Win98 or XP
 

I am building a new computer and I am wondering what Windows OS I should put on it. Windows 98 or Windows XP? What are the disadvantages on XP?

Re: Win98 or XP
 

I still like 98.  Service pack 1 is coming out for XP soon and will help it but I don't like the mandatory "product activation" or registration for home edition.  It looks like crap unless you tweak the thunder out of it but it does have some neat new utilites.  Avoid ME by all means and I think win 2k is too slow for a home user (IMHO).  XP would be the only other one I would think about other than 98 but that's a close race.  I've had some problems with games on XP even with the compatiblity options.  

Re: Win98 or XP
 

XP is way faster than 98 on most instances and is just as tweakable as 98. Sorry, to contradict you Savage, but Win 2000 isn't slow as it is the fastest MS OS yet, as long as it is on a comp above 300-350mhz. It even runs faster for me than Redhat 7.3.

• XP has much better stability
• better up-and-coming support and fixes, etc. (even though its already better)
• Compatability is about on par with 98. not as much as ME, but who wants ME?
• if you stick w/ MS in future, more likely to be able to upgrade

i have had every MS OS and 98 is better on slower comps, but if yours is above 300, stick with XP, because it is also as resilient as Windows 2000. I screw with all sorts of setting, and if something is screwed up with 98, you reformat and reinstall. but with XP, just cancel certain services and you can fix it in a heartbeat.

[glow=orange,2,900]ALSO: Tip - If you install something in XP or 2k, and it tells you to restart, in most cases, if you click Ctrl+Shift+Esc, you get to the taskman and you just need to go to proccesses, click explorer.exe (not iexporer.exe), End process, and then click the tab for applications, new task, type explorer & ENTER. No reboot necessary[/glow]

Re: Win98 or XP
 

I'l say 98. But do whatever you want. XP does have it's advantages

Re: Win98 or XP
 

Well, to me the 'disadvantage'  ( one atleast ) to XP is the file/program arrangement, hardly at all different than Win 3.1 , if you remember 3.1, XP is about the same. Hard to find programs, as they seem to be mobile and go someplace to hide. I'm sure you  could take the time to learn how to defeat this severe problem but I haven't yet purchased XP, as that was the first thing that turned me off. MS went back to about 1990 and used some of ver 3.1 features , which would be oblivious to those who never used it, " the more the things change, the more they stay the same ".

Re: Win98 or XP
 

Try both. Benchmark each one

Re: Win98 or XP
 

yeah ill have to go w/ 98 as well...i dont know why, but im running it right now, and im overall alright with it!  Not any big probs with it yet!!!

Re: Win98 or XP
 

micro is loosing it's desktop OS market.
since Win98 nothing serious "happened" there. WinME was a failure, Win2000 is not exactly desktop OS, WinXP has all these disadvantages.
So in certain places Win98SE is still pre-installed as default. It would be popular long time even it's 5yrs old.
Win2000 is slow indeed if you don't know to configure it properly for non-networked environment and install everything you can ... It has high requirements twice+ higher from official micro's.
WinXP needs improvement, SP would probably fix some probs, but new one would come. I think it is not the best thing to install.

You want to know about disadvantages check Windows XP :( thread by keefe.

I would recommend to go for W98 but learn about W2K too

good luck
8)

To put it blunt XP is "Micro$oft Big Brother Bloatware". 2000 will do anything that XP does without all the bloatware and spyware, a lot of tech sites have compared the two and say 2000 is slightly faster. But you asked about 98 lol. Like someone else said, 98 is still being installed on new computers, it still runs everything and it doesn't try to dominate \ dictate everything you do or use like XP does

There are many things I like about Win98SE. It is pretty stable and fast. But I'm to much of a tweaker and upgrader to put up with XP's requirement to get a new activation number from MS after only a few hardware changes or in some cases only one hardware up grade
So Win2K would be my only other choice.
I'd setup a duel boot system, Win98SE and W2K

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! =)