[smokeyjoint]

> Remote Desktop? No wrong i took the remote desktop setup off xp sp2 and it works on win98 just extract it with winrar. heres a picdesktop remote.

[keytotime]

If you say xp is too bloated one word: NLITE!!!!!!!!!!!

[horsecharles]

Quote

smokeyjoint: > Remote Desktop? No wrong i took the remote desktop setup off xp sp2 and it works on win98 just extract it with winrar. heres a picdesktop remote

Exactly... MS has a bunch of downloads w/ guides for remote-connecting / accessing 2k/xp server domains, tunneling vpn's, etc. in 98 & ME.... ok, so one may not have every single last feature & security benefit, but it suffices fairly adequately. At the point it becomes a shortcoming for one's work, one's salary / company budget can well afford pretty much any os, software, hardware needed several times over-- thus rendering this topic moot: at that point XP or other MS OS would be too limiting, so custom apps costing thousands are at one's disposal(as well pricey tech support-- wouldn't spend time on this forum for example), one's pc may have 2-4 gb ram, multiple SCSI disks, possibly in RAID array.... brings up a similar analogy:

-- why don't we all get scsi drives then? Because heavy-duty / specialized work may justify spending a multiple of several times for the privilege of single or low-double digit % performance increase....

Value is in the eye of each individual user, but there's no big tech / performance leap from a tweaked 98 like we have-- to winxp, as with dos/win3 to win98-- or as there will be between 2k/xp to a stable and established Longhorn(widespread apps for the architecture).
A casual user is different-- they need more compatibility & have less time to spend tweaking & diddling-- so let them get XP, though it itself still needs a lot of adjusting & fixing(BlackViper, autopatcher, ntlite, xplite anyone?).

Peace.....

[un4given1]

smokeyjoint, on Jan 25 2005, 03:59 PM, said:

> Remote Desktop? No  wrong i took the remote desktop setup off xp sp2 and it works on win98 just extract it with winrar. heres a picdesktop remote.

Yes... the client piece is available on any of the Windows OSes. You can download it right off of the MS website. The server piece however is not. You can not use Remote Desktop to connect to a Windows 98 PC.

[un4given1]

horsecharles, on Jan 25 2005, 05:29 PM, said:

Quote

smokeyjoint: > Remote Desktop? No wrong i took the remote desktop setup off xp sp2 and it works on win98 just extract it with winrar. heres a picdesktop remote

Exactly... MS has a bunch of downloads w/ guides for remote-connecting / accessing 2k/xp server domains, tunneling vpn's, etc. in 98 & ME.... ok, so one may not have every single last feature & security benefit, but it suffices fairly adequately. At the point it becomes a shortcoming for one's work, one's salary / company budget can well afford pretty much any os, software, hardware needed several times over-- thus rendering this topic moot: at that point XP or other MS OS would be too limiting, so custom apps costing thousands are at one's disposal(as well pricey tech support-- wouldn't spend time on this forum for example), one's pc may have 2-4 gb ram, multiple SCSI disks, possibly in RAID array.... brings up a similar analogy:

-- why don't we all get scsi drives then? Because heavy-duty / specialized work may justify spending a multiple of several times for the privilege of single or low-double digit % performance increase....

Value is in the eye of each individual user, but there's no big tech / performance leap from a tweaked 98 like we have-- to winxp, as with dos/win3 to win98-- or as there will be between 2k/xp to a stable and established Longhorn(widespread apps for the architecture).
A casual user is different-- they need more compatibility & have less time to spend tweaking & diddling-- so let them get XP, though it itself still needs a lot of adjusting & fixing(BlackViper, autopatcher, ntlite, xplite anyone?).

Peace.....

I will bet you that 90% of you die hard Windows 98 users aren't concerned about the money. I'll bet it's just all out hatred for something you don't know.

[horsecharles]

As Johnny Carson would say,"Wrong, Microsoft- breath!"
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...

[un4given1]

Don't get me wrong. I respect each of you for your own reasons... But when you have false opinions about something and you base your sole opinion on that then I have a problem. I understand not wanting to spend money, or just not having a system that can run XP. I respect anyone who is just "afraid" to upgrade because it's different. When Windows 95 came out I was in that boat. I refused to upgrade... Kept comming up with excuses about how much it sucked. I finally gave in and it wasn't so bad. I was even worse with Windows 98, believe it or not. Windows ME came and I jumped at it... what a mistake. Windows XP came and I couldn't wait to install it. I haven't poked around with Longhorn because I am not much of a fan of unfinished work, and that's what Longhorn is. I rely on my computer for too much to run a BETA system. I use it to VPN/RDC into work. I use it to do web programming. I use it to make custom spreadsheets and Access databases. I do video editing (hobby) and even photo editing. Since I switched to Windows XP I have been victim of less and less crashes, and more XPerience (pun) I'm not completely against Windows 98... I'm about to install it on my 2 year old's computer because it's just not been taking to XP well (500mhz, 256MB RAM) and she just loves her Blue's Clues!

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.

[horsecharles]

We're basically saying the same thing. Plus, you have different needs with your multimedia work & other corporate work-- you're good to at least try a 64-bit system separately right now-- to get a head start--

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....

[soldier1st]

you mean linux

[horsecharles]

ok, linux too-- try solaris: free download from Sun...........

[tim_horton]

hail 98se party on dudes...

[bullet]

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.

[tim_horton]

hail 98se tweakorama gotta make this os sing..

[-I-]

horsecharles, on Jan 24 2005, 04:06 AM, said:

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)...

[jdgordon]

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

[horsecharles]

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.

[prathapml]

win98 sings as cool as it crashes - take a look at this topic and decide for yourself!
Its too easy to crash win98

[horsecharles]

Cool... give us one for xp please! (no excuses, has to be possible)

[Acheron]

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!

[horsecharles]

you've called it exactly like it is, hp38guser...