I have to ask this, im thniking after i get my dad's computer fixed , replaced it with a new mother board and graphics card, Im thinking of not putting XP or 2000 on until i can get some reassurance that 98/95 wont play hard to get on my computer.

What are the pros and cons of having either 95 on 98 on a pentium 3 with 128MB and 10G hdd.

I know 95 uses less resources then 98 does. Would it just be better for me to just to put it back on?

put 98 on, better than 95 and most programs will still work with 98, as well as updates are still being made for 98,

Agreed, but I would just go with 2000. Thats just me.

yeah 2000 would be a better choice in the long run

If you're going to run one of the win9x family, run windows ME.
It's a bit faster and more configurable than 98.
Don't listen to the slightly-off-their-head people here who hate winME just because other people they know do. Check it out with an unbiased mind.
(of course, as always, *after* installing the right drivers for your hardware - made more so important by the fact that winME has just a slight bit more eye-candy than 98).


Win95 is also an option worth trying - the hardware you've mentioned certainly has win95-compatible drivers and so on. And maybe, it's going to be an office computer (where you would use productivity apps like, and may not run much of newer software or games). Office 97/2000 is a pretty good productivity suite, and runs on win95 without hiccups.

DO NOT PUT WINME on the PC, aside from being a pain in the a** windows me will crash and will send you back to the repair shop.

if you want excellent resource management and stability go with windows 2000, it is the most stable os in the NT family with resources requirements going below 96 megs ram and a 10 gig harddrive, i have it running on pc with 16 megs ram and a 10 gig, and it runs excellent.

If you dont have windows 2000 go with windows 98, this baby will get you up and running in no time, it has support for almost every single piece of hardware made, except for those new graphic cards. It is stable to a certain point, and runs exceptional under 128 megs of RAM.

I have used both the OS mentioned on systems that have 16 megs of ram and have not had any probs, i dont foresee you having any.

Sunil

i agree completely go with 98 or 2000, Definitely NOT win ME.

It seems nobody's noticed that part of his post. Everybody is throwing his towel towards winXP/2k. Yeah, I know it's good and I wouldn't settle for anything less, but can't we even understand the post we're replying to ?



One of the Attractive things about windows ME (according to me) is that it doesn't need all the updating and patching that win98se needs. It works straight out of the box on most hardware (where you'd care to run it - i.e., somewhat slowish configurations). Has a better pre-existing drivers list and UI and updated apps.

I challenge anybody here to just post *one* crippling bug in WinME. There isn't that many as compared to 98se.




......... LOL ........
by the way, here I am defending the cause of windows ME in yet another thread - no funny full-form for the "ME" acronym ?

Hey buddies, I'm disappointed. :laughing:

this is biased as well. u like it! that's enough for biased!!..
anyways get win98 se. resolves some usb issues. etc.
forget about 95. and ME.

another thing if u're going to get a new board and new etc u might have problems on finding drivers for 95/98/me..

me I don't know the bugs but my comp had more issues with me then any other os that I had. (win 3.1 ,3.11 95 98 98se 2000 xp 2003 redhat lindows etc.) I've used nt never installed it on my comp..
ie me CRASHED so often. driver issues. apps not running properly. etc..

aam was there a poll on which are the widely used os's of ms?
I'd still think 98/2000/xp/2003 are in the list for wide.
3 series I don't think so. 95 not a chance. me 1-2 users maybe..
the reason's obvious. not bc is stable than anyother os's its just that it sucks
not much difference from 98 to me. but a whole lot difference from 98/me to 2000/xp

no offense but i deal with ME and all other os's all day long...and i still don't like it. in my opinion there's only one way to fix ME........Format

ermm.. If you want to put a 9x family, put a 98.

Remember, installing a Win 95 on a PC superior at 500 MHz, causing a lot of problems. Sometimes, the OS can't start at all. Win 95 write an error at loading.

So put a 98, you'll have less problems.

ok, fine. have it your way - 'tis ultimately about whether you are comfortable with your OS.

no compulsions.

as for User interface improvements, there weren't all that many till XP came out.

Same taskbar, same locations for everything, even the control panels programs are the same.

I've never liked ME, only reason i used it was because my AIW needed it, then i put 2000 on and no more probs.

Go with 98SE, there aren't as many fixes as you may suspect. If you want to compare, ME has more microsoft fixes then 98. Definately ALOT more KB articles on ME then 98, most of which are errors.

1 - Faulty System Restore
2 - No REAL mode
3 - No boot to command prompt
4 - Automatic system restore when registry error detected, so you lose whatever files you created till then. VERY CRIPPLING!!!!
5 - So many in the first month I had it, I uninstalled from my PC ever since. The buggiest Windows ever... !

ha ha ha ........

you couldn't even post a *real* bug, what of *crippling* ones.


1 - if you had bothered to download and apply the few-hundred-KB fix, it wouldn't bother you. win98 didn't even have it, so count your blessings.

4 - bullsh** !! And this point is a repetition of point 1. It makes using your computer easier. And, who told you to save your files in system folders (which are the only folders restored from backups). Registry errors only come to light at startup (before login, FYI), so you couldn't have been doing anything at that time.

2,3 - both those points mean the same, show me real mode (or to put it in lay-man terms, boot to command prompt) in 2k/XP. MS had many perfectly good reasons to do that, they are mentioned in the accompanying documentation of ME.

5 - that is a comment by you (unjustified too), not a bug.

Only morons need system restore. And to download "the few-hundred-KB fixes" is just stupid. Why do you need to fix something that should have been working from the start?

Did you ever wonder WHY business's never migrated to ME? Its not because of money. ME doesn't work.

ok yall this is getting kinda off topic :offtopic:

Try them both out and use the one that works best for you. Using the board for advice is a good idea, but unless everyone is running the same configuration and applications, then it all comes down to personal preference and likes/dislikes.

no we're debating on which one to go with
its definitely on topic!!!

I agree with alanoll on the unneccessity of system restore. only use it for drivers if u want to. or if u don't have the previous driver or what. now that ppl have shown me the way not to install it at all I love it. b4 that I'd disable it right away after windows logs in!

ok one other thing offtopic. can me be installed unattendedly??

also its sometimes not about the bugs. see linux for some ppl doesn't have that much bugs in it. why not use it then? its not good, u're not used to it.
even though 98 had lots of errors. I'd still go with it. I'm used to its errors and bugs. and I know what to do with the bugs when they appear.

ME might not have bugs but had lots of stuff that pretty much annoyed me.
U're right I cannot give u an example bc I don't remember the os anymore. that's because I used it at max for a week. which was enough to make me go back first to 98 then switch to 2000.

ontopic as I mentioned earlier. u might have problems with the drivers if u buy new hardware and try to work it on 98/me. the new stuff is esp designed for xp. I don't know if they still supply win98/me drivers. I've to say I've seen lot of 98 drivers but not me drivers these days. back then I had to upgrade all my drivers to me so that they work properly!....

anyways bored with the topic. I'd still say 98se. but as homiebrah said If u have the chance (which I think u have) try them both and see for yourself. that'll be pointless actually this way u wouldn't ask for advice in here but anyways...
I'm sure there are some comparison charts over the internet for 98/me.

as a matter of fact the topic is 95/98 who brought up me?

ps: if u want to take a good laugh at 98 dl the video where bill gets gets screwed when presenting win98 for the first time

oh yes.

The process of automating is the same across 95/98/ME - using msbatch.inf
You can also install additional apps the same way its done in XP.
If somebody needs more details tell me.

I had Windows Me for a few months. The thing that bothered me the most was the fact that even after I turned off System Restore, it would mysteriously turn itself right back on a few days later or even sooner. It did do a better job managing my hardware resources than 98, which always gave me a conflict with my SCSI card. However after using Me a while the whole system seemed to slow to a crawl. After a few weeks it would begin locking up. I should mention there was nothing wrong with my hardware; it was all Intel based and the best I could buy at that time. I did several clean installs of Me, and of course got all the updates as I would with any other OS. I finally decided that I did like not this new OS at all, and went straight back to Windows 98 (which worked fine for me until I finally upgraded to 2000).

That is just my personal experience with Me, and I'm sure everyone's is different. In my opinion Windows 98 SE would be the best choice from the 9x line for that computer. Of course it pales in comparison to 2000. I would not even consider 95 as it seems to spaz out on faster systems, and does not support (or properly support) newer hardware.

Some bugs:
1 - System lockups when using certain USB devices.
2 - Some USB ports not recognized by Windows Me.
3- If SR can't find a restore point, no bootup. Have to reinstall.
4- Turn SR off, it turns back on.
5- WebTV DOS bug
6- Constant kernel crashes
7- Items in Startup menu don't always execute
8- Dialer constantly trying to connect to internet.
9- Dialup settings not saved on reboot.
10 WinME does not allow to rename fonts (very crippling)
11- Incompatible with PWS (Personal Web Server)
12- Driver compatibility problems (drivers that work both in 98 and 2000/XP don't work in Me, Windows Me's driver collection is not necessarily a superset of Windows 98
13 - High speed systems may suffer data-loss at shutdown! (very critical)
14- IE 5.5 very buggy (Installed by default)
15- Hitting Caps Lock or some shift keys repeatedly may disable keyboard while booting up. (very crippling and cumbersome).

As someone mentioned, "Why do you need to fix something that should have been working from the start?"

If the PC does not have enough resources for windows 2000 or XP, I'll go with 98SE anyday. Having to service over 500+ PCs for more than 5 years, I can positively say the most stable 9x OS is 98SE. 95, 98OEM and Me are not as stable and trouble-free in the long run. That is from my professional experience and my customer's experience. If you like it, use it then. I just go with what over 90% of my customer's and my experience tells me to.

Reasons :
1. An update patch is available since years before.
2. same reason as point 1.
3. Never seen such a thing. I normally disable SR on low-powered machines, and they work perfectly. Count your blessings and be happy that a win9x version with SR exists.
4. You have some idiotic third-party app or not-ready-for-prime time tweaker installed.
5. Update patch available via Windows Update (which can be thankfully be automated/scheduled even with a win9x OS like ME).
6. System overloading in some cases. Update available to make your ME rock-solid.
7. There's five reasons possible for that, all attributable to the idiocy of the user (PM me if you want to know).
8. Windows Update asks IE connection manager for that (many reasons possible for this symptom you describe, of which even 2k/XP suffers some).
9. Logged in as default user (pressed cancel/esc at login screen).
10.Files in use. Do it in safe mode. Anyway, no sane person would do that for system fonts.
11.Dude, I've used the version of PWS that comes on the 98se retail CD with ME.
12.All HW worth using with ME have drivers for that OS on their accompanying CD/floppy. If not they have it freely downloadable on their web site.
13.win98 RTM also had that problem. There's a prominent option for disabling fast-shutdown. Or download the appropriate update patch. If you're too lazy to fix it either way, schedule Windows Update to download updates regularly.
14.Invalid argument. Don't tell me 98se's IE5 was better. Either way, I doubt that you stay with the pre-installed version of IE - you'd normally download the latest version after connecting to the net. Or, if you don't at all want IE, go to www.oem.microsoft.com to download IEAccess.exe - a tool to control IE access on win9x.
15.You have an old BIOS - flash update it, most MoBos released in the past 6 years are having upgradeable CMOSes (don't tell me you support older comps than that, if so you're better off with win95 OSR2.5).

Hey, tell me one thing. Don't you update IE, WMP, OE, etc. on win98 and XP ?
Don't you perpetually keep applying service packs and update hotfixes like an insane freak on XP/2k ?
WinME is no worse than other versions of windows. If anything, ME is better than 98/98se.
If you want I'll tell you of apps/games that used to run on 98 and ME but don't run on XP. Or drivers with the same problem. Or about printers/scanners/other devices that work with ME and have XP drivers but don't work with XP (even after XP updates and driver updates).
I could go on and on .............

Something wasn't available in a previous edition and is present in a slightly buggy form now, so I might as well take advantage of it and fix it. (should have been working from the start, but most people are impatient for a new release - which builds up pressure to get it out of the door quickly).

>> If the PC does not have enough resources ................
dump 2k/XP (too heavy), and dump 98/98se (manages precious resources too ham-handedly). Experience tells me in real world conditions, winME runs faster than 98se on extremely feeble HW - and can be tweaked to further speed-up. (Beat its performance on a Pentium-60 MHz with 16 MB EDO RAM and 512 KB VGA. Moreover, the kind of functionality it provides even on that horrible config is amazing by today's standards.)

>> for more than 5 years....... not as stable and trouble-free in the long run.........
You haven't seen ME for as long as you've seen 98. Nor have most corporates and average people.


Don't get me wrong, I don't want to start a flame or fight, but tarnishing the name of an OS so blatantly (unjustifiably, when you aren't even familiar with it, whereas you would have a good 3 years more of familiarity with win98 or 98se) is just not fair.


And, this is one sentence I'd be willing to echo with you:

We've got quite out of topic by now. Let's get back.

I agree
the hell with previous versions.

do this get xp or 2000 install it on his computer. open word or whatever program he uses. don't even shutdown the computer. it will work perfectly smooth.

2000/xp would work perfectly until your father decides to use 3d studio max or some video editing app. boot up will be slow so don't shut it down.
hibernate or standby...
good luck

Even Microsoft have admitted to ME being crap. One of their employees wrote up a knowledge base article for an issue in Windows ME which said something like:



The "DO NOT USE!!" got removed days later. Funny at the time though

ha ha ha ........... that's a good one.

As a matter of fact, just move out of the win9x family totally.
win2k will run pretty well on the kind of hardware that the first post mentioned (I'd prefer winXP, but you don't need that much of bloat on older computers). Actually, it'd run well enough that you don't need to resort to the desperate measures Xtreme suggests (but yes, using his suggestion will make your computer "feel" like less of a laggard).

Like I said, I regularly went to Windows Update and had every patch, but it did not solve the problems. I did not have any "idiotic third-party apps" installed either; it was simply the most disappointing operating system I've ever used. Oh yeah, the thing where it keeps trying to dial out all the time. I had forgotten that but it drove me crazy. Tried turning off automatic updates, all the patches, nothing would stop it. Every time I would right click on a file in Windows Explorer my modem would start dialing; ridiculous.

http://www.computergripes.com/WindowsME.html

:offtopic: All the bugs mentioned were with an out-of-the box installation running for a week, and all those "symptoms" happened in that same week. That installation was done by me, regarding your implication about the "idiocy of the user". Without modifying anything, some Startup items runned sporadically or never runned at all. And remember, this was on an out-of-the box installation. The most expensive $100 bucks I've ever spent.

As for bug #10, you HAVE to do that to reinstall Access 97 on a Windows Me PC! That's Microsoft own steps to fix a bug that happens when reinstalling Access 97 on a Windows Me PC!

Obviously you are one of the very few lucky users who runs Me without a hitch. For the rest out here, that's not been the case. I tried many many times to reinstall Me and give it an opportunity to "prove it's worth". But having wasted countless hours in those attempts is what I mentioned as "my experience", and comparing those findings with others users who tried to do the same I always find the same results and, thus a collective opinion that this particular OS is not a reasonable choice for a PC.

Many people I know and respect have even tried it for over a year with the same end-result: they hated it and chosen either 98SE or moving up to 2000/XP.



Believe me, I have. How can I see it "performing" in the long run if nobody I have ever worked with wants it? As I mentioned, I know people (engineers, technicians, in fact people who even work at MS. VERY IT literate people) that had Me installed for various years and they came to the same conclusion: It's too buggy to be a cost-effective solution.

No disrespect or flaming intented on my part either, but even Microsoft dumped it a few months after it came out.

So, I go with my previous recommendaiton: if the PC can't handle 2000 or XP, give 98SE a whirl.

BTW: some of the previous OS that I find they were excellent are:

• MS-DOS 3.30
• MS-DOS 6.0
• Windows for Workgroups 3.11
• Windows 98SE
• Windows NT 3.1
• Windows 2000 w/SP4

Worst (in my opinion):

• DOS 2.0
• DOS 4.0-5.2
• Windows 95A-B-C & OEM
• Windows Me
• Windows 3.1
• Windows 98 OEM & A
• Windows NT 4 SP1 up to SP3

the specs on the machine suggest it will run win2k just fine. it will even run WinXP, just dont expect it to be as fast as 98se or win2k on that system - i also have a PIII machine with 192Mb SDRAM, onboard Graphics and sound, and it runs XP PRO no problems. Although the old thing just collects dust under the spare bed these days, it still works just fine.

The only problem you might have is drivers, i expect the Pc is a bought ready built machine full of OEM parts?

Make a list of all the hardware in it and check to see if its win2k compatible, though usually its just the modem thats the problem... usually needing a replacement, OEM system builders love stuffing $2 Winmodems in their machines that slow the machine down and drivers cant be found without the help of Indiana Jones.

Unless that is you are on DSL, in which case you could just remove the offending 56k junk modem