OK... It has been 7 years since Windows 98 was released (98SE in 99, so that's 6 years). I can't believe there are still so many people who run it. Why? What is your reason for running it? I switched to XP almost instantly. I work in corporate environments so it's important for me to work with the newest and best. IMO Windows XP is more stable, faster and just all around a better OS. So, to help me understand please answer the following questions...

• Why I still use Windows 98/98SE over Windows XP
• My system specs
• Have you ever tried Windows XP or do you just hate it so much you won't?

Just curious to know why, that's all.

Let's see-- depends on one's overall philosphy(btw i have every single MS software product-- os, business app, data / programming app, etc. & i install these on others' systems--I've multibooted a slew of OS, and i don't find XP to be more stable or faster than 98. And as for work i think win2k, win2k3 pro / server is better suited. ):

1. Usually takes 2 years before an MS OS becomes a somewhat stable version-- winxp is still having major problems with various buggy patches to this day.

2. Depending on the base programming language / coding of one's programs-- i;m talking of business apps, not games-- they may not run faster, sometimes even slower on the nt platform.

3. Why overtax an older system with a resource hog.... drivers, etc. may not be totally compatible with all equipment....

I'm not a fan of having the very latest system in order that it's capable of handling multimedia while simultaneously working on the latest version Office or Photoshop-- i'll play games, tv, music in their appropriate components.

So now that i don't need that, getting winxp & a high end system seems like overkill-- there's nothing(work wise), no program i can't perform equally as well on win98 when i bring my work home. Office 2003 & adobe suites run fine on it. For private networks, vpn's, lan/wan,etc. again, i think the other nt counterparts are better than XP. And as for those doing some specialized work: high end multimedia, graphics, cad, etc. ? For them, better is Apple or workstation/supercomputers.... So what is so special about XP?

Therefore, i have no reason right now to want xp, ditto lcd screens(I can get several 22" crt's for the price of one lcd). Now, if browsing was faster, programs ran faster, screens rendered quicker--- i'd gladly pay extra.
But if I now decide to get winxp, i'll be paying less(street price) than when it first came out, won't have endured its initial bugs, etc. The same will likely apply to Longhorn during the first couple of years-- what will one be able to do considerably faster with it, than with win2k/xp? Ditto say, an Athlon XP system-- I'd rather buy 2-3 systems with that same money.

I have no love lost for the Wintel duopoly-- all we've been doing for them is being guniea pigs while paying thru the nose for the privilege of being the first to beta test their initial releases. To boot, they've held the industry back-- not just by squashing most entities with original products / ideas, but for one big reason:

Remember over 10 years ago, before the Pentium: IBM, Apple, Motorola-- as a consortium attempted to port superstation-class Risc processors to the desktop pc market, & MS initially agreed to compile windows for it? They later reneged, and the rest is history.

JMHO....Good Question.

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

Because XP is a full of security bugs.

Because XP is the most popular OS, and therefore has a giant red bulseye on it that attracts viruses, spyware, and hackers. (For same reason I do NOT use Internet Explorer).

Because XP is expensive. (Though I believe it's free for me due to super-duper MSDN license. Still I don't want it!)

Because XP is bloated and drains system memory and performance!

Because I refuse to participate in XP's communist registration scheme.

Because 98 has superior backwards compatability.

Because I can do everything on 98 - develop software, play games, compose music, surf internet, use digital camera, scanners, and usb hard drives.

* My system specs

Athlon 64 3400+, 1 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 5900 FX 256 MB RAM, 2 hd (200 gb + 100 gb).

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

I have to use it at work unfortunately .

You got Office 2003 to run on windows 98 ? what's your secret? Granted I've never tried, but according to the specs, windows 2000 was the minimum for office 2003 !!!

Wow... what a waste of machine on 98SE. You are aware that your 64bit chip is wasted on a 32 bit OS, right? You do not get any more performance because it's a 64bit chip. Granted, XP is 32bit, but they have a 64bit version comming out.

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

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

Windows 98 Works On Every New System that XP Can

Windows 98 Can Run Better Than XP

Windows XP Is Too Expensive

Windows 98 Is Cheap

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

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

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

Windows 98 Has Far Less Bugs Than XP Does.

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.

[QUOTE]7years and still rockin baby .sure xp is prettier sure the new kernel is cool but simpicity rules and 98se eveyones uses and if u can operate everything why deal with the activation saga ,bloat and if your worries bout your friends thinking you not cool uing 98se ask them how many problems they have had with xp?and beside with the patches fixes sp tricks 4 98se why cange sure its the dogde of os but al bundy got over a million miles on his...

I would be willing to argue this one... most companies are using 2000 or XP, and we all know companies make up the majority of PCs


What are you basing this one? Windows XP is more stable, that's for sure, and if you are argueing this one then you may not have installed it properly.

OK, so you pay (at most) $200 for an OS that runs your PC for 5 years... you don't think that's worth it? My computer runs my life. I paid $1400 for my bed because it determines my whole day... I see my computer as the same.


Connect to a domain? No
Remote Desktop? No
A WHOLE list of things...

Buy a legal copy...


You're insane. You should have a virus scanner on any Windows OS


That's why Windows XP is more stable?

Haha...
This is cool! An all-out war between win98 and winxp. What was simmering for years now comes to the surface...


j/k
winxp, go go go!


un4given1 - I agree.
I still don't see why people are afraid of winxp. I still don't see why they won't dare install SP2. Probably its because of using unlicensed copies, but even then MS has ensured it will work just fine.

> most companies are using 2000 or XP,

Doubtful. Yes, most high-tech US-based companies use XP. However I suspect a ton of companies use 98, 3.1, or even DOS. If MS still supports 98 there must be a decent customer base.

> Remote Desktop? No

Not true, do a google search for remote desktop 98 or vnc 98, there are freeware solutions for this. FYI just as with IE and WMP sometimes its better to NOT use what is bundled with your OS.

In my case, it's proof that the less you know, the better off you are-- without reading the specs i innocently installed it in an older P3.....

Yes, you CAN do those things.
On mine & my customer's legal installs i've disabled all that--I do enough testing / swapping-- but that's not the point. What sane person would want that hanging over their head? Yes, it's not really dreaded for now(& likely will not come into play for most folks): call an 800 #, a courteous MS rep asks you a couple of questions, will not usually challenge your answers, you get a code and are on your way. But why would i want to waste my time that way? As long as MS gets their money & the OS does not get installed on more than one machine, who cares?
Also, from a tweaking / consume less resource standpoint: between that, quality feedback for WMP & others, auto updaters, etc....... pretty soon..........

This probably also falls under the category of backing up-- the one day WILL come with a major, major problem.... we've likely all at least come across problems for others on different boards: that last days/weeks w/o a solution......
Some folks dread only because they just don't have the spare time in their hectic lives to solve a major problem--

i wasen't talking about companies i was meaning home users.


you can run windows 98 very well just you need to tweak it to get a bit close to xp


xp costs 500 bucks where i live and i never make more than 200 bucks a month,my bed is free,rent is not free,my pc runs my life too.


i wasen't meaning that,i meant for software related not those kind of features.


i already knew that,product activation is a pain and 98 doesen't have it


well i've never been hit by viruses so 98 don't need it unles u get hit with viruses,the nt oses need antivirus


No,XP is based on the NT kernel and 98 is based on the dos kernel,it has been out longer than xp has.
sides i know of some businesses that run 98,they could run xp but whats the point if 98 is working fine for them,they don't always need the newest and greatest thing if something a bit older will do just fine.

IMPOSSIBLE for office2k3 to run on win98.
Probably its officeXP, check!

Assuredly, before that "one day" comes, win98 will be long dead and gone and useless for anything except to play old DOS games on. And that "one day", win98 will be worse affected than winxp.


Keeping the OS up-to-date with the latest patches was a concept that was around since ages. Its only now that people becoming aware of how essential it is, and getting afraid (because winxp needs that on a regular basis) to run to an even worse OS.

Show me IE6SP2 on win98. Its impossible.
And most certainly, believe me you don't want to know what happens when an MBR virus latches on to a win98 machine.

Yes, you are right, there are "freeware" programs out there that will do just about anything. But none of them are "Remote Desktop" And, YES... most companies do use Windows XP. I have worked for my share of corporate environments and I guarantee that there are 5x as many companies running XP than 98.

You didn't specify... and I would still bet you are wrong on that.


Why tweak when you have a superior product?

mean what you say, and say what you mean. If you are going to try to discount something back it up with evidence and thurough information.



I don't know what that breaks out to be USD, but $200 USD isn't much for it IMO

Sometimes you have to give up convenience for a superior product. I will gladly deal with the trouble of activation just to run XP.


You have simply just had good luck. I would assume you have never been hit by any viruses in XP either (can't get any if you don't run it...) And, how do you know if you don't have any viruses if you don't run any virus scan software?


I think you will find more companies are moving to XP because of AD integration and Windows authentication (2k has that all too, but a lot of companies have skipped 2k completely) Windows 98 just doesn't have the necessary tools for the work world. You might be able to get away with it at home, but your opinions on 98 as opposed to XP are a little based on hatred. I used to have this friend who had a 79 Nova. He replaced 4 engines in it, it was beat up and just all around was a piece of junk. But he wasn't going to give it up, because he knew that car. He knew how it drove, he knew how to fix it... He was too afraid to get a different car in fear that he would really look like he knew nothing. I believe that's where you 98 trolls reside. I hope at least some of you will rethink your opinions on XP and "come to the dark side.."

prathapml:

here's my office 2k3 scoop:

I installed Publisher 2003 oem version on a really old p3-500 win98se, which btw already contained either Office 97 or 2K. No install hacks, no tricks. I was also able to update it at MS Office update.

That machine i do not have anymore. I just tried office2003 on the current 98(amd) that has no other office installed & sure enough, what you say applies: no cigar.

The other office installs i have are on other OS & machines.

Maybe other of the standalone apps will install(wish i had those separate to try)-- guess i ASSumed wrong for the whole Office suite......................

Why even run XP(over 4 years old now!)...maybe u should try linux...the most updated OS on planet earth.

I have 4 machines between home and work. 2x98, 1xHome, 1xPro. I use the OS that came with or I originally installed on the machine. I don't feel like shelling out $150 for another OS when the one that is already on the machine works just fine doing what it does. One of the 98's is going to be nothing more than a chat machine for a niece, the other I am going to switch to Linux.... well, for the fun of it. I run a minor cad program at work and I am now retiring one of the machines because it gets overwhelmed sometimes. Don't know if it is the OS or machine (my bet is on the machine) but either way it is getting too slow.

If Microsoft isn't supporting Win98, then what is it's status? Is it still licensed? What can you and can you not do with it now that it isn't 'supported'?

DL

maybe you should try unplugging your keyboard and getting a life...

It holds the same license it had when you purchased it. You have no more rights to the software than the day it came out. "Unsupported" just simply means that the OS is no longer supported Microsoft's update and support teams. It's just like the warranty on your new car or truck running out. You can still drive it, you can still work on it and use it, but Ford isn't going to just fix it for you for free.

Figured as much. Thanks un4given1

> Remote Desktop? No wrong i took the remote desktop setup off xp sp2 and it works on win98 just extract it with winrar. heres a picdesktop remote.

If you say xp is too bloated one word: NLITE!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly... MS has a bunch of downloads w/ guides for remote-connecting / accessing 2k/xp server domains, tunneling vpn's, etc. in 98 & ME.... ok, so one may not have every single last feature & security benefit, but it suffices fairly adequately. At the point it becomes a shortcoming for one's work, one's salary / company budget can well afford pretty much any os, software, hardware needed several times over-- thus rendering this topic moot: at that point XP or other MS OS would be too limiting, so custom apps costing thousands are at one's disposal(as well pricey tech support-- wouldn't spend time on this forum for example), one's pc may have 2-4 gb ram, multiple SCSI disks, possibly in RAID array.... brings up a similar analogy:

-- why don't we all get scsi drives then? Because heavy-duty / specialized work may justify spending a multiple of several times for the privilege of single or low-double digit % performance increase....

Value is in the eye of each individual user, but there's no big tech / performance leap from a tweaked 98 like we have-- to winxp, as with dos/win3 to win98-- or as there will be between 2k/xp to a stable and established Longhorn(widespread apps for the architecture).
A casual user is different-- they need more compatibility & have less time to spend tweaking & diddling-- so let them get XP, though it itself still needs a lot of adjusting & fixing(BlackViper, autopatcher, ntlite, xplite anyone?).

Peace.....

Yes... the client piece is available on any of the Windows OSes. You can download it right off of the MS website. The server piece however is not. You can not use Remote Desktop to connect to a Windows 98 PC.

I will bet you that 90% of you die hard Windows 98 users aren't concerned about the money. I'll bet it's just all out hatred for something you don't know.

As Johnny Carson would say,"Wrong, Microsoft- breath!"
I already told you i use all OS-- some more than others-- I can tweak XP until the cows come home if you wish: tweak pagefile sizes & partition location, enable udma, tweak dns cache & page rendering, turn off file indexing, have no fast-user switching on, no remote help, disable/turn down visual effects / themes service, no auto update... on & on ad nauseum.......
& i'm in no hurry to upgrade the win9x-- of course, that will change / is gradually changing as more and more program versions can only run on nt platform.... give it time.........yet.....

i have some neural / database programs that run multiple times faster on fat32 win98 than on ntfs platform & the 64-bit platform too(of course, they're not compiled for either)... Plus, when i occasionaly use office or photoshop, XP hasn't done it appreciably faster: its not like i'm clinging to Dos instead of Windows..... and btw the first versions of Windows didn't do anything any better-- perhaps worse actually-- than Dos, if you'll remember........

I don't know what else to tell you:
I don't use the computer as a game console, nor as a tv / jukebox.... and i don't do big, collaborative work projects at a mega-corporation....

I do use the computer for totally free telephone service with a real telephone number(not one of those 15 digit web ones either)-- actually have several numbers in different countries-- all free: ditched my telco...... so don't be afraid of VOIP-- ditch your phone co.!

I didn't climb on any soapbox to preach, only answered a request for opinions...

Don't get me wrong. I respect each of you for your own reasons... But when you have false opinions about something and you base your sole opinion on that then I have a problem. I understand not wanting to spend money, or just not having a system that can run XP. I respect anyone who is just "afraid" to upgrade because it's different. When Windows 95 came out I was in that boat. I refused to upgrade... Kept comming up with excuses about how much it sucked. I finally gave in and it wasn't so bad. I was even worse with Windows 98, believe it or not. Windows ME came and I jumped at it... what a mistake. Windows XP came and I couldn't wait to install it. I haven't poked around with Longhorn because I am not much of a fan of unfinished work, and that's what Longhorn is. I rely on my computer for too much to run a BETA system. I use it to VPN/RDC into work. I use it to do web programming. I use it to make custom spreadsheets and Access databases. I do video editing (hobby) and even photo editing. Since I switched to Windows XP I have been victim of less and less crashes, and more XPerience (pun) I'm not completely against Windows 98... I'm about to install it on my 2 year old's computer because it's just not been taking to XP well (500mhz, 256MB RAM) and she just loves her Blue's Clues!

Oh, and I'm not slamming your opinions... but like any great debate, I am simply supplying rebuttals. What upsets me is when someone answers a question with no real knowledge of both sides and just has no clue.

We're basically saying the same thing. Plus, you have different needs with your multimedia work & other corporate work-- you're good to at least try a 64-bit system separately right now-- to get a head start--

I don't think you were so wrong to hold out on 95, and are dead-on re 98: both got beta-rush-released late in their namesake year, & took another half-year or more to issue their stable(sic) release... not as bad with 95-- windows 97 & 2000 would've been more fitting names. Shouldda jumped on 2K, ehh? At least you have the ME disk-- you can now apply MDGx's 98toME routine...

Windows 95--- for years i had a cheapass friend(he makes a lot of money) who stayed with it through XP's release: kept pestering everyone incessantly to help him with it & it's limited functionality-- "maybe if i add another 16mb ram: but it's so expensive!"... what a hump.....

I just haven't had stability problems with 98-- on myriad systems..... In fact, i set up a dual-boot system for someone's new computer last year: dual-lan gigabyte / w/ a promise raid setup: 98 & 2k. For all the concern re drivers for 98-- everything went flawlessly, but 2k barfed: pro, server, 2003, etc. would only start w/ the dual lan disabled. So, XP came to the rescue!!

You likely disagree, but I don't know that XP's proven it's a finished work-- & with Longhorn coming, it likely will never be.... Multi-boot & multiple hard disks is what i say--- for crucial work like yours i would want that safety net / immediate access / continue working....

Heck, let's just get a Sparc running Solaris....

you mean linux

ok, linux too-- try solaris: free download from Sun...........

hail 98se party on dudes...

I have to add my 2 cents worth in on this conversation. My first two official words

ACTIVE DIRECTORY

98 wishes it could have just a little bit of the capability that 2K and XP have with Active Directory. I work in a domain with all windows OS from 95 to XP. No it's not a typo I ment to type 95. 95 nor 98 even exist as far as active directory is concerned.

98 is a marginal OS that will suffice if all you do is surf the web and send email. If you are doing anything that needs to be secure then you would have to be a fool to even think about doing it on a 98 machine. 98 has absolutely no local security. I do think that 98 is a far better OS than ME just because of the stability issue. But when you try to compare 98 to XP then that is the same as comparing a Ford Pinto to a Ferrari. XP is in a whole other class.

hail 98se tweakorama gotta make this os sing..

Realy get you point and in certain ways i agrea where new OS es ofter have bugs,
BUT I myself can't emegine running windows (overlay shell type versions 95/98/ME)
wich alll stil are running on top of a dos bassed Filesystem insteadl of Full system kernel OS-version like windows NT.... (3.5 / 4.0 / 5.0 / XP )...

For example the Top benefit of the NT-os is that you have better support for multitasked operations...
I myself am running Windows 2000 (windows NT 5.0), (with a lot of mods and tweaks, (thanx to MSFN ) and i realy am lots hapier than with XP of 98)...

the only computers in the house that still have 98 are the laptops (p133 and p200 or something) which would work like a 1 legged dog

Hi, -I-:

I agree with you on NT re multitasking-- up to a point. I work with several database programs, live feeds, other browser sessions open: i've tried this on different computers & OS.... 2k/XP still complain. You like a tweaked 2k over XP, i totally agree with that.

And you know, i'm not doing constant remote/collaborative projects using exotic databases over far-flung networks.

I think one or two years from now we'll all be on the same page: with the next version of pci express, addressable memory in many gigabytes, subsequent upgrades of 64bit processor.....now you're talking--even if Longhorn were to still have significant issues, the performance difference would still be too great to avoid.

All the best to you.

win98 sings as cool as it crashes - take a look at this topic and decide for yourself!
Its too easy to crash win98

Cool... give us one for xp please! (no excuses, has to be possible)

I used Windows 98 at home on a Intel Celeron 333 until I got my own PC with TV-card.
Windows 98 SE ran fine showing tv-shows and recording them to HD, unless I didn't do anything next to it.
Multi-tasking in Windows 98 wasn't quite good, so i got framelosses etc. I got even more framelosses because uncompresssed AVI-files must be split up to avoid the 4 GB file limit on Fat32.
That's why I switched over to Windows XP SP1. I must confess Windows XP SP1 with default all services on feels slower than Windows 98 and consumes loads of memory. There were also lot's of security issues every week or so until SP2 came out. Now it's my favorite OS.
Since nLite is available I run a very minimalistic XP SP2 installation and all programs run even better!

you've called it exactly like it is, hp38guser...

i like 98se so much i built a site to help people get info on updates etc click below 4 link.

7years and still working why knock it lets face it how many of you have install 98se on a friend or familys pc to get them up and running?and Xp been out 4 years and what did we get a service pack 2 yahoo gape gave us a sp 2 as well so hes buying us more time which is cool cause theres more freiend needing a quick install.

Not even once in the last two-and-a-half years.


And SP2 for windows XP did not cause ANY problem at all. Been on the beta testers, for a year and so was quite ready for it. Got it before it was released to public, and treated it as a TOTALLY new OS - so did not upgrade and instead did a full clean roll-out to all machines. All working fine and better than before.

I just upgraded my old Win98SE computer to WinXP, and now it runs better then ever. (mostly because of the built-in WLAN)

But, I must say, I like Win98SE better. I'e worked with it longer and got attached to it. And one thing that I hate, the activation. Dude, ffs. If you're gonna fight piracy, do it right. I have a legal copy and my old comp is still not upgraded. Well, it is, I just can't access it. I activated Windows in the start, as usual. I install all drivers and some programs (took over 2 hours). Next day I reboot. *BAM* "Your copy of Windows XP is not activated. Do you want to activate?". Clicking "No" results in a reboot. So I click "Yes". Now comes the goody stuff. I get another window, the registration windows to be precise, saying "Windows XP is already activated". What on earth? One button, "OK", and when you click it, your machine reboots. Again, it's a friggin legal copy.

At least with Win98 you were sure to get something for your money. Next week I'm gonna reinstall and I'm afraid. That can't be right.

Another thing, Service Pack 2. I don't really have stuff against it (I integrate it in my uA CD every time) but the 'upgrader' is so badly designed. First time I upgraded from a WinXP SP1 edition, it gave me errors when I was sorting my desktop or Start Menu. (lol ) Then I deinstalled it with the supplied uninstaller duh). I couldn't boot anymore! It gaves me critical errors on my winlogon.exe. I had to install a fresh copy and opy over the system32 folder to save my data. I worked on the system for a while (with lotsa errors) and formatted one month later. Installed SP2 on it and it works. But again, I was afraid of executing that SP2 installer again.

It's also pretty funny that - I think all- new functions were disabled. It goes popping up balloons all the time, disable. It launches a _second_ firewall, disable. It lowers the concurrent TCP-IP connections, disable. It upgrades MSIE6, err, stick with firefox. Is there anything left?

I think i know the reason of those activation "done but not done" hangups - is it an original, unhacked, licensed disk is all I'm gonna say.
Winlogon.exe problems? Again its cause makes itself obvious.... We all know what its modified for.


Stay legit, and you'll see zero issues. And I shouldn't say this, but if a warez copy HAS to be used for some reason, ensuring that it was not a half-baked method used by the source, helps. You find too many kiddies who don't know what they are doing, but claim to have hacked XP - do not peruse their services, the above will result.

Discussion of cracks/activation-workarounds is inappropriate, so keep within rules though.

Nanaki,
If you backed up your data onto some type of media and you obviously have the full install of XP because you said



Why didn't you just do a fresh install from the begining? A clean install from the start would have spared you a lot of heartache. A clean install of a single OS is always better than an upgrade.

May as well install it as double-boot--

new advanced for 98se from the project crew of mdgx gapes tiny etc are making 98se life expectency better it aint dead yet even thou i like xp alot im just fasinated by the ability to update enhance tweak a 9x better faster than ms ever did .long live se

hey i like 98se i like xp as well just wondering why people who switch to xp bash 98se .sure its not up to par but it works and the reason i heard from 98 users is the cost so they stay and nobody but power users want to lose their data from years of surfing migrating 2 xp .i guess a dualboot part of the answer but if i was running longhorn i still would say 98se aint all that bad

i need more coffee brb