Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
un4given1

It has been 7 years since Win98 was released

448 posts in this topic

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. :yes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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)...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:w00t: 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.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how many of you have install 98se on a friend or familys pc to get them up and running?
Not even once in the last two-and-a-half years. :w00t:

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. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :D ) 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? :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :whistle:

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. :P

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.