Login to Account Create an Account
It has been 7 years since Win98 was released
Posted 25 January 2005 - 08:02 PM
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...
Posted 25 January 2005 - 08:25 PM
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.
Posted 25 January 2005 - 10:14 PM
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....
Posted 26 January 2005 - 05:07 PM
Posted 26 January 2005 - 07:05 PM
Posted 28 January 2005 - 02:59 PM
Posted 30 January 2005 - 09:49 PM
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.
Posted 31 January 2005 - 08:24 PM
Posted 01 February 2005 - 06:33 AM
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.
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)...
Posted 01 February 2005 - 06:56 AM
Posted 01 February 2005 - 09:06 AM
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.
Posted 01 February 2005 - 11:03 AM
Posted 01 February 2005 - 05:06 PM
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!
Posted 02 February 2005 - 04:31 AM
Posted 02 February 2005 - 12:34 PM
Posted 03 February 2005 - 11:29 PM
Posted 04 February 2005 - 12:37 AM
Not even once in the last two-and-a-half years.
how many of you have install 98se on a friend or familys pc to get them up and running?
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.
Posted 04 February 2005 - 01:43 AM
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?
Posted 04 February 2005 - 03:21 PM
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.
Posted 04 February 2005 - 09:21 PM
If you backed up your data onto some type of media and you obviously have the full install of XP because you said
I just upgraded my old Win98SE computer to WinXP
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.
Posted 05 February 2005 - 05:43 AM
Posted 06 February 2005 - 12:37 PM
Posted 08 February 2005 - 09:13 PM
Posted 09 February 2005 - 11:04 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users