That's a questionable decision Bull. People start a thread which challenges anyone to speak up on why they use 98. I speak up; get flamed from all sides and then you censor me for flaming back. This forum seems quite biased...

Back to the original topic. I still think 98SE is worthy if not superior to 2k/XP and that there are plenty of reasons to stay with 98. I figure we can just continue our discussion as this was the hottest thread on the board and the closing of the previous one was "questionable at best"

I never got a chance to say anything in the other thread. I was given 98 by a friend of mine because I did not have any other OS. I do not think I would like to use XP because 1)Money, 2)98 is just as good as XP, 3) and XP takes up a lot of System Resources so you would be able to play games and benchmark easier on 98.

No flaming each other or calling anyone names. Keep this to the subject of the OS's and not each other.

Just2Rommy4You, that post was not closed because of your opinions. All opinions are welcome here. It was closed because the 2 posts that i deleted were nothing but name calling and accusations. Calling people a**holes and liars is not making a point and has no place here.

Continue to bring your points to the table, just leave the personal BS out. I have reread the thread over again, and you were fine until the name calling crap. Stick to the topic and you will be heard. Flame if you must, but none of the language and name calling crap.

I stand by my decision and would do it again if that route is taken, and not just by you.

Bull - mod from hell

And BTW, I started that thread.

i use win 98 AND win xp!

win 98 is the best at some things.. xp is the best at most.. it's just what you want...

for games win 98 is still on top by a few.. xp is stable and does good at games

Well I do know how to tweak. I actually did not say that 98 was better than XP. I only said that I think that is just as good. I have used it on friend's comps and thought it was nice but an OS does not need to be all dolled up like that to be great. Plus for XP though on the stability of it. 98 is just simple for people who do not like a lot of sh!t on their comps. All IMO of course.

98 was good. it was fast and efficient. but times are changing, drivers are being designed around 2000/xp now, so maybe 98 beat 2k/xp a while ago in terms of 3d performance but that was because years of programming drivers for the 9x kernal. If not already 3d performance is and will be faster on 2k/xp.

also like to note that i prefer 2k over xp with all the companies designing "xp enhanced" drivers some forget to see that 2k sees these benefits also, and in my experience 2k is faster than xp and 98 now.

in my opinion, i think XP is an utter failure.... i know cuz i've used 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, and lastly XP. out of all of these OSes, i'd say 98SE stands out of the croud. XP simply sucks cuz its intent on doing everything for you. that gets annoying after a while. games on XP are run at a 60 Hz refresh rate..... OW!!!!!!!! thats gotta hurt your eyes! and another thing...Microsoft JACKED ideas from Apple... hmmm havent we seen similiar designs on MAC OS 9.... hmmm.... the thing is.... mac os-9 looks better... this is getting boring so i've decided not to add more crap..... simply put.... 98SE is the BEST! and XP sucks! this is coming from a non-satisfied customer of microsoft products....

Maybe i'm wrong but . . .

Didn't miscoroft buy Apple? Or at least buy a majority share? I'm sure i heard that somewhere. Cause if so, doesn't that make stealing ideas from your own company redundant???

And now on topic:

I personally really liked 98se. I found it pretty stable (most of the time), easy to use, easy to configure and it handled games really well.

I also like XP. I like the security features and i like its looks but i would not upgrade to XP just yet. The driver support is still not there yet (coming soon, sure) and for games, i get better frame rates in 98.

As for using more resources, i'm not sure about that. Besides hdd space (98se requires about 200mb and XP nearly a much more than that, i can't remember exactly) i don't think it is that resource intensive. It utilises RAM much more efficiently than 98 i must say that. so for those of you with heaps of RAM > 256, XP is probably the better option.

All that being said, 98se is cheap and good for most people and i wouldn't upgrade just yet . . .

Microsoft own a percentage of Apple not al of it.

XP needs around a gig to install

I have been using it since it was releases an dI am very impressed with it, as I have not problems at all.

Good stuff here, I do agree with sid that we will need to upgrade in the near future, but 98SE is still a good OS.

well microsoft doesn't own a huge share in Apple. its a small share, and do you people know why microsoft owns a small share? apple was going bankrupt and microsoft bailed em out cuz they didnt want microsoft to be a monopoly. remember, microsoft doesnt own apple, and thus apple and microsoft are two different companies. and so yes, that would be called stealing. the only reason why microsoft is stopping support for win98 is cuz it want users to switch to newer OSes such as 2k or xp. and personally i think XP is an utter failure. its like "Windows for retards". as i stated before, its fixed on doing everything for you whether you like it or not and many people dont like that.

An excellent point Riksha. The one thing i have to ask is "where's the counter arguement to all this." The 2k/Xp people have blasted 98 a lot but i'd like to know what they consider to be the worthwhile features. "Worthwhile" means worth the 200 buck upgrade. For instance, why would i buy windows XP with my money right now as opposed to getting a new CPU or video card

games at 60Hz refresh? Please explain.

60 Hz refresh rate means that your resolution is bad. this refresh rate can and usually will damage monitors (its happened to me)... to add to that, it will cause serious straining on your eyes and maybe lead to permanent eye problems.... like wearing glasses and if you play the game with this resolution for long enough, you will get a severe headache...

I have XP and I don't play games at 60HZ refresh rate?? If you are talking about with nvidia drivers, there is a working fix for the refresh rate problem??

none of my games play at 60Hz refresh either, that is why i wanted a better explanation but got bs instead.

I think what you meant was this from: http://searchwebmanagement.techtarget.com/...i214565,00.html




so yeah, flicker could eventually hurt the electron guns in the back of the monitor.... although most modern monitors can and do run reliably at 60Hz with no problems at all (at KMart Headquarters, I ran mine at that refresh for several years with no problems because i liked to run at 1600x1200 resolution and my integrated graphics was a 2 MB S3)

Windows 98 will NEVER be as good as XP. XP is built on an entirely different technology and much much much more stable than 98 will ever be. Oh, and the refresh rate prob, thats a minor detail in all the stability that XP offers.

hmm... well tell me this..... have u ever had XP? well i have...... and i can tell you...... 98 is still much better in more than one way..... XP may be the new thing and stuff.. it may have advantages over 98...... but look at the reviews...... 98 is in fact much faster than XP in the real world.... it will take some time for XP to get better....... like for companies to create newer hardware drivers.... but right now... 98 is still DA BOMBS.... oh.... and that 60 Hz thing..... thats only one problem amongst a stack of others..... u'll know what i mean when u fully learn of XP's capabilities...

i use xp pro daily.. and never a problem... fast, fast, fast, fast, fast... and ultra stable... it goes down when i tell it to.

i have never experienced a hang up like always happens with win98 after running 24x7 for a week.... my box runs day and night... my wife is so happy with it, she loves xp. she said she thought all other os's iv'e had sucked ass next to it...

reviews be damned. 98 is fine. use it and love it. but i won't ever go back. soon you will have no choice as yuo upgrade your hardware and they only have xp drivers (and maybe linux drivers too). oh well.

well 98 is fine right now..... until all the problems with xp are fixed.... im just gonna stick with 98... ya its tru that xp is better..... but....... the lack of old software/hardware support shuns people away from it. remember that microsoft copied ideas from mac os.... so xp's look isnt original.

well take a look at MAC OS 9..... what would u have to say about that? and compare its "neatness" to windows ME or 2000, and then compare it to XP... hmmm..... OS 9 still looks smooth.... no clue of pc history? well take a look for yourself..... OS 9 came out in october 23, 1999..... and XP was just released recently...... but still.... XP cannot match the smoothness of OS 9....... now before you ppl start all this bs... y dont u take a look at MAC OS9 and u'll see what im talking about.

Ignore. Delete please.

riksha, I agree that XP will get better and that 98 is a good OS. I guess that I am just pretty lucky (for a change). I have not had any problems with drivers and hardware working under XP. I had more problems under 98.

I also agree that the price is pretty steep. Very steep. Hopefully it will all balance out in the end??

Windows 2000 & XP have superior multitasking and memory handling. It would distribute the available RAM to the programs that need it most and do it most efficiently.

Also, think about this. NT kernel based OS's such as 2K/XP run their applications in 32 bit Native Protected Memory System. This means that every application you run in these OS's has its own dynamically allocated share of RAM. They cannot reach out and f*ck with the OS's share of memory and thus bring Windows down when an application crashes, such as is the case with Windows 9X kernel based OS's.

Just a quick note... what's really cool about 2K/XP is that if Explorer (the Windows shell) crashes, 95% of the time you can bring it back either when it reloads automatically or if it doesn't do that, then you can manually open the Task Manager and call Explorer.exe from there, thus launching the shell again.

have used all the Microsoft OS they have released, from DOS to XP and if the NT kernel isnt there, well, its just not as stable (apart from DOS, man i loved DOS).

only in win98 do you get random BSODs for no apparent reasons, EVEN after a fresh install on a brand new system, it just happens. no doubt 2k/XP can be slower, and no doubt XP takes over 1 gig to install, but what are you expecting?!? a new more advanced, more stable, stacked with features and options operating system which actually takes LESS space than its predecessors? in fact, i can attest to people saying that 2k/XP can be slower (apart from the benchmarks which state that 2k/XP run few frames slower). No doubt if you are trying to run 2k/XP with anything less than a late PIII with less than 256MB ram, you are bound to feel that 2k/XP is slower. Newer OS are built to suck up more resources, just because of the fact that it IS needed!

now, since when has there ever been a trend that newer software require LESS "power" than its predecessors? its called technology advances, and its going to be that way, the next generation of operating systems are no doubt going to suck up even more resources, but by then technology should be advanced enough to be able to handle that, and if you are still trying to run the OS with a previous generation computer, then you are bound to think its a crap piece of software!

98 is no doubt a great operating system, but only in it's time, which was before 2k came out. and when microsoft releases its next few generations of OSes, then XP will become obsolete, will u then still be praising 98? running 98 on your TeraHertz machine with 100Gig of RAM when all developers have stopped supporting 98? yes, 98 WAS a great OS in its time, but living in year 2002, id have to go with XP.

I have been using XP for many months, people complain "lack of drivers", but its only a really SHORT matter of time before manufacturers release updated drivers for your hardware (that is if XP doesnt already support your hardware with their vast library of drivers). If your hardware isnt supported in XP, and your hardware manufacturer has stopped support for that piece of hardware, heres a piece of advice - replace the part, its obsolete (or use it in a 98 system :wink: )

ive been able to run XP without any problems (except the problems i aggravate by doing stupid things) for days on end without shutting down, try running 98 even for a day without getting a BSOD

just my 2 cents worth

You said it well, Mephist. Way to go!!

Windows 9x is extremely poor
im sorry but it is
its kernel isnt fully 32bit which means it has no chance in hell in taking full advantage of current processors

seriously tho, win2k/xp are great performers. YES they may be a little slower than their 9x counterparts in terms of pure fps, but its only like 3-4 fps installing an inferior operating system isnt worth that.
Xp/2k are fine gaming platforms and for networking they are briliant. The networking especially tcp/ip and smb are far superior to that of 9x, changing almsot anything in 9x needs a restart and it just sometimes doesnt even work.

9x crash's randomly and supports only single cpus. It cant handle anything decent, one program crash will send your system down and you'd be lucky to get more than a couple days uptime with regular use before it either BSOD's from a nice big memory leak or just dies anyway. Hell even without use it wont stay up for long, my old win98 gateway machine died about once every 4 days (it could only run win98, dont ask why it was just munted).

Anyway it isnt work staying with 9x anymore, the problems and security holes are siginificant enuff to upgrade your os. i mean you can ICMP nuke most win98 machines and BSOD them which drops their networking.

So if u want a system that works upgrade to 2k/xp or linux but if u want one that performs poorly in most tasks dies randomly and cant handle anything more than a gig of ram stick with your crusty old win9x

Liked 98SE, love XP.

All I can say is for someone as superficial as me, the pretty picture wins everytime.

Both were really stable. I have had some pains with the driver support in XP, but in time it will be fine.

personally i like the look of my xp more than the old 98se look. becoz of my stlye xp themes, etc...also like milhouse said they are both equally stable, and xp is just alot easier...basically everything is plug and play.. cept for maybe vidcards in which you have to ge tthe lastest drivers... but xp is all good.

btw Milhouse...is that you?...

xp isn't so bad..........
pretty pictures
pretty stable
pretty cool!
BTW I like me!!!!!
98se is ok, but I like me's restore functions. I don't like it's lack of backward compatibility for many 98se acceptable drivers though.

The more I use xp, the more I like it!

C:> scanreg /restore

98se has its share of restoring features... this only takes up about 3 megs each restore, instead of 100 megs for XP Much better than ME. This can restore DX versions, even IE versions. It is very good, although not in the OS, which I wish it was.

The problems I have with XP:
Privacy
Compatibility
Price (for Pro)

Other than that XP is just fine(after Playschool buttons are deleted), and just like 2000 which I love more than ever...

Yo guys... Windows 98 and SE are real 32-bit Kernels. There are certain programs that are run by 98 to support DOS and 16-bit apps, but they are NOT part of the Kernel which is 32-bit... otherwise, how would you run all of your 32-bit programs?? heh, use some reasoning for that one. That was a marketing scam... because they removed DOS and 16-bit support.

I have indeed used Windows 95/95B/98/98SE/2000/XP Pro... for all of you that don't think I have

98 is good linux is better

I like W98SE is does the job done. No need right now to upgrade when everything is working fine. I ll give XP a few years to fix all bugs.

well because my ummm fully legal copy of xp got umm trashed i dont have a copy at the mo

just waiting to get a nother ummm fully legal copy

While I no longer use 98SE at home, it is because I develop for W2K servers and they don't play nice across my LAN...

NT/2K/XP are the only way to go for corporate environments and server environments. However, for home environments, the only thing they offer of use is NTFS. Thats all. They offer sandbox stability at the cost of CPU cycles and RAM. Home users don't need that. They offer active directory. They offer granular security and roaming profiles. They offer logging, encryption, remote administration, servers, routing, and on and on. All USELESS for home users.

Yeah, XP offers eye-candy. But all of the normal users I've spoken to have found both 2K and XP more difficult to use, so eye-candy is all it really is.

And theres a lot of stuff added into XP (2K never really was marketed to home users) that no well informed person in their right mind would want there. Like product activation. Or reporting back to microsoft on your media usage. Or passport. etc...

Personally, the ONLY significant improvements I can see for home users are NTFS and better handling of large amounts of RAM. Thats just not enough to make it compelling, as far as I (or any Joe Average I know) am concerned.

at the end of the day, it's all about what you use it for...

..and this was quite an old thread you found

What about the protected memory spaces, premetive multitasking, fully 32 bit kernel, no more 16bit DOS, user accounts / profiles so your children can have just a "user" account and not be able to play with the settings.


There's lots more reasons

what a stupid debate

why don't we compare a 1964 1/2 Pontiac GTO with a HUMMER (a REAL ONE) instead...

I think that would be a better comparison

Ha! your rite Manny! the Pontiac ,aka 98SE would run circles around the Hummer aka XP !!! :P

What do you do in 98SE when a program has hung everything including mouse etc obviously reboot, in XP it wouldn't happen because of the protected memory space, you would just kill the hung offending app with the task manager.

I think Mandark would say XP is better than 98.

I agree with Jason...... I have had NO complaints of XP

yeah papps... and DOS would run circles around 98 as well

I would rather own the HUMMER ANY day..... more fucntional and to me, form follows function

one more note.... i have replaced at least 6 98's with XP's on my families computers... and I have only had two support calls... and that turned out to be a faulty keyboard connecting wire... NOT the OS.

As far as I am concerned.. XP is bullet-proof and rock-solid stable. I really have to give it to MS... they have finally made a nearly indestructable OS.

I also put XP on my Uncle's and told him he would have less problems, this has proved true as he hasn't phoned about problems, just advice.

Because Im the type of person who is never satisfied with my machine.....I can crash anything, even XP. But I got to tell you it does it a lot less than 98.
The more I use XP, the more impressed I am.
Its a smooth, tuff, easy on the eyes operating system and it kicks the sh*t out of 98.....pap, ace.

Very true BigO and it may use a bit more memory and h/disk space but isn't that a trade off for progression.

And its not that memory and hard disks cost a fortune they DON'T.