It has been 7 years since Win98 was released

[stuffie699]

Unforgiven1, I think you misunderstood me when I said that win98 seemed to boost the computer world, I dont think that at all. I really believe that the boom came when they developed high speed and cable servers that did that.

When I first learned to use a computer, (it was for a Law Clerk) degree, I need to know how to use the computer due to bulk mailing that u need to do, my hobby became my computer on trying to get it to do more of the work for me. At that time, no one in the field had been interested in developing a program in order to take a legal brief to the courthouse that fit with the Legal Standards.

Although this is not the case today, these programs are not developed until much after any OS comes out. To date, that programs still runs on most Win95 and Win98 machines. However there is not an update for the XP program. So again, it all depends on what u need out of a computer.

When u choose to make that upgrade, will the software for your office cost you $8,000.00 or not be able at all. Many people take most of there interests in the field that they know, and what they need to do. But in all cases(with much exception to government), most companies will look at the gross profit on any tool. That is reality.

A computer is a tool, which most people choose a certain field, u may be very good at your job and however u dont know how to put into the computer if you dont make the time.

Most homes can not do with out a computer today, but the average child does know how to use a computer better than most adults, however when the computer crashes or get a viruses, it is like asking that child to go a clean their room., lol. That is not what we have a computer for.

[azagahl]

"Anyone have any valid reasons why someone should choose 98 over XP? Give me proof or sources... Every one of you wants to fight about how 98 is better... I don't think one of you has just said, "I'm not too keene about learning something new and Windows XP intimidates me...""

Actually I DID say something like that, plus I gave a whole PILE of other valid reasons. Maybe you should go back and reread the older posts, dude. The only thing I am seeing in your vapid posts is "Power users have to use XP, XP is easier and better and faster and stabler and funner, hands down! blah blah".

FYI since you obviously work for Microsoft OS marketing department, please convince them to NOT to use Big Brother activation schemes and sell $300 coasters with expiry dates. Then maybe I'll sign up.

Most homes can not do with out a computer today

Bollocks, I know plenty of people in US who cannot even locate the power switch on a PC. And in some places you are more worried about getting a bowl of rice, not the latest XP security patch. For most people, a PC is just an expensive toy to download porn with.

[mtvento]

I used all windows products from starting with an olivetti m24 and dos 3.3 and for sure i got something more from every release of e new product, so now my chose is XP, and waiting for LH. used beos and linux too. It's simply a matter of viewpoint, if you share the same viewpoint then you understand each other position. From the viewpoint of somebody in need of loosening a screw, a knife could be fine, a screwdriver perfect, if you have to unlock hudrets of them, you will certainly look for an electric tool, Seems you are trying to compare dimentions wich are not so easily comparable without to account the use you have for them. millimeters and kilometer are comparable but wich one are you going to use to measure a street.

You alll know that you can tweak XP to look/feel/behave very similar to 98, to be faster and so on, but there are really persons not needing the change at all and learning to tweak is too much, they have other interest/hobbies, and probabli they are never getting a crash from 98 because they are not putting it to its limits, I got a crash from 98 10 times a day, 8 with 98se, 3 with winME and with XP next to 1 every few weeks (my computer runs 24h/day). so simply lets see how many "screws" you have to work on before telling everybody an electric tool is better....

MTVento

Excuse me for my "whaky" english, just to throw my 2 pennies

[un4given1]

FYI since you obviously work for Microsoft OS marketing department, please convince them to NOT to use Big Brother activation schemes and sell $300 coasters with expiry dates. Then maybe I'll sign up.

So far from the truth. I am the Director of IT for a debt settlement company. I have worked for large corporations including Liberty Mutual Insurance which has hundreds of offices across the US, JD Byrider, which is a used car franchise which has almost 200 offices across the US. I worked for Compaq, assembling high end servers. Now I work for a company that is fast growing (looking at moving to a new corporate headquarters that will hold nearly 200 people) I just know that Windows XP makes my life easier. About activation... Don't be cheap. Buy a valid copy... it's as simple as that.

[Fredledingue]

horsecharles

Unfortunately, win 9x, nt, 2k(but not 2k3) will be as obsolete as Dos when Longhorn becomes mainstream.... though maybe that will get delayed a few years, depending on stability / missed deadlines...

Why would Longhorn make other OS obsolete? It's just the next version of XP after all...

_______________________________________________

un4given1

I hate the "What do you want to do (with this CD)?

Bill Gates' idea was to create a system that was user friendly from the moment you plug it in. You can turn this off, you know that right?

No I can't turn it off, when I'm using someone else computer. This function is completely useless. Poeple lived very well until XP and always knew what to do when they inserted a CD.

But it's just an example, XP is full of things like that that takes on your nerves.

I don't like the way "my document" folder is dug in under 27 layers of subfolders.

...

27 layers? c:\documents and settings\username\my documents 1... 2... 3... You can even shorten it by using %USERPROFILE%\My Documents Besides... why not just click the link on your desktop, or in the start menu? Or, just redirect your My Documents.

Oh, yeah, how easy!

You know, you don't have to keep it there. Right click on My Documents and you can change it's path.

I didn't know that.

I don't like losing 2Gb just for the XP logo...

There is so much more functionality built into Windows XP. I'm sure you will start by saying "Anything that's in Windows XP can be installed on Windows 98..." Yeah? Really? Remote Desktop (the server piece) .

Sure, there are function in XP that doesn't exist in W98, and that I don't need. That's the point: XP is an OS that I don't need. I don't say nobody needs it.

But most of single home or small business users don't need it.

I'm not even going to take the time to list all of the features that you just can't have in Windows 98

And what are these hiden XP magic? There is none.

XP is a real open door for hackers, viruses and spywares as far as I have read. It's only recently that M$ released some fix about that...

Show me proof of this? I think you have it all wrong.

It's wellknown. It's all over the press. There never has been so many issues with XP as with W98. Because XP is server-friendly, it's also hacker-friendly.

That's in XP why there is an inbedded firewall (that you need to switch off any time you install a software or do something special) and that's why I never installed a firewall on my W98.

On another computer (that had drivers adapted to XP) we had realy huge problem to install the good drivers because XP always installed its own drivers by default...

In most cases, Windows XP has drivers that are newer than the drivers you may have on your CDs.

How that can be? On the contrary, XP has drivers that are older..

XP was released in 2002 if I remember, so all the XP drivers are obsolete for any hardware produced after XP relaese date.

(unless they include them in the Service packs, which I doubt)

Especialy when XP is usualy installed on new machine that has never seen W98.

These default drivers is the most moronic things M$ has ever done.

Every hardware manufacturer provide an installation CD with Adobe Acrobat Reader included. And if you lose the CD you can download the updated drivers from the manufacturer website.

You can always use whatever you want, you just install them over top of what's there already.

Yes, but I remember that it was a real pain in the a**, when we had to do it. We had to clic "no" when any n00b would clic "yes" out of fear. I'd bet millions of poeple have the basic XP driver installed instead of the ultra-cool hyper-tweaky drivers from the manufacturer althought they followed the instruction for a normal install.

After all the freewares I installed on W98, I have all the tweaks and functionalities that I can dream of and most of them not available in XP.

Do you realize how ignorant that sounds? You installed 3rd party software (which is freeware, as you said) and you say you have more functionality than XP? Well, yeah... But install those same "freeware" programs on Windows XP and what do you get?

When I first tested XP, I hoped for some incredible apps, fully adapted to the system, but I found something almost like W98.

except wery minor changed, Notepad is the same, IE the same, the right-click menu is the same, the desktop is the same, the taskbar is the same, etc only icons and windows skins are differents.

So If need to install the same 3d party software as on W98, why do I need XP for?

Tell me what tweaks and functionalities you have in Windows 98 that I can't have in Windows XP. Bet you can't name one.

Of course I can't, XP looks so much like W98 once you selected "W98 style" appearance... B)

XP require minimum 128 Mb, thought 256 Mb is recommanded.

Windows XP or Windows 98... I have a gig of RAM in my PC. Who cares about minimum requirements...

Those who don't have 1Gb, or those who have an old colmputer: They can't install XP.

But I wanted to say that the higer the min requirement, the weaker is the software.

It's more stable but saying "XP never crashes" is wrong.

Noone ever said that. ...

Hoo, yes they said that. XP was supposed to be the solution against W98 crashes...

[Fredledingue]

I absolutely WILL NOT subject myself to communist activation schemes either. I'd rather go to DOS 6.22 than do that.

LOL Well said!

[Fredledingue]

Someone is lying here.I had no clue what this man was trying to say because it makes no sense, that's why I didn't touch upon it. It sounds to me like he held down a key and Windows 98 typed faster... If that's the case, change your typerate. When I said Windows XP will get you there faster I meant more than just the shear speed of the PC. I meant the built in features,...

You think I'm a moron? I did these 2 tests on the same machine, both with completely reformated harddrive and fresh default install +Ms Office97.

I opened a large doc file in Word and asked to change, for example white spaces, by "xxx".(That it's the kind of task, you excpect to do often and would want to do fast.)

I did the test first on XPn then on W98SE, and also on the old computer also on W98SE.

The I counted the time before the "100000 items replaced" poped pup.

The new computer was 10x faster than the old one on W98 and only 7x faster on XP: difference 30%.

You know with all the useless built in features, it's normal XP is slower...

[Fredledingue]

smokeyjoint 

msfn dude

losing out on xp features u say i wonder how manu average users not powerusers take advantage of xp feature 

I don't see what's more easy in XP... The average dude will switch on the PC and find a desktop with a few icons and a start button just like on W98. What's so easier about that?

[horsecharles]

Fredledingue: Why would Longhorn make other OS obsolete? It's just the next version of XP after all...

I think 32bit to 64bit will just make too huge a difference-- esp w/ the subsquent versions of pci xpress & even grid processors / grid ram that don't need a bus. Imagine what Longhorn & a 64bit processor(or two or three) addressing a few dozen gb ram will be able to do.... i think this jump will be tons bigger than 16bit to 32bit. This may not be too apparent at first if Longhorn comes out with any significant flaws AND until apps get re-tooled for this.

I think we're on the cusp of a major 'revolution" between that & 1gb broadband-- i remember the stone age days of dos and 9bps baud modems, & what we do today will soon seem like that.

as an aside: most next-gen stuff like: the announced processor 10 times faster than athlon64, fits in a cellphone, 4/8 gb flash memory, grid technology, 1 terabyte cd's, etc. are all outside the ms/intel/amd camps... in particular ms & intel are on their way to irrelevancy. Look for Google to eventually supplant & dominate... Apple has a chance to hitch along if it's smart about forming relevant alliances....

[un4given1]

Someone is lying here.I had no clue what this man was trying to say because it makes no sense, that's why I didn't touch upon it. It sounds to me like he held down a key and Windows 98 typed faster... If that's the case, change your typerate. When I said Windows XP will get you there faster I meant more than just the shear speed of the PC. I meant the built in features,...

You think I'm a moron? I did these 2 tests on the same machine, both with completely reformated harddrive and fresh default install +Ms Office97.

I opened a large doc file in Word and asked to change, for example white spaces, by "xxx".(That it's the kind of task, you excpect to do often and would want to do fast.)

I did the test first on XPn then on W98SE, and also on the old computer also on W98SE.

The I counted the time before the "100000 items replaced" poped pup.

The new computer was 10x faster than the old one on W98 and only 7x faster on XP: difference 30%.

You know with all the useless built in features, it's normal XP is slower...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow... you based your whole opinion of Windows XP on how quickly Office replaced 100000 words? Windows XP starts up faster than Windows 98... why didn't you base your opinion of it on that? Windows XP removes memory allocation from any minimized or background windows, making it available for open windows where as Windows 98 keeps memory allocated for any minimized or background windows. Why didn't you base your opinion on that? Windows XP doesn't require a reboot once a day... as a matter of fact, I don't beleive I have restarted my PC in nearly a month... try doing that with Windows 98.

To all you Windows 98 users:

If you system won't run XP and you run 98, then I understand that. That's a good reason. but if your argument is that Windows 98 is better... you really need to get a clue. If Windows 98 was better then you would have to believe that Microsoft would never have stopped working on it, huh? Time to move on to bigger and better things.

Oh, yeah... Windows 3.11 only took up like 30 MB... Windows 95/98 takes up 10x that... think you need to rethink downgrading to 3.11. Wait... DOS 6.22 could be installed from 2 floppies! There you go! Be realistic. Are you not going to install a game that's 7 CDs because old games used to be on a couple floppies? Dont' be ignorant.

[un4given1]

XP is a real open door for hackers, viruses and spywares as far as I have read. It's only recently that M$ released some fix about that...

Show me proof of this? I think you have it all wrong.

It's wellknown. It's all over the press. There never has been so many issues with XP as with W98. Because XP is server-friendly, it's also hacker-friendly.

That's in XP why there is an inbedded firewall (that you need to switch off any time you install a software or do something special) and that's why I never installed a firewall on my W98.

If you are running without a firewall (i recommend hardware over software) then you are plain stupid. Also, lets just think here for a moment. Windows XP and the cost of XP has caused a boom in the number of PCs on the market. It's just common sense to assume that with more PCs comes more problems. You have yourself wrapped up in the hatred for something you dont know so much that you are disillusioning yourself.

It's more stable but saying "XP never crashes" is wrong.

Noone ever said that. ...

Hoo, yes they said that. XP was supposed to be the solution against W98 crashes...

Windows XP crashes next to never. (once a week? maybe once a month..) Windows 98 crashes atleast once a day.

When I first tested XP, I hoped for some incredible apps, fully adapted to the system, but I found something almost like W98.

except wery minor changed, Notepad is the same, IE the same, the right-click menu is the same, the desktop is the same, the taskbar is the same, etc only icons and windows skins are differents.

So If need to install the same 3d party software as on W98, why do I need XP for?

I wasn't sayign you HAD to have XP in this situation. I was arguing with someone who said that Windows 98 was better because of all of that. I was simply saying that if you installed all of the same on Windows XP you would have a better OS and they would all still give you the functionality you were looking for. For them to say Windows 98 was better because they could install those was ignorant.

[matrix0978]

Im going to ahve to agree with un4given1. Hes right on all his facts. XP is a more stable OS.

Fredledingue..... How in the hell could you base on with OS is faster by holding down a button to reach 100,000 characters... Thats sad.

XP is more stable at holding programs... and keeping alot a programs running at the same time. I dont think my XP has crashed in forever.

For the hackers,viruses,spy-ware, that has nothing to do with it. I highly doupt that you have had 0 viruses without a anti-virus on 98. Then i will give you one. For for XP install SP2. Gives you the built in firewall. For Anti-Virus Symantec. Spy-ware get Giant Anti-Spyware.

When i play games on 98.. i will have the same Graphix card... and it takes forever to get from the game screen>>quit>> and get back to the desktop quickly. XP does it almost instantly.

[Fredledingue]

Wow... you based your whole opinion of Windows XP on how quickly Office replaced 100000 words?

Yes. Did you make other test?

Windows XP starts up faster than Windows 98...

BS: All the XP I know take about the same time as W98.

Windows XP removes memory allocation from any minimized or background windows, making it available for open windows where as Windows 98 keeps memory allocated for any minimized or background windows. Why didn't you base your opinion on that?

Because I think it's better to keep the memory allocations for all running apps.

In case, you re-activate the window...

I think it's even a bad idea for apps that have to work in the background while theyr window is minimized.

Anyway, I never had a problem because I had too many apps or windows at the same time.

Windows XP doesn't require a reboot once a day... as a matter of fact, I don't beleive I have restarted my PC in nearly a month... try doing that with Windows 98.

That's true. If not I don't see what advantage XP would have at all. But if W98 had this problem fixed, it would be as good as XP for single users.

you really need to get a clue. If Windows 98 was better then you would have to believe that Microsoft would never have stopped working on it, huh?

You like XP so much because it fits perfectly for your job. But i never had the need for those advantages that you said, and most single-PC environement don't.

M$ dropped W98 serie because it was cheaper to offer one OS for all. I don't think it was a good strategy.

Oh, yeah... Windows 3.11 only took up like 30 MB... Windows 95/98 takes up 10x that... think you need to rethink downgrading to 3.11. Wait... DOS 6.22 could be installed from 2 floppies! There you go! Be realistic. Are you not going to install a game that's 7 CDs because old games used to be on a couple floppies? Dont' be ignorant. 

What if the 7CD game sucks and the 2 floppy one rocks? Linux is even smaller than W98 and is by far the most reliable OS ever, according to theyr users.

If you are running without a firewall (i recommend hardware over software) then you are plain stupid.

Why? I'm very well without a firewall. It's useful only if your computer is on line unatended or 24/7 or eventualy connected to a very fast connection. It's not my case.

Windows XP and the cost of XP has caused a boom in the number of PCs on the market.

You WinXP OS is the cause for the PC boom? You must be kidding. The real boom started with W9x. It was the concept of working with a mouse opening windows then opening little files that made computering accessible for everyone. Not XP.

It's just common sense to assume that with more PCs comes more problems.

M$ was working years on XP, it has thousands of programers, billions of $.

How they came up with this XP non sens, I don't know. We are in 2005 and they are still struggling with issues known from the beginning while a few benevolent geeks are making update for W98 at a faster pace and I'm even not talking about the Linux phenomenon.

I was simply saying that if you installed all of the same on Windows XP you would have a better OS

I disagree.

W98 crashes but not as often as once a day.

It's not because W98 crashes from time to time that it's so much worse.

And W98 crashes because of the softwares you used when it does are bad. But it's possible to select only softwares that doesn't crash or leak and you never need to restart your computer.

Of course XP preventing somehow bad software from crashing the system is an advantage. But developers should make good softwares in the first place.

[Fredledingue]

Graphix06523

Fredledingue..... How in the hell could you base on with OS is faster by holding down a button to reach 100,000 characters... Thats sad.

What are you talking about? read the above posts about the test, then reply something serious, ok?

XP is more stable at holding programs... I dont think my XP has crashed in forever.

Stability is the only serious advantage of XP.

and keeping alot a programs running at the same time.

Technicaly, it's true. In practice W98 is doing it very well too.

For the hackers,viruses,spy-ware, that has nothing to do with it. I highly doupt that you have had 0 viruses without a anti-virus on 98.

The only virus I ever had came from a floppy, a few years ago.

I often run AntiV with the last update and he never find anything.

Spybot and Adaware found a couple of classic spyware, nothing too dangerous.

When i play games on 98.. i will have the same Graphix card... and it takes forever to get from the game screen>>quit>> and get back to the desktop quickly. XP does it almost instantly.

I have no experience with game. So it's good if XP is game friendly.

Maybe a small +.

[un4given1]

@Fredledingue: You want to assume that I use Windows XP because of my job. This is not true. When I was using Windows 98 the problems I had was, crashing during Adobe Premiere which I was creating videos, which is one of my hobbies. This happened often in Windows 98, almost went away completely in Windows XP. Crashing during use of Fireworks or Dreamweaver, which I used to create my own web pages for my video editing projects. Crashed more often right in the middle of a great deal of games. It's frustrating to deal with a crash already... but it's more frustrating to deal with a crash when you lose data because of it (I was comming a pro at saving after EVERY change... but when you made a change and it crashed during the render or something else, that was enough to make you give up) I understand why some people may still run Windows XP. That's all well and good. But, if you drive a Geo because you just can't afford to drive the Ferrari, don't try to say the Geo is better. Sure, you could pump up the HP by adding on a "fart pipe" and dumping some money into some customization, but it will never be the Ferrari. Nuff said!