XP is faster than 98 for PC > 300 Mhz (Thank you Vee_ess). We tried to load Red Alert on an Identical machine a Duron 950Mhz 256 MB SDRAM. XP is much faster, we were already building our Barracks and 98 is still Loading.....The awful truth is...the truth is awful.

Okay guys here's a test done on this. Only the slimmest of margins did XP or 2000 come out on top. Xp does boot the fastest from my experinece but that's a small detail. And 2000 loads slowly with a default install on 1.5 Ghz and up systems. I've had them side by side and their is no comparsion. I work in a computer shop for a bank, sometimes I have an chance to tinker with such things. My new Dell can boot 98 in just over 30 seconds. When I had two Dells here at work side by side I could have the 98 system up and running, shut it down and have it back up by the time the 2K system was up. Granted this is in a buisness enviorment but it's left a bad taste in my mouth for 2k. Don't say the configuration was wrong, it was a default install of 2K with sp1. But enough of my rant here's what the guys at Tom's hardware have to say.

http://www17.tomshardware.com/consum...930/index.html

I think i'l stick to XP...what about you? have you made your choice?

BTW, Just for the record, Radeon dusted Gforce so many times, I think instead of trading my Asus V3800 to a gforce 4, maybe I should trade it for a radeon. :nod:

I've heard about ATI here in the Philippines but not the ATI Radeon 9700 pro.

CB-Byte

Pentium 4 1.6A @ 2.24 Ghz
Asus P4B533
256 Mb DDR PC2100
Asus V3800 (Nvidia TNT 2 32Mb)
with all the trimmings...

winxp and nvidia
 

xp is no good until you tweak the daylights out if it, then it's almost a 2k.. but i cant get 2k to install on my system so i have to stick with xp, by any means though, get away from the 9x series

XP is stable

unless you buy it or use the corporate key, things will get messy and frustrating...

xp is more stable, but 98 has better compatibility.. take your pic

yeah i agree. personally i use both, with 98 as a virtual drive

Windows '95 OSR1 (pre-IE) is much faster than any other regular OS
 

Unless U R going with some tweaky 'microkernel' thing that doesn't really run N E software out there, 95 release BEFORE IE existed is way faster than the rest - faster than Linux/BSD variants as well. It was written back in the days when CPU were SLOOOOW, so contains NO 'bloatware' or 'emulation' B.S.

U can also run a lot of NT & SE & other types of stuff on it. I regularly sell 2TB (2,000,000 gig) servers running 95 OSR1 (pre-IE), with 12 drives, triple monitors, etc. Of course, Micro$oft tells people this is 'impossible', etc. I offered 2 send them a server with my various tweaks. They were not interested. They know.

Keep in mind, the goal of all 'corporate' type software companies is NOT 2 give U the best product, but 2 continually CRIPPLE it with bugs, so as 2 keep U in constant 'upgrade cycles'. In the 'free' software community (Linux, etc.) their goal is 2 make it so overcomplicated 2 configure that U need 2 hire a programmer type 2 navigate U through the process. Just setting up triple monitors on Linux is a nightmare compared 2 95. Basically I combine different elements of different M$ OSes.

I've tried Wine & other sort of 'compatability layers'. THey don't work. Also, Windows 2000, XP, 2003, Vista - they R all just NT with a DOS compatability layer EMULATED (thus very slow 4 DOS-based programs).

Even on Windows 98 SE the way I tweak it out, programs open in under a second usually. Do U really need more speed than that? Mac OSX is BSD, & slower 'cuz there's a ton of emulation layer there. IN short...

Need speed? Get 95osr1 (pre-IE)
Need a bit more user-friendliness than 95 OSR1, but still faster than XP? Get 98SE =)
Need maximum compatability? Get XP Home edition
Need Maximum 'bragging rights'? Get a Linux nightmare :)
Need maximum 'trendyness' (& lots of brand new bugs & incompatabilities)? Get Vista! :D

I suppose 98SE might B slower than XP in some cases with default install. U must tweak them out - get rid of the animation & active desktop nonsense. Also, use the 'shell' from 95osr1 in 98SE - makes it go way faster, & will not crash. U will notice, even in Vista - ever since 95 was merged with IE (since 95 osr2), Explorer will crash after moving lots of files (eventually). 95osr1 does not have this PURPOSELY IMPLANTED CRIPPLING ARTIFACT. The reason it was PUT THERE (probably by Gates himself) is 2 drive sales of the 'server' market 2 NT variants. It's all a big scam - Y sell people 1 good OS that worx & does it all, when U can peddle 1,000 different scams, & keep them switching around & 'upgrading' forever :)

Reminds me of the oil industry HAHAHA

Remember, Linux is about making it so complicated U need 2 hire someone 2 help U. It's basically a waste of time - unless U enjoy learning lots of stupid arbitrary code languages just 2 make your PC configure 4 U.

Oh I forgot 2 mention - since OSX is slower than even XP & stuff (4 running windows aps), the other thing that knocks Mac out of the running (4 PC use) is their prior OSes (9, on back) are the most counter-intuitive piles of crap I have ever seen in my life. There is no taskabar 2 keep things organized. U can't get in there & fiddle with settings easily, & U can't even C what programs R open easily - it piles up into a big mess, & the menu bars change like the wind. It's a nightmare (seriously).

Mac is a 'protest brand' - divided mainly into the gays (why their logo is a rainbow - 2 appeal 2 the ass pirates), & trendy girls (oooh - it's 'aqua') lol

Mac is also priced always about 3X what it should B 4 the same performance on a PC architecture - & what's more, all U R getting with mac now is just a PC with a fancy BSD variant OS! So, buy ya'self a PC & put OSX on it if that's your thing -save 2/3 the cost :)

Again, 4 most speed, 95osr1 kicks a lot of ass. I bet nobody on this thread even has a 95osr1 CD. U can't even order them from Micro$cam NE more. Theyr'e out there if U google around though.

Trick
 

2 run NT & other stuff that is 'not compatable' with 95osr1, U just move the required files over from a later OS - keeping the old (fast) kernel of 95osr1 :)

Sure, there R some progs that won't work - someday I will hire somebody maybe 2 canabalize the 'get special folders' & other function calls that R missing from the old kernel. Somebody should write a prog that lets U take the LATEST 98SE kernel & SUBTRACT the cripples from it.

10,000,000 tweaker programs out there, & NOTHING 2 mod the kernel? I mean sh*t - that's the most important tweak that a person could do 2 their machine! Somebody write 1, so we don't have 2 change the whole OS architecture just 2 get more speed & reliability :)

1 of the things Micro$teal does is bundle 'features' that slow things down - like how when U 'upgrade' 2 IE6 on an SE machine, it gets completely unstable, or when U 'upgrade' XP 2 OSR2 (bad news), gets all slow - so people think 'hey I need a new machine 4 more speed' - no, U don't.

Change the OS! =)