[Link21]

Fredledingue, on Jun 19 2006, 04:34 PM, said:

Link21,

A firewall become an obligation with XP because of its legendary security holes.
You think an OS is "good quality" as soon as it has an NT-based kernel or whatever else NT-based. It may be better, but in the case of XP, using NT kernel and architecture was not enough. Too many things made it the worse OS ever.
Stable, yes, but at the price of so many other disadvantages that I even don't want to use it.

Ironicaly a hacker has more control over your XP computer than you will ever have.
It's very difficult to control and modify what's happening under the hood of XP. Just take a look at the list of the services and you see stuffs like this:

service = "XYZM data flow control agent"

So you click on "description" to see what it's doing and if you can disable it. The description is something like:

"The XYZM data flow control agent is a service that control flow of XYZM datas. Application that requires XYZM flow control agent may not work properly if you disable this service."

But the guy who is in the business, knows what he can do with it and manipulate your computer out of a security flaw in this service, while you even don't know if you can disable it and often you can't.
"Services", is concept by which other poeple (virtual ro real ones) are managing your computer for you. XP services are virtual operators that control what the computer is doing without interracting with you most of the time. These service can be controled be a remote network administrator or a hacker or a virus.

By contrast on w98++, it's the one who hold the keyboard that control the machine.

As for programming, it's nearly impossible to exploit the specificities of an OS to make running apps faster.
What the programmer you talked with means is that using pre-build XP libraries is more efficient on XP than using only 98-95 ones (on XP).
But the best programmers will rely as less as possible on pre-build functions, and creates codes that does exactely what the application is supposed to do, and therefor create a cross system compatible software. Y! messenger is an example.

I mean to get the same effect on the monitor screen, every program on any OS version will always send a certain amount of operations to do to the processor and a certain amount of binary datas to this processor.
The skill of a programmer is to avoid useless flow of data and useless operations.
You can do it sucessfuly on XP as well as on w98 as well as on Linux or MacOs.

Link21, you should know that "stability" or "NT based kernel" doesn't mean "quality OS". There are other things to take in account.

And stop saying that if we don't like XP, let's take 2000. It's like saying, if you don't like w98, use w95.

No, the only chance is reactOS or alternatives like that.

If you really think WIndows XP is the worst OS ever made and that being based on the NT kernel wasn't enough to save it, then what do you think of the other NT based operating systems?

Do you consider Windows 2000 and Windows XP as one and the same if you claim you don't like XP and you keep saying Xp only applictaions, when what I mean is Windows 2000/XP only applications. And also because you say that saying to use Windows 2000 if you don't XP is the same thing as saying use Windows 95 if you don't like Windows 98?

What I'm saying is that for everyone who hates Windows XP, WIndows 2000 is a great alternative. The reason why there is so much hate for Windows XP is because of the intrusive BS forced upon by Microsoft. Windows 2K does not have the invasive BS forced upon you MS and it is easier to get rid of IE and still have a fully usable system in 2K. WIth Windows XP if you strip out lots of the security holes like IE, you will practically break almost all functionality. With Windows 2K, it is very possible to run a lean version without breaking nearly as much functionality.

An OS can be of fine quality if it is based on the NT kernel. It cannot be if it is based on a craptacular architecture like the 9X kernel, no matter how stable anyone of you claim you can het it to run.

The Linux kernel, Unix variants, VMS, Mach, OS/2, in addition to NT are all good quality OS kernels. The Windows 9X kernel is NOT.

This post has been edited by Link21: 19 June 2006 - 05:22 PM

[EchoNoise]

LMFAO... this is such a big feed bag for a troller like Link21 (i know your reading this)...

How about closing this thread?

Oh and btw... W98 is the bestest

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

I think this is a good thread but can get annoying at times
but it also give viewers constructive feedback and input/specs on OS
just readin this thread i learn a lil more about Win98SE which is the
BEST

[Jlo555]

I see no point in locking this thread, because in two months, someone will create another one. We should just have a separate forum in MSFN dedicated to the 98 vs. XP war, which has been going for.... what like four years now. On a somewhat related topic, I'm pretty sure Link21 just has a Word template with all of his 98 vs XP arguments, because his posts are nearly the same on AnandTech and MSFN. I don't think there's ever gonna be an end to the argument, because everyone has their own opinion and we won't stop until we've cemented our opinions into the minds of each individual on the forum. Actually, that's already been done so I guess the threads just won't stop!

I am not going to diss Windows 98SE because I am a loyal user myself. But the only reason for the amount of popularity within an operating system is how it is marketed. After windows 95, everyone knew that the DOS based OS was a load of crap, but people bought Windows 98 because it was so widely known after Microsoft shoved their "ideas" and products down our throats. It was about three times worse for XP, the first OS to actually have television commercials for it. The stats on the TheCounter.com speak for themselves. Why do you think Linux is still at 0% usage compared to other OS's. Apple had their chance, but Jobs and Wozniak were too stupid to act on it. Open Source operating systems still have a chance but their "policies" have limited them to where they are now. To summarize it, you can sell a piece of crap, just as long as you market it correctly. And Windows NT was never really marketed that widely except as a business OS.

But I've really gotten to liking 98SE nowadays. Sometimes I think that it IS time to upgrade to a new OS, so I slap on XP Pro, I see how bloated it is, I trim it down, I get a WGA message stating that I am a criminal, I ignore it. Then I think back to the good old days of simplicity and DOS, so I reformat, put in the old 98se cd and continue where I left off.

@Link21, you keep asking me why I use a 16-bit POS. Because I FEEL like it... why do I smoke cigarettes? Why do I eat fastfood? Why do I breathe? Why the hell am I still alive?

This post has been edited by Jlo555: 19 June 2006 - 10:06 PM

[Thunderbolt 2864]

If some of you people keep saying that Windows 98 is more superior than XP, then how so? Please explain. Some people keep saying that and don't give clear examples.

[Jlo555]

It's not superior in any way, except for DOS compatibility. Windows 98 just does what I want it to do and nothing more. Windows XP just tries to be intuitive, which p***es me off most of the time. Yes, I know I can just disable/delete all the bloated crap of XP, but I don't really feel like it. I grew up using a Windows 3.1/95 machine also; so I know how to "deal" with a Win9x machine. I've found it considerably more of a pain in the a** to fix major issues in an XP box than with a 98 box. With 98, I can just boot do DOS or Safe Mode and do whatever I want. XP... well in my experience, it's just a b!tch to fix. System Restore is a joke.

[LLXX]

Thunderbolt 2864, on Jun 20 2006, 03:20 AM, said:

If some of you people keep saying that Windows 98 is more superior than XP, then how so? Please explain. Some people keep saying that and don't give clear examples.

1. Superior DOS emulation. The DOS VM in XP is awful - for one, "close on exit" option is partially broken, secondly it's slow (setting ntvdm.exe to realtime priority doesn't help, just freezes the rest of the system too) and the speed fluctuates (run a small DOS program that just prints out a huge text file to the screen - at first it outputs quickly, then after approximately 10 seconds it slows down to a crawl). The DOS VM in 98se works well for almost all DOS programs that don't need exclusive control of the machine.

2. Can be booted to DOS to do tasks that can't be done otherwise, like swapping modified system files (XP complains afterwards even if you manage to swap kernels, for example - "system file protection") or deleting browser caches and other files that are normally in-use.

3. Faster. Simpler system architecture reduces overhead of system calls and results in better overall performance. You will notice that a minimal XP installation still lags slightly on fast hardware, while 98se has nearly instantaneous response time.

4. Fewer bugs and exploits. XP needs to be "updated" constantly (not to mention the annoying WGA and activation) - I'm not sure of the exact number, but probably several hundred "critical updates" have been issued since its release. 98se has a few critical updates, but nowhere near as many. A default install is also safer - 98se doesn't phone home to M$, nor does it have dozens of listening services waiting to be exploited.

5. Uses less system resources. An Operating System is not an application program. It should only provide basic services to application programs, not itself try to be an application program. Thus it should consume a minimum of system resources, and let the application programs use them instead. I've run 98se on a 386DX 25MHz with 16Mb of RAM and a 120Mb HDD, it doesn't need much but it still runs quite well. In comparison, the lowest hardware I've gotten XP to install on was a P166 with 64Mb RAM and 4Gb HDD, and even with lots of nLiting it still ran very sluggishly.

6. Overall Compatibility. 98se is the last OS that can support almost all legacy DOS as well as Win32 applications. Many newer programs will run on 98se, but not anything older.

[Jeremy]

I hope you didn't type that all out yourself, but copied and pasted it from some place else, considering how this topic has been debated to death over the past 5 years.

[eidenk]

Jlo555, on Jun 19 2006, 10:03 PM, said:

Why the hell am I still alive?

We all wonder how you manage that with all those cigarettes you smoke and junkfood you eat.

[miko]

i'm asking the same question, obviously the hitman i paid has done a runner.

[Lunac]

Somebody asked why Win9x was superior to NT 5.x? Many reasons, but primarily what does it for me is the HAL. NT Hardware Abstraction Layer that is. It was touted as the holy grail of hardware and OS integration. It was (and is) anything but. Interestingly enough, the acronym itself >HAL< is of that infamous psycho computer from 2001: A Space Odyssey. How appropriate.


Anyhow, this particular topic was discussed to death in a previous thread. Most of the anti Win9x arguments were something akin to: WiMXPP iZZ TeH BEST!. Which really, in a colorful way, shows the intellectual level of WinXP users, as well as their maturity. Others admitted that Win98 has its purposes, this of course after nearly 50 pages of responses and arguments. Which is for them another way of saying: You got a point! Stop pointing out that XP is a toy OS and that I am a dumbass consumer and the only reason I have XP is because it came preinstalled with my crappy KidCo system from Dell/HP/eMachines or because my friend/cousin/buddy has it! And if my friend/cousin/buddy have it, then I want it too!. Then that thread was promptly locked and "disappeared". Which is really what many of NT fanatics would like to do with this whole Win9x subforum. Which really says a lot, doesn't it?

[Link21]

LLXX, on Jun 20 2006, 06:27 AM, said:

Thunderbolt 2864, on Jun 20 2006, 03:20 AM, said:

If some of you people keep saying that Windows 98 is more superior than XP, then how so? Please explain. Some people keep saying that and don't give clear examples.

1. Superior DOS emulation. The DOS VM in XP is awful - for one, "close on exit" option is partially broken, secondly it's slow (setting ntvdm.exe to realtime priority doesn't help, just freezes the rest of the system too) and the speed fluctuates (run a small DOS program that just prints out a huge text file to the screen - at first it outputs quickly, then after approximately 10 seconds it slows down to a crawl). The DOS VM in 98se works well for almost all DOS programs that don't need exclusive control of the machine.

2. Can be booted to DOS to do tasks that can't be done otherwise, like swapping modified system files (XP complains afterwards even if you manage to swap kernels, for example - "system file protection") or deleting browser caches and other files that are normally in-use.

3. Faster. Simpler system architecture reduces overhead of system calls and results in better overall performance. You will notice that a minimal XP installation still lags slightly on fast hardware, while 98se has nearly instantaneous response time.

4. Fewer bugs and exploits. XP needs to be "updated" constantly (not to mention the annoying WGA and activation) - I'm not sure of the exact number, but probably several hundred "critical updates" have been issued since its release. 98se has a few critical updates, but nowhere near as many. A default install is also safer - 98se doesn't phone home to M$, nor does it have dozens of listening services waiting to be exploited.

5. Uses less system resources. An Operating System is not an application program. It should only provide basic services to application programs, not itself try to be an application program. Thus it should consume a minimum of system resources, and let the application programs use them instead. I've run 98se on a 386DX 25MHz with 16Mb of RAM and a 120Mb HDD, it doesn't need much but it still runs quite well. In comparison, the lowest hardware I've gotten XP to install on was a P166 with 64Mb RAM and 4Gb HDD, and even with lots of nLiting it still ran very sluggishly.

6. Overall Compatibility. 98se is the last OS that can support almost all legacy DOS as well as Win32 applications. Many newer programs will run on 98se, but not anything older.

#1 is the only statement that is totally correct. #3 and #5 are only partly correct. If you use Windows 98 on slower hartdware with small amounts of RAM, it will be faster than Windows XP and even Windows 2000. But on a relatively fast system with a decent amount of RAM, Windows 2000 is always faster and even Windows XP is faster.

#4 is only partially correct in that Windows XP has the annnoying activation and WGA BULLCRAP. However, IN NO WAY does it have more bugs. WIndows 98 has far more bugs and isn't even capable of being a good OS for modern computing like Windows 2K and XP are. Also, Windows 2K does not phone home, so use Windows 2K if you don't like how XP phones MS. It is also easy to remove the phone home junk from Windows XP and avoid installing WGA, and you will be fine with Windows XP.


As for #6, sure Windows 98SE is the best for compatibility with old legacy simplistic non-resource intensive poorly written applications. It is not good for anything else.

[Petr]

Link21, on Jun 20 2006, 05:08 PM, said:

But on a relatively fast system with a decent amount of RAM, Windows 2000 is always faster and even Windows XP is faster.

It is not true - Windows 98 SE is much more responsive even on relatively faster systems - I have dual boot 98SE / XP on 2.4 GHz P4 with 512 MB RAM and it is big difference - in Windows 98 SE everything is quick, in Windows XP (optimized for speed) is everything sooo slooow....

Quote

#4 is only partially correct in that Windows XP has the annnoying activation and WGA BULLCRAP. However, IN NO WAY does it have more bugs. WIndows 98 has far more bugs and isn't even capable of being a good OS for modern computing like Windows 2K and XP are. Also, Windows 2K does not phone home, so use Windows 2K if you don't like how XP phones MS. It is also easy to remove the phone home junk from Windows XP and avoid installing WGA, and you will be fine with Windows XP.

Windows 98 SE is less complex and therefore has less possible backdoors.

The result is that Windows 98 SE is much more secure than Windows XP in terms of remote exploitability.

More functions + more remote access services + more code => less secure system.

Windows Vista takes about 8 GB on the hard disk. It means 8 GB of potential security holes.

In real life, there are always both simple, cheap and easy to use tools available as well as very complex and expensive tools for professionals.

As of computers, most people need just very simple tool - to be able to write letters, send messages, browse the web, listen to the music. In days of "real programmers", the whole comfort system would fit in maybe 100 kilobytes of memory and would be satisfied with 4 MHz processor.

Now, there are 1000 times bigger systems with many unneeded functions that pose big security risks.

It's all about the marketing - to force the people to buy things they don't need in fact.

Petr

[Link21]

Quote

It is not true - Windows 98 SE is much more responsive even on relatively faster systems - I have dual boot 98SE / XP on 2.4 GHz P4 with 512 MB RAM and it is big difference - in Windows 98 SE everything is quick, in Windows XP (optimized for speed) is everything sooo slooow....

It is not completely true. You don't have your Windows XP setup properly if that is what you are experieicning. Windows XP is so much faster on any halfway robust system with the bloat stripped out. Windows 98 may only be fast at first because of such a lite resource consumption, but it will slow to a crawl pretty darn fast because it is a low end, low quality, cheap, low performance OS that can utilize reltaively modern hardware efficiently!!

Windows 2000/XP PWNed the crap that is WIN98/ME by far!! Linux PWNed the crap that is Windows 98/ME even more so than 2K/XP. Linux is a great OS. OS/2 WARP is also a realy good OS. Windows 2K/XP/2K3 are solid. Windows 95/98/ME are pieces of junk.

This post has been edited by Link21: 20 June 2006 - 11:40 AM

[Jlo555]

Quote

i'm asking the same question, obviously the hitman i paid has done a runner.

Sorry, I was just going off in a rant. Basically all I was trying to state was that I'm not taking Link21's argument seriously anymore, now it's just amusing.

I'm pretty sure HAL was responsible for many of the driver issues in the NT series. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Windows 98 get hardware access directly from the BIOS?

[eidenk]

Petr, on Jun 20 2006, 11:23 AM, said:

The result is that Windows 98 SE is much more secure than Windows XP in terms of remote exploitability.

In the United States in 2004, Georges W. Bush got finally elected President in flagrant contradiction with exit polls who gave the victory to John Kerry.

They had been voting on something called Diebold machines which are no more than network connected MS Windows XP or 2003 boxes with some spreadsheet software.

Something that could not have happened if Win98/ME had been used IMO.

[Petr]

Link21, on Jun 20 2006, 06:36 PM, said:

Quote

It is not true - Windows 98 SE is much more responsive even on relatively faster systems - I have dual boot 98SE / XP on 2.4 GHz P4 with 512 MB RAM and it is big difference - in Windows 98 SE everything is quick, in Windows XP (optimized for speed) is everything sooo slooow....

It is not completely true. You don't have your Windows XP setup properly if that is what you are experieicning. Windows XP is so much faster on any halfway robust system with the bloat stripped out. Windows 98 may only be fast at first because of such a lite resource consumption, but it will slow to a crawl pretty darn fast because it is a low end, low quality, cheap, low performance OS that can utilize reltaively modern hardware efficiently!!

Windows 2000/XP PWNed the crap that is WIN98/ME by far!! Linux PWNed the crap that is Windows 98/ME even more so than 2K/XP. Linux is a great OS. OS/2 WARP is also a realy good OS. Windows 2K/XP/2K3 are solid. Windows 95/98/ME are pieces of junk.

This is just propaganda what you write, not the truth. :-) You do not have to cite what Seve Ballmer said, we all know all these false claims. :-)

You must be blind if you don't see so obvious facts - Windows XP has much more instruction to execute to do the same task in comparison with Windows 98.

Very simple example - if you want to open the file in Windows XP, the system has to check the complex system of rights. In Windows 98 is no such system and therefore the execution is much quicker.

I admit that there may be some computer programs that are quicker on Windows XP, although I know none.

But the the Windows XP system itself and its user interface is definitely much slower.

I have at home two computers:
1. Pentium III 1 GHz, 512 MB PC133 SDRAM, Windows 98 SE, 60 GB ATA-100 disk, ATI RAge Xpert 2000 with 16 MB RAM
2. Pentium M 1,86 GHz, 1024 MB DDR2-533 RAM, Windows XP SP2, 250 GB RAID SATA-II disks on Adaptec controllers, ATI X300SE with 128 MB RAM

Just one click to KVM switch and I can use any of them or both together.

The work on the first one is much more comfortable than on the second one.
Both computers are equally secure from remote attack - secured by hardware firewall.
Both computers never experienced any blue screen during the normal work.
I use the second one just when I need to run a program that requires NT based operating system.

Are you able to understand how dumb are your posts where you just repeat your mantra again and again, with no relevant and true agruments?

Petr

This post has been edited by Petr: 20 June 2006 - 12:14 PM

[miko]

Jlo555, on Jun 19 2006, 10:03 PM, said:

Why the hell am I still alive?

Jlo555, on Jun 20 2006, 11:39 AM, said:

Quote

i'm asking the same question, obviously the hitman i paid has done a runner.

Sorry, I was just going off in a rant. Basically all I was trying to state was that I'm not taking Link21's argument seriously anymore, now it's just amusing.

****, you said that ? i though link posted it (wishful thinking i think)
guess the cats out the bag now
sorry Jlo555
if you went off the hook at Link, i can appreciate that, i nearly got banned for doing the same

on topic - mental health patients should have their net access restricted imho

This post has been edited by miko: 20 June 2006 - 01:37 PM

[Link21]

Quote

This is just propaganda what you write, not the truth. :-) You do not have to cite what Seve Ballmer said, we all know all these false claims. :-)

BULLSH!T!! Since when did I site what Steve Ballmer says. I stated in there how Linux is a great OS. Now would Steve Balmer who sponders MS spouted propoganda insist Linux (which is BTW a serious threat to Microsoft's business model) is a great OS. Microsoft hates Linux and I love it. So I am not spouting off MS propoganda.

Sure, maybe Windows 98 will feel fatser on a faster computer, just like Windows 3.1 will feel faster than any version of even Widnows 9X. It still doens't change the fact that the functionality is badly limited in Windows 98 as it can't take advanatge of high end resource intensive computing. It may be fast, but only for simple lower end applications that don't require a lot of computing power. Windows 2000/XP will always be faster for applications that require lots of computing power on a computer with lots of memory.

It is Windows 9X that sucks. Windows 2K/XP are respectable operating systems, but still not as good as Linux. Windows 95/98/ME are not respectable operating systems no matter how you look at it.

It is a technical fact that almost every OS released since 1994 is far better than that piece of crap in Windows 9X. So what if you can get Win98 to run stable. It still doesn't change the fact that Windows 98 is a cheap, low end, low performance operating system.

Saying that you have less problems with Windows 98 than you did with Windows 2000 or Windows XP would be like saying you had less problems with your Eagle Summit than your Lexus ES.

It still wouldn't change the fact that an Eagle Summit is a cheap, low end, low performance car, while the Lexus ES is a high end, much better quality, significantly higher performing car.


Comparing operating systems to cars with regrdas to functionality, performance, stability, capabilities, and features all rated together.


Windows 3.1 and prior would be like a low end cheap dirt bike that could carry only one person and nothing else and could only reach 50MPH top speed

Windows 95 is like a Yugo (Yugo was a cheap low end car brand that had so many quality problems)

Windows 98/ME are like an Eagle Summit (An Eagle Summit was a cheap low end car that had plenty of quality problems, but wasn't as bad as a Yugo)

Windows NT 3.X is like a Ford Escort

Windows NT 4.0 is like a Ford Taurus

Windows 2000/XP/2003 are like a Lexus ES

OS/2 WARP is like a Toyota Avalon(would have been comparable to something even higher end than a Lexus ES if only developement of OS/2 WARP was still alive and well today)

The latest Linux kernel is like a Rolls Royce.

[eidenk]

What do you think about Windows Vista link21 ?