Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 



Sign in to follow this  
un4given1

It has been 7 years since Win98 was released

Recommended Posts

Nanaki,

I just upgraded my old Win98SE computer to WinXP
If you backed up your data onto some type of media and you obviously have the full install of XP because you said
I had to install a fresh copy

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:thumbup 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:whistle: 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why I still use Windows 98/98SE over Windows XP
- XP is slower than W98SE. Thought the opinions differ on this, I made a test on both fresh default installs: replace with Word 100,000 characters by another: XP slower 30%...

Also the way all the stuffs displays and open, even after choosing the "fastest" setings, it seems to lag more than on w98.

(One vendor even told me that XP start to be interesting from 2000 GHz, you don't feel it's slower)

Of course poeple say, hey this XP OS is realy fast! It's because it come with a new computer... :)

- I hate the "What do you want to do (with this CD)? : Open in WMP, Connect to the internet, print the photos, take no action (and other realy stupid options)" box for which I always answer by "take no action".

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

- XP or NT may be great for multi-users, especialy with non reliable users. But for my whife and me it's completely useless.

- I don't like losing 2Gb (2.5 Gb for XP vs 0.5 Gb for 98) just for the XP logo. Of course, you will say that with a set of two 120 Gb drives it's not an issue anymore...

I don't think so

- A software as large as 2.5 Gb after install must have a serious conception problem...

- 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...

- I'm realy lucky that my new video card driver was not compatible with XP. If yes I may have stayed with XP like all the n00bs.

- 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 even after we inserted the manufacturer CD. In other words, we had to tell XP not to install bad drivers!

-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.

- XP require minimum 128 Mb, thought 256 Mb is recommanded. That means we lose how much in free memory? W98 min is 32Mb AFAIK.

My system specs

P4 1800Ghz

ASUS V8200 deluxe

512 DDR

120 Mb + 40 Mb hard drives

W98SE , MS office XP, about 100 other softwares installed.

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

My whife has a laptop with XP and I'v been many times on various XP machines.

I don't see any tremendous advantages over W98.

-It's more stable but saying "XP never crashes" is wrong. I'v witnessed a BSOD on a fresh install right back from the computer shop... :thumbup

After all W98 is not as unstable as some poeple used to say.

It's of course very easy to make a so-called stable OS when the minimum spec. must include 256 Mb of memory.

I can return the question: Have you tested W98 on a modern computer (eg 2.4GHz, 512 DDR etc)? If not you should.

-Defrag is faster. I don't think it's that important.

I have even read that with today fast HD, you can live without ever defragmenting.

-Cool skin. Well esthetic is important. But all XP I'v seen look the same.

-XP is a gigantic media player that plays everything. That's also a rumor but it's true it's a gigantic media player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with what you've said at all: Fredledingue

Basic problem's they wanted to be all things to all systems: made XP compatible right off the bat with "unadvanced systems"-- you can run it, according to specs, on any processor 266mhz, 64 mb ram-- well, those old P1/2/3 systems did not support dma, etc., etc. So right off the bat one has to go in an enable stuff like that, tweak pagefile / internet registry settings, etc.; and a lot of the dialogs & addons are really made for noobs like you say-- take the inferior firewall-- they'd've been better off adding stuff to IE/OE like a popup blocker, spyguard, spamblocker, etc.

But the brutes who designed it, also wanted it to work in a heavy corporate environment for experienced users-- and tons of services like file indexing, fast user switching, restore, etc. weigh it down so much--

I use the nLite & the AutoPatcher to auto-fix/tweak/trim.... remove ½ a GB of stuff...

XP is a perfect example of why open source is so useful-- this OS should give the install option to create multiple partitions & lay itself out in better fashion(for faster performance & less data loss in case of problems), AND the option to double-boot itself with another lighter/minimized NT version(that allows web access to help obtain fixes)...the Recovery Console-- needs more diagnostic utilities like a partition mgr/creator, deleted file recovery, etc., etc...... A simple backup service that periodically mirrored a few key things like mail, data, documents would be so much more useful than the bloated system restore that can still lose all one's data...

And on, and on....... :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes...

M$ had better keep on improving W98. Instead they did ME which was worse (according to many of those who tried it) and XP which is an improvement of W2000.

The proof is that 7 years later, there are poeple, unsatisfied with the new M$ products who strive to improve W98.

But Bill Gate wanted to inaugurate the age when computers of tomorrow don't look like the computers we know today. A computer were one doesn't have to open files, make settings or install an hardware driver.

The result is not only a hyper bloated software, but also more complicated and counter-effective in respect to the concept of the switch-and-go PC that they wanted to do.

XP is also the perfect example of doing worse while wanting to do better.

On W98 we have the goo' ol' "Find Files" utility with 2 boxes and one folder tree. That's what I call easy.

Now with XP the "Find File" was replaced by 5 or 6 internet-lookin links, a maximized empty folder pane, 2 boxes and a dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:P and a dog ,just what is that dog reading war and peace lol.yes xp is prettier i agree its slower maybe in a corporate world its superior 4 networking and such but in a average day 2 day home pc i think people want ease and 98se is ez and with all the patches tweaks sp etc all the things that use 2 make 98se a crash specialist are long gone your right .Me was a rush job all the advances in xp can and are being put into 98se now anyway so i guess we all win but the only issue i see is the nt built programs not compatable on the 9x kerel i smell a conspiracy .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate the "What do you want to do (with this CD)? : Open in WMP, Connect to the internet, print the photos, take no action (and other realy stupid options)" box for which I always answer by "take no action".
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?
I don't like the way "my document" folder is dug in under 27 layers of subfolders. I like "my document being in "C:".

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

I don't like losing 2Gb (2.5 Gb for XP vs 0.5 Gb for 98) just for the XP logo. Of course, you will say that with a set of two 120 Gb drives it's not an issue anymore...

I don't think so

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) I'm not even going to take the time to list all of the features that you just can't have in Windows 98.
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. Windows 98 is by no means more secure than Windows XP. The truth is that if you know how to secure your computer and your network you won't have this problem with most any OS.

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 even after we inserted the manufacturer CD. In other words, we had to tell XP not to install bad drivers!
In most cases, Windows XP has drivers that are newer than the drivers you may have on your CDs. You can always use whatever you want, you just install them over top of what's there already.
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? 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.

XP require minimum 128 Mb, thought 256 Mb is recommanded. That means we lose how much in free memory? W98 min is 32Mb AFAIK.
Windows XP or Windows 98... I have a gig of RAM in my PC. Who cares about minimum requirements...
It's more stable but saying "XP never crashes" is wrong. I'v witnessed a BSOD on a fresh install right back from the computer shop...

Noone ever said that. It certainly does it less than Windows 98 ever did. And, so... you saw a BSOD on a fresh install. Those aren't always because of software... hardware is a major cause of BSODs. I have had Linux crash on me after a fresh install. It happens. Ever taken your car to the shop and on the way home something else breaks? It's not impossible.

Defrag is faster. I don't think it's that important.

I have even read that with today fast HD, you can live without ever defragmenting.

It's still important, but with Windows XP it's less necessary to do it as often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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) I'm not even going to take the time to list all of the features that you just can't have in Windows 98. :whistle: here a screenshot of remote desktop taken from xppro sp2 working on 98se .you,d be surprize what u can make work on 98se.remotedesktop.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said Remote Desktop Server... not the client. You can install the client on any PC, but you can't connect to Windows 98 using Remote Desktop. Next time, take a second and actually read EXACTLY what I said.

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×