Link21 lives

[winxpi]

When I upgraded Windows XP from Windows 98 I was happy. Sure it takes more RAM, but at least it wast stable. Since then I've been using XP and I never looked back.

I liked Windows 98, but its old. And I don't think it was stable, it did freeze and crash a lot with my computer.

I'm not going to start a debate with you guys, no point really. We're all entitled to our opinions.

If some of you guys hate Windows XP why can't you use 2000? Or use 2003, which is better. I thought 2000's performance was better than 98.

It depends.

[janus zeal]

Hey, everyone is allowed to have thier own view. i like 98se, but i also like xp. they are both good systems. it just depends on what you do with them.

[waywyrd]

Hi,

When I got my first PC, which came with Win98SE, I had all the usual problems... BSOD, programs crashing, constant reboots etc. Several times I came close to throwing the PC out of the nearest window.

Then a salvation came in the form of a PC magazine article about Shane Brooks IE Iradicator. I downloaded the program and was so impressed with the speed gains and stability I purchased the full 98Lite program.

Then later on I came across "98 SE SP 2.1a" which improved my Win98 even further. Later still "Killer Replacements 98 SE -> ME" and even more improvement. Thanks to those guys for all their work.

Now I dual boot Win98 (with the addons) and WinXP.

I'm hanging on to Win98 while it will still do all the things I want it to do. I find several things work better under Win98 than XP.

Nero CD burning for one. Version 6 will 'coaster' CD's under XP, under Win98 works perfectly (99%). Another family member (scorns me for still using 98) has also 'coastered' several CD's... using different Cd burning programs... whilst trying to do some CD's for me.

Malware, viruses etc. next to nothing with Win98. Not so with XP.

With the way Microsoft is heading, with bigger 'bloat', one system setup 'fits all' I'll probably head for Linux (even with its steep learning curve). Or a Mac if I can ever afford one.

Another reason... check this out! Microsoft spyware?

Waywyrd

[Fredledingue]

When I upgraded Windows XP from Windows 98 I was happy. Sure it takes more RAM, but at least it wast stable

Did you upgrade from w98 to XP on the same AND unchanged hardware? Or did you add more ram in order to run XP? Because if you did so, you may have not need to upgrade to have a stable system.

In fact XP is stable ONLY BECAUSE it requires 128 and because 256 is recommanded and because practicaly no one is running it with les than 512 Mb. Run w98se++ on a computer meeting the XP recommandations and ou will rarely see a crash.

_______

Link21

Hate w98 as you want (you didn't test it on recent hardware and with the recent updates anyway) but ONE THING YOU SHOULD KNOW: there is no miraculous performance enhancement for XP only games or softwares.

I understand that it's hard for you to admit it, but it's true.

Games and softwares are designed only for windows XP already for several years now, and w98 has no influence at all on developpement. Developpers totaly ignore this OS.

If some but not all, games works on w98, it's because there is nothing in XP that helps games to work better or faster. XP is in fact, not a gamer freindly OS.

XP is stable only because is sucks resoucres out, at the expense of apps and games. That's why games will never run faster on XP.

There is no hidden miracle in XP that could make things faster. Games and appps are slower on XP because XP sucks resources. A 3Ghz processor is still 3Ghz with w98 or XP whatever you do. the problem with XP is that true CPU use for applications outside the OS id at best (most services disabled) 2.5 Ghz, while almost full for w98.

XP stability is based on permanent loop-checking. It's architecture is patches on patches. The core of XP is still w98. You will be amazed of the number of things that are the same in XP and in w98.

The main change is NTSF... which is LESS reliable than FAT32 by experience.

Dream on, Link 21, Pure XP software, are already all those you can find regardless of what some 2% of PC users do with w98.

[Link21]

Link21

Hate w98 as you want (you didn't test it on recent hardware and with the recent updates anyway) but ONE THING YOU SHOULD KNOW: there is no miraculous performance enhancement for XP only games or softwares.

I understand that it's hard for you to admit it, but it's true.

Games and softwares are designed only for windows XP already for several years now, and w98 has no influence at all on developpement. Developpers totaly ignore this OS.

If some but not all, games works on w98, it's because there is nothing in XP that helps games to work better or faster. XP is in fact, not a gamer freindly OS.

XP is stable only because is sucks resoucres out, at the expense of apps and games. That's why games will never run faster on XP.

There is no hidden miracle in XP that could make things faster. Games and appps are slower on XP because XP sucks resources. A 3Ghz processor is still 3Ghz with w98 or XP whatever you do. the problem with XP is that true CPU use for applications outside the OS id at best (most services disabled) 2.5 Ghz, while almost full for w98.

XP stability is based on permanent loop-checking. It's architecture is patches on patches. The core of XP is still w98. You will be amazed of the number of things that are the same in XP and in w98.

The main change is NTSF... which is LESS reliable than FAT32 by experience.

Dream on, Link 21, Pure XP software, are already all those you can find regardless of what some 2% of PC users do with w98.

Why do you keep saying Windows XP only games and applications. It is not Windows XP only games and applications. It is Windows 2000/XP only games and applications, thus Windows NT based operating systems only.

The core of Windows XP is NOT Windows 98. The core is Windows NT. ANybody I know who has dealt with all the operating systems eaisly knows how different the operating systems are. Under the hood, they are a completely different animal that has nothing in common with each other.

Windows 2000/XP are stable because they are based on the NT kernel which has separate memory space for all user land applications. So no user mode application can crash the system. It is not because they suck resources away from applications.

Battlefield 2 is one of the best performing games out. It is Windows XP only. It can run on Windows 200 as well because Windows 2000 is still based on Windows NT and is not that much different from Windows XP. That game won't run at all on Windows 98/ME. If it does, it runs extremely poorly. So you tell me. Why XP and 2000 only applications and games. It is because they run so poorly or not at all in Windows 98/ME.

Also, games and applications are not slower on XP/2000. Most benchmarks have shown them to be faster.

NOD32 is the fstest AntiVirus application. Guess what. It has separate binaries for the Windows NT based OS and the Windows 9X based OS. It uses the same exact binaries for Windows NT4 as it does for Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP. It has completely different compiled binaries for Windows 95/98/ME. The fact that it has a native version for the Windows NT based operating systems only has really helped its performance.

Performance gains may not be miraqculous, but they are certainly more than just a little. I'd say the performance gains are moderate and plenty noticeable in XP only applications.

And NTFS is far more reliable than FAT32. You can easily corrupt a FAT32 partition just by hitting the reset button on your PC. With NTFS, it is unlikely that rebooting the PC without shutting down the system will corrupt it.

[eidenk]

So no user mode application can crash the system.

What about that ? :

This higher level of visibility that Windows XP gives errors entices users to believe Windows XP is crashing more often than it really is crashing.

The bottom line is that when you see a crash, it's more than likely a misbehaved application or device driver, not Windows XP causing the problem.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/s...december01.mspx

[eidenk]

You can easily corrupt a FAT32 partition just by hitting the reset button on your PC

No, not easily. In fact it never happened to me and I barely ever shutdown my computer normally. I just press the power button on the tower and that's it.

I believe you can have a serious problem only if you do that while you defragment the drive possibly.

[LLXX]

And NTFS is far more reliable than FAT32. You can easily corrupt a FAT32 partition just by hitting the reset button on your PC. With NTFS, it is unlikely that rebooting the PC without shutting down the system will corrupt it.

I haven't had any problems with FAT32 either. In fact, if you enable write-caching, NTFS will also be easy to corrupt. FAT32 is simple, NTFS is complicated. Recovering data from a damaged FAT32 partition is far easier than from an NTFS one. Also, since there are less reads/writes to be done for each filesystem operation, FAT32 has a much smaller "critical window" than NTFS. It's a very simple principle, applied to many other areas of design: simple design, smaller failure points.

...and NTFS security/permissions are annoying and nearly useless for most applications of XP (single-user, client).

[Thunderbolt 2864]

When I upgraded Windows XP from Windows 98 I was happy. Sure it takes more RAM, but at least it wast stable

Did you upgrade from w98 to XP on the same AND unchanged hardware? Or did you add more ram in order to run XP? Because if you did so, you may have not need to upgrade to have a stable system.

In fact XP is stable ONLY BECAUSE it requires 128 and because 256 is recommanded and because practicaly no one is running it with les than 512 Mb. Run w98se++ on a computer meeting the XP recommandations and ou will rarely see a crash.

I upgraded Windows 98 from XP without any hardware changes and it worked like a charm. No more annoying BSOD's, 10x better stable performance. XP worked great, I've been using XP since then. No need to go back to 98.

Though I did dual boot with 98 and XP, I checked out 2003 and replaced 98 with 2003. And I don't regret it at all, 2003 works great too.

[Fredledingue]

You can easily corrupt a FAT32 partition just by hitting the reset button on your PC

No, not easily. In fact it never happened to me and I barely ever shutdown my computer normally. I just press the power button on the tower and that's it.

I believe you can have a serious problem only if you do that while you defragment the drive possibly.

In fact it never happened to me and I barely ever shutdown my computer normally.

I agree. I'v never seen or heard of a corrupt Fat32 partition because of a hard shut down or a powercut.

Theoricaly it can happens but in practice the risk is nearly zero.

Link21

There is no "under the hood" or unkown libraries in XP that will give you even the slightiest performance gain.

There are only new programs, some better, some worse. Some works on w98 some not. But all are designed to work firstly on XP platform and this for many years already.

I don't know what you are hoping for, realy.

[RainyShadow]

fun: http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/2072/whyxpbad.htm

[Link21]

There is no "under the hood" or unkown libraries in XP that will give you even the slightiest performance gain.

There are only new programs, some better, some worse. Some works on w98 some not. But all are designed to work firstly on XP platform and this for many years already.

Yes there are. Its called the native Windows NT API. I have talked to many programmers and they said that the APIs in Windows 98/ME suck and that is why it is better to use the APIs only available in Windows NT based operating systems including Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

Use Windows 2000 if you don't like XP. At least Windows 2000 is still a good quality OS unlike that 16-bit architecture based Windows 98.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Link21

Why u spend so much time in Win98/SE

forums if you hate Win98 so much?

Btw i bought you a copy of Win98SE on ebay

CD in the mail

Edited June 18, 2006 by PROBLEMCHYLD

[Link21]

Link21

Why u spend so much time in Win98/SE

forums if you hate Win98 so much?

Btw i bought you a copy of Win98SE on ebay

CD in the mail

Can't send it to me because you don't know my address!! I would throw it in the waste bin if I received a copy because it is such a POS OS.

[randiroo76073]

You need to go back to your XP forum, you're boring!!!