangement, I am not certain that the 98se system could have found the problem within NTFS, even with some of the available NTFS add-ons for 9x.

An alternate arrangement that also works is to put 9x on F: and XP on G:, both FAT32. This way, drive C: contains only trivial and repeatable files. You can ghost the C: drive and then just replace it at will if you suspect malware invasion. Additionally, if you use something like Norton Rescue Diskette, you can fix your system after a viral "payload" wipes out say the first 128 sectors of your hard disk and have lost literally nothing!!! The rescue diskette puts back the partition table, and you just replace the stable drive C: contents, etc.

cjl (XP advantages are theoretical in a world attacked every day by spyware]

[bhurtel]

xp is far better then 98

but u need to have adequate hardware to run XP

[Zxian]

Wow... someone went on a bit of a rant there trying to take apart anything hinting at the fact that XP is a superior OS to 98.

I'm not even going to bother with trying to rebuttle everything that was said... but just a few points:

1) The whole topic of memory management - do some reading on how it works in the two OSes before you make statements. Have you ever tried running Matlab, Outlook, Opera, and Visual C++ on a Windows98 machine? I have, and it sucks! Compared to my workstation that runs Win2K (the precursor to XP) 98 is horrible at managing these 4 programs (that are essential to my work).

2) As for the code that I provided... you obviously only looked at the very superficial implications of the code itself. Yes what I wrote does absolutely nothing... but think about the case where someone wrote real code that did something like that... what then? It's very easy to forget to properly manage pointers in C/C++, especially for new programmers.

3) As for spyware/viruses - if you were one of the people who wanted to disrupt the world, what would you target? The NT kernel or the Win9x kernel? End of discussion.

4) As for file systems... why on earth would I look at an empty NTFS partition and an empty FAT32 partition? They're empty!!!! Have another look at a full NTFS and a full FAT32 partition, and also the advantages that come with NTFS.

To give a very simple example - At work, I'm working with controlling two DMDs through special video cards - one on a Win2K machine, and the other on a Windows98 machine since it's also got an old camera connected that doesn't have drivers released for NT-based systems. I'm writing the code to control this DMD, and as always in the world of software development, there are bugs that need to be worked out. If I ended up coming across a bug in my program, or my program crashed, I would have to reboot the Windows98 computer to regain control of the DMD. With the Win2K machine, end the process in Task Manger fire it up again, and it's off to the races again.

I think that you're one of the few people here who with a properly (key word - properly) configured XP system is still experiencing BSODs. I got one a few months ago, but that was because my hard drive was dying (it crapped out 3 days later).

Oh... and "thousands" of fixes? Can you provide a link to a list of them all? That statement throws your credibilty out the window (no pun intended).

[jaclaz]

AS EXPECTED:

PLEASE NOT another Windows98 is faster than XP, yes, but it is outdated flame war, we already had one:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=37402

(all 45 pages of it)

(or go directly to my post there:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=37402&st=411#)

jaclaz

jaclaz