98SE vs. Xp

Mr-Tyler · Post by **Mr-Tyler** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 3:16 pm

I use 98se, i was wondering if i should switch to xp.

but i heard xp sucked. is that true?

I-M nUbee · Post by **I-M nUbee** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 3:58 pm

lets just say this... Windows XP is nice to have as long as you have plenty of Ram to spare. you should at least have a 1ghz processor or better and a 512MB of ram and it should work fine. And I must admit it does have some useful aplications. But win98se i heard works just fine. My advice would be stay with win98se unless you have other people in your house/workplace since xp is known for security. (yeah right!)

Ohayden · Post by **Ohayden** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 4:45 pm

Go Linux with KDE

More bang for your buck.

Sexy|Beast · Post by **Sexy|Beast** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:22 pm

Tyler, I, too was a die-hard 98SE fan and now I have no idea why. My machine used to crash several times a day. I reinstalled 98se probably 10 times in 2 years. Can you say hardware conflict? I built the Frankenstein box out of misc. parts and no amount of driver updating would get it to run smoothly.

So the next time 98SE took the Holy Shit and it was time to re-install, I bought XP Pro and installed it. Holy Crap! This thing had my NIC drivers already (ones that once took me days to find), and logged itself onto the net to get the rest, it finds ALL of your drivers, and installs them right away. I left all my cards in the box and it had no problem installing them all.

I thought XP would be like Windows ME-an over-burdened old mule on quivering little stick legs, but it runs smoother than 98SE ever did! It seriously saved my box from the garbage. It is so much smarter than 98SE too, stuff that you had to spend time configuring before is now done in the background for you. But it still gives you the options to tweak, somewhat.

I am neither computer genius nor dunce and I have also never used Linux. This is all just my opinion, of course and besides, I only use my computer to do internet stuff, make beats, play Wolf, and look at porn. So XP and its's pretty pictures work fine for me and blows the doors off of 98SE IMHO.
hope this helps...

1GHz PIII, 768 MB SDRAM, 128MB DDR vid

=SWAT=Kenny · Post by **=SWAT=Kenny** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:34 pm

xp is not equivalent to me. me was based on 98 and the 16bit kernal. it sucame to the blue screen of death as well as other annoying problems.

xp is full 32bit and is based on nt....which is what 2000 was based on.

xp is a memory hog. the more the better. however i have installed it on a p3 400's and it works fine. i even installed it on a 333 and it worked. the min. memory i would use is 256mb.

if u are familiar with win2k it will be an easy trasition. if not i suggest u tinker around a bit after u instal it. make sure u get all the patches and the sp1 as well.

Der Kammisar · Post by **Der Kammisar** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 7:56 pm

XP should be ok for the average user. But for those who like to tweak thier systems it sucks. It's riddled with these damn wizards that configure everything for you instead of letting you input the stuff u need to get running.

In short it's a pain.

I like Windows 2000 Professional much better, it's heaps more stable than 98 SE, plus it's been out awhile and has many more bug fixes out than XP does.

TEAMMATE-8163 · Post by **TEAMMATE-8163** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 7:57 pm

i used to run my old athlon k7 pro slot A on xp.. it ran fine.

Mr-Tyler · Post by **Mr-Tyler** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:22 pm

Yea i run a
1900+ i think is like 1.8 ghz?
512mb ddr 2700
ti4400 vid
8 mb cache 120mb hd.

98 is good, but i got redhat pro from a friend at school.

i think i might try the redhat on my old shitty emachine piece of junk, and see if i like it.

but if i dont like that, i guess ill try xp.(and maybe get some more ram too!)

SwERvE · Post by **SwERvE** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 5:42 am

Basically it breaks down to what software you want to run. If you have alot of windows only software then your only choice is to dual boot or stick with windows. However linux is much more powerful, requires less ram, keeps every process running independantly, you can use no GUI and get a performance boost, etc... the list go on for days. So if you really want to squeeze the last bit of juice out of your machine I agree with =SWAT=Ohayden, linux is the best. Plus its free, you cant really beat that. Dual booting is more than likely what you will want to do. There are alot of tutorials on the web that will tell you how to do it if you are a daring enough. And a word to all you folks out there wanting to try linux without totally cracking out your machine or destroying everything, there is a linux distrobution that you can burn to a CD and run completely off the CD. This way nothing is ever installed to your harddrive. Its great for trying linux or fixing your comp. You can get it here.

Gyro Gearloose · Post by **Gyro Gearloose** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 12:12 pm

Is everyone in agreement? Would it be a good idea to go with WindowsXP if Windows98 has become unstable (often reboots during RtCW games).

I want to retain my Windows programs and upgrade hardware in steps - starting with the motherboard / CPU / RAM and then the hard drive.

Ohayden · Post by **Ohayden** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 12:34 pm

Personally if your going to stay with Windows, I would recommend Windows 2000 Pro. For some reason I can't see myself using XP. I skipped 98 and ME, and I will do the same with the XP crap. At work I do a lot of R&D for software development. That means I mess with everything and I'm very prone to crashing the OS. Have I crashed 2000 pro? Hell yeah. Was it much less than 9X? Of course! I would recommend to any one, with good hardware, to upgrade from 9X. The stablility is much improved. Would I recommend XP? Only if I hate you.

Your best bet, is to find someone or go to the computer stores and play with both 2000 and XP. 2000 is less bulky than XP.

SHVDKTY (ID) · Post by **SHVDKTY (ID)** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 12:43 pm

well from one guy who is clearly not a computer programmer or in any way related to the computer field.....I have XP Professional. I have never crashed it....used to crash 98 all the time. It is EXTREMELY easy for computer retards like me to use....and have never had a time where I have said damn I wish I could do something that XP won't let me. It works great if you are gonna play games...internet or anything for home use. I like it. Remember I do not program or test software I simply play games and cruise the internet.....and use the fax and email for my business. For guys like me I am really happy with XP.

Gyro Gearloose · Post by **Gyro Gearloose** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 2:33 pm

=SWAT=Ohayden wrote:Personally if your going to stay with Windows, I would recommend Windows 2000 Pro.... Your best bet, is to find someone or go to the computer stores and play with both 2000 and XP. 2000 is less bulky than XP.

I have 2000 at work, but I can't do a lot of experimenting with it, so I don't know how 2000 would handle my existing software and preferences. Most users at work are NOT even allowed to install any programs on their workstation. Due to the nature of my non-MIS job, however, I have had to get special "local admin" and internet permissions. The MIS people are not really happy about this, so I am careful not to abuse my additional priviledges.

I actually like the "traditional" 3.1 interface. I know this is a little strange, but I have folders on my desktop which contain sub-folders; which contain icons for many of my programs - grouped together by function. For instance, I have a "Sound" folder where I have icon shortcuts for "Cool Edit Pro", "Creative Play Center", "Easy CD Creator" and "Winamp", among others. I open only the folder(s) that contain the programs that I am going to use for whatever I plan to do next. This saves precious system resources. My experience with the various versions of Windows has shown me that low system resources have caused many of my Windows lock-up problems.

I've had an "IBM-compatible" computer continuously since 1984, so I have participated (often read as "suffered through") many changes in O/S and programs - very often, so-called "improvements" weren't! Hell, I almost would STILL prefer DOS - and yes, I know that makes me a Prime Candidate for linux; I wish I had the time to learn it - I probably would like it immensely - but there are only so many hours in the day!

And finally, I HATE having to re-install all of my programs and files every time I upgrade the O/S (almost every attempt to upgrade windows versions over a "running" older version has failed - for 1 reason or another. I have had to start from scratch by installing my original Windows9x 'OEM' version - upgrade over that - then re-install all programs and, finally, restore my data. I have pretty much given up the idea of doing a "straight" upgrade.

TEAMMATE-8163 · Post by **TEAMMATE-8163** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:42 pm

never had probs upgrading a windows OS. i guess it all depends on your hardware.

Gyro Gearloose · Post by **Gyro Gearloose** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:57 pm

I think it depends on how many changes were made to the O/S and programs since the original installation. Certain programs leave pieces of themselves in the registry. "Instant Messenger" programs are notorious for causing this problem.

Programs also sometimes replace DLL's that were also required by other programs. These new DLL versions sometimes are not compatible or useable by the older programs that also need them.

banimod / etpro / ettv forums

98SE vs. Xp

98SE vs. Xp

Software