im curious how many peeps have install 98se for friends compared to xp installs .i myself constantly am installing 98se 3 friends usually because their 2 cheap 2 buy xp or they run a lowend p2 or something .i read alot of forum about how many people still use 98se in fact one of the reason microshaft entended end life was partly do to third world countries just starting out with computers etc. now im not staying install 98 not xp i like them both i think if u got the system and the xp cd do install. im just wanta know in the last year how many times did u install 98se for a friend etc and how many xp installion you did i wanta see the percentage be honest and install for yourself because of blotched nlite iso dont count lol thank u and remember im not praising either os im just curious..chow

I will not install 98, period. I won’t even work on a 9X machine.

If someone is to cheap to buy XP or can't afford a PC that will run XP, I, like Microsoft, will no longer support them.

If they can't afford to upgrade then they **** sure can't afford to pay me to work on their machine. IMO, if you do it for free you’re just a gluten for punishment.

If you mess with 9X on your own box for your own enjoyment, that’s a different story.

For just a couple bucks more you can buy XP. Heck, for $450 you can pick up a new PC with Windows XP already installed.

I convince my friends of the extra benefits of Windows XP and they purchase it. I don't even do work for friends anymore, I charge them as I would anyone else. I tell them, "I will come over and help you paint your house for free... but this is what I do for a living and I get paid every time I do it."

In Russia, no legal software exist. So almost all my friends run XP to be with progress.

I always use Win2k/XP. Far more stable and not expensive. OEM versions especially

Actually, a huge market research done (for a company I know) in Q2 2004 revealed, that Win 98 were by far the most common business OS at the time. That's just one year ago. Go figure...

In last year I have been installing this beautiful OS (98SE, of course) to about 40% of my installations on friends' computers, because many of my friends haven't realized that Windows XP is just a Poke`moN OS

I dont install 98 on any of my friends comps that I install, simply because the design of win 98 is so unfriendly on new users, if the user insists that they want win 98, they will have to install it themself, as it is such a hassle to install, with all the drivers etc. and then them complaining that 1/2 their new hardware dosent work because they dont know how to install a driver...

me? i use both 98 and XP, XP for real school work and 98 for games =) i find 98 more stable for games, but XP a tad better for work, somehow i find it more intergrated, but if you ask me to work on a 98, i will have no problem =)

Win98SE with all the added tweaks and updates if done properly is the cleanest, fastest and most stable WIN OS to date.
This forum is an invaluable resource for getting it to that point and i commend all that have contributed.
This is just my opinion of course, and your mileage may vary.
Every OS has it's advantages and disadvantages and users also have personal preferences as well.

patio.

What a joke.

Not if you want to use the latest hardware and software. Nowadays many professional apps refuse to install on 95/98/Me and for good reason. No SMP support, SATA RAID, 512 MB RAM limit, etc. The Win 95 kernel is unstable and inefficient compared to NT.

Try doing some serious desktop publishing on 98 and you'll quickly notice the poor color management systems and lack of out-of-the-box support for OpenType fonts.

Microsoft scrapped the 95 kernel for good reason. If it really were "cleanest, fastest, and most stable..." Microsoft would still be marketing and selling it today. But no, everything new MS produces is built on the NT kernel which truly is the most stable, fastest, and cleanest. I could quantify this statement, but in this forum, I doubt I need to.

And to the original thread starter: I have done ZERO 98 installs for friends/family. For a low end machine I always install Windows 2000 Professional simply because I don't want to hear about constant blue screens. Oh, and please grow up. The company's name is "Microsoft" not "Microshaft" or M$. Thanks.

I would say 5% of the time I install Windows 98. Maybe even less. Although it does not run well I have installed windows XP on machines as low as 333 MHz. The only reason I do install XP on those machines is because it takes me less time with my un-attended XP install I put my cd in, walk away and when I come back its done. Pop the next cd in and all the apps are there. It takes longer to installed windows 98 now just due to the fact I have to sit there and install it and s***.

I really have to be the odd ball on this topic because i've installed 98SE for a couple of friends and family members who have hand me down p2 computers that can't afford any computer by any means. For there basic needs such as surfing the internet and printing on the occassion this computer and OS combination is more than sufficient. I do however recommend them to upgrade the memory to at least 128MB. I think it boils down to what you intend to use the computer and OS for. If your only interested in surfing the net and printing on occassion why go and buy a top of the line computer it's not that smart especially if your barely making it paycheck to paycheck. I personally use Windows XP Pro because I can afford it and I have alot more computing demands.

well put my friend i agree ...

Actually I have used a SATA hard drive on win98se without any problems, and the 512MB RAM problem is just a simple one-liner fix to the system.ini file.

That's probably because you're spoiled rich and all you care about are super expensive Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 FX systems.

That's about the dumbest thing I ever heard. I'm far from spoiled rich and I find that XP will run on a 800Mhz machine with 256 megs of ram just fine. If someone can't meet those requirements then that's there problem, not mine. And I'm not going to waste my time with them. For me, it's just not worth it.

[FONT=Times]

I have used XPpro and I'll be honest, IT SUCKED REAL BAD !!
Thank god for this site. If they end support for 98se I can come here to get what I need. I don't need to "afford" XP or a new computer. I have a plll 667 and am getting a 933 in a week, I can't wait. XP is waaay too much. If you wanna play games try "affording" a playstation 2 or something. I just got into computers over the past year and started using a pentium 166, which did everything this one does, only slower (alot slower). I think after 98se is when "big brother" started tapping their foot at microsoft for making too good a program. They dont like it if they cant keep a eye on you or if they cant secretly see what your up to and Xp had UNACCEPTABLE amounts of open ports and other exploitables, thanks.

Like I said, "If you mess with 9X on your own box for your own enjoyment, that’s a different story".
I make a living working on computers and the people who can't afford to buy XP also can't aford to pay me to work on their computer.

To say "XP sucks" is only an opinion. My opinion is that XP is the best desktop OS Microsoft has made to date.

My dream MS OS is thus :

- Bring back the console please, not that kludge wannabe they have for XP. Bring me DOS 8. Call it NTDOS if you want or NTCL, but give me the same functionality as the original DOS plus more. Buy out JPSoft and assimilate 4NT, best option.

- XP, without all the fluff. Relegate Media Player, IE, blah blah blah to optional components you can toggle at install time.

- A defragger with the customizing features of Speed Disk 9x.

I want the cleanliness of 95 but with the core of NT/XP. Do that, and I will ditch linux and 9x like a 4 week old turd. Hell, as the company IT head, I'll force the entire group plus franchises to license it and potentially start a chain reaction... our company has alot of influence here in indonesia, ya see, and I maintain the home networks of a few members of parliament.