Windows 98 vs. XP

Really Not All That Bright · #1 06-26-2003, 03:05 AM

This will require opinions to answer in some degree but it seems to fit better here...

I just had a friend help me build a computer to replace my trusty HP Pavilion which died the other day with a bunch of Crisis in the Hard Drive! noises.

Anyway, its based around an AMD Athlon 2600, with an nVidia Nforce 2 chipset; 512 megs of RAM and a 40 gig (going to 80 when its back in stock at my component store) hard drive.

Anyway, I installed Windows 98 SE because I had a copy already- is it worth going to XP? My friend suggested that 98 isn't adequate because it wasn't designed with systems running at over 2 GHz in mind.

Any suggestions on a) a technical level, regarding whether I'm losing performance with 98, and b) a preference level... is XP buggier? etc., would be much appreciated.

Eleusis · #2 06-26-2003, 03:09 AM

XP is a much more stable environment. If a program crashes, it won't (read shouldn't) bring down the whole OS.

Blake · #3 06-26-2003, 03:15 AM

My experience has been the exact oposite. I was offered my choice of operating sytems with my latest machine and opted for XP. Bad choice. Every single time a program stops responding it seizes the whole system. No chance to us the task manager because everything seizes. Total reboot required.

I have since istalled my copy of 98 from the old machine. No problems.

My personal experience is go with 98. Not excatly scientific but it's a vote.

milk milk lemonade · #4 06-26-2003, 03:26 AM

98:

still up to date through directx9
plays all your old games
very fast explorer interface
you need applications for zip, CD writing, etc
needs APIC disabled in BIOS to resolve interrupt problems
you need to be savvy about drivers and install issues
can be less stable than NT/2k/XP variants

XP:

does it all for you
pretty, although slow, explorer interface
supports new hardware
crashing apps do not take down the system

Home use: My vote goes to 98 for speed and backward compatibility.

Office use: XP for stability and network roll-outs.

Balthisar · #5 06-26-2003, 05:25 AM

How about Linux running VMWare or win4lin? That way if your Windows system crashes, it doesn't bring down your whole computer. And with VMWare you can install multiple Windowses (how do pluralize a plural?).

Really Not All That Bright · #6 06-26-2003, 05:31 AM

You'll have to excuse me... I'm not entirely up to speed on a lot to do with PCs... I didn't know you could run more than one operating system... but wouldn't that suck up a metric crapload of memory anyway?

engineer_comp_geek · #7 06-26-2003, 06:02 AM

Multiple operating systems will take up disk space, but since you can only run one at a time they don't conflict over memory usage.

I dual boot 98 and XP just because I need the compatibility of 98 for some software and I like XP for internet access and office apps and such.

The last time I looked at the various windows emulators for linux they still weren't quite ready for prime time. They are a lot better than they used to be, but not quite ready as a general substitute for a windows OS.

There's no performance issue with a 2+ GHz machine and 98. In fact, because 98 is designed to run on slower processors, you'll have more spare cpu cycles for your software under 98 than you would under XP. On either machine, with a cpu that fast you aren't going to notice the difference in operating systems performance.

Microsoft is rather poor about keeping the application interface consistant between various windows versions (they will gladly break compatibility to make the OS "better"). Also, NT versions (NT, 2000, XP) have a "hardware abstraction layer" which doesn't allow software to directly access the hardware. This is what protects the core of the operating system from misbehaving programs (which is why it's a lot easier to lock up a 98 box than an XP box) but it also causes a lot of incompatibility with software, especially older games. Depending on what software you run, you may find that a lot of things don't work under XP.

Really Not All That Bright · #8 06-26-2003, 06:39 AM

Older games are my raison d'etre ;-) so this is not encouraging news...

On the other hand, now that I'm not hand cranking a P233, I can actually play new games... ooo....

Balthisar · #9 06-26-2003, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by engineer_comp_geek
The last time I looked at the various windows emulators for linux they still weren't quite ready for prime time. They are a lot better than they used to be, but not quite ready as a general substitute for a windows OS.

You're right about Windows emulators. WINE pretty-much sucks, and the others don't seem promising. VMWare, though, isn't a Windows emulator. It's a virtual machine (like Virtual PC on my Mac). It has a full, licensed install of my Win98 and WinXP on it. It's only a hair slower then booting up natively, since it is a virtual machine and the hardware is emulated. Virtual PC on the Mac (and there's a Windows version) works the same way. Except on the Mac it's slower since besides the hardware it must emulate the processor. I'm using the 30-day demo of VMWare, though, so I don't know what I'll do when it expires. Maybe see if work has a site-license or something. There's no Virtual PC for Linux, unfortunately, and now that Microsoft bought it from Connectix, it's doubtful there will be.

mallocks · #10 06-26-2003, 07:12 AM

I'm with engineer_comp_geek on this one, dual boot 98 and XP, if something doesn't work in XP, I run it in 98. Works for me.

DougC · #11 06-26-2003, 07:52 AM

- - - WinXP runs quite a bit slower than Win98 does on the same machine, and it crashes a lot also (at least in my case). When it crashes it totally hangs; that BFD "task manager" doesn't work. Either the whole system freezes so you can't even open the task manager,,, or you select and end the task, and it ends-- and then--- nothing--(everything is still locked up)-- that task is gone (as far as you know) but you get no more response than before. Or the whole desktop and icons disappear and keyboard input doesn't work, so you have to do a hardware reboot anyway. My PC setup is all about 4 years old, all assembled out of name-brand parts that got good reviews at the time, and that 98SE runs just about perfect. In particular XP doesn't like hardware drivers at all, unless they're approved by MS for XP, but of course most you find aren't, unless it's for something totally brand-new. The only thing I have found that XP does that 98SE doesn't is that my PC on 98SE won't run virtual drives at all with any of several CD-copying programs I tried, but it will run those same programs just fine on XP.
- My copy of XP is a P2P copy, which some have pointed out may be why it doesn't work well. I kinda doubt that myself, because it continues to update and otherwise function properly, in between crashes. There are too many instances of it doing things wrong or locking up to relate here. The advanced features aren't that useful: the different accounts aren't really totally separate (they share machine settings such as screen resolution) and aren't secure (to use the pushbutton log-on screen, one pushbutton has to be set up with admin rights---WTF was the point of that!?!?!?!). At the moment I'm not using XP at all, because something in the startup has been messed up and it takes like 45 minutes to start. And I switch back and forth between XP and 98 because there is software and hardware I have that 98 runs just fine, but that won't work at all in XP.
~

Dogzilla · #12 06-26-2003, 08:55 AM

I've been researching XP in comparison to Mac OSX. Here's a few links I found. My conclusion: I would rather gnaw my own foot off than install XP. The system is not secure, among other startling and shocking revelations.

Happy reading!

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992646
http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_det...m?scrap_id=704
http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm
http://www.internetweek.com/pages/xp4

http://archive.infoworld.com/article...livingston.xml
http://www.vanderwal.net/random/entrysel.php?blog=682
http://news.com.com/2009-1001-274436...y=cnet&tag=owv
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupda...880079,00.html
http://www.observer.co.uk/business/s...577675,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2...1/3582457s.htm

DreadCthulhu · #13 06-26-2003, 09:06 AM

I would go with XP - I have found it to be vasty more stable than 98; I got crashes every couple of days with 98, but with XP I have gone months without even turning my computer off. If you don't like the "fisher-price" GUI on XP, it is pretty simple to change it so it looks and acts like 98. Keep the 98 on dual boot for the older games through.

keithnmick · #14 06-26-2003, 09:49 AM

You might want to stay away from XP but upgrade to Windows 2K - I did that when configuring my current workstation here at work. I run a lot of apps simultaneously and I can honestly say that I haven't had a system crash since I got the machine in March.
I run 98 at home and while good, I still get the occasional blue screen of death.

engineer_comp_geek · #15 06-26-2003, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by keithnmick
You might want to stay away from XP but upgrade to Windows 2K

Microsoft is great at hiding simple truths behind some really spiffy advertising hype. If you look at how the operating systems identify themselves, you get a much clearer picture of what is going on.

Windows 95 identifies itself as Windows 4.0.
Windows 98 identifies itself as Windows 4.1.
Windows ME identifies itself as Windows 4.2.

NT 4.0 identifies itself as NT 4.0
Windows 2000 identifies itself as NT 5.0
Windows XP identifies itself as NT 5.1

95, 98, and ME are all minor version changes in the same product line. You'd expect software that runs on one to have a very good chance of running on any of the others in this series, which is pretty much true.

2000 is a major version jump up from NT, but is basically still part of the NT line. 2000 and XP, despite the major facelift changes, are very close underneath the hood. XP is really only a minor upgrade to 2000. Generally speaking, most software that works under 2000 will work under XP, and vice-versa.

You end up with the most software incompatibilities when you jump from one product line to the other, due to the fact that the underlying structure of the NT product is completely different than the underlying structure of the windows product.

With windows XP, microsoft "merged" the two product lines together, which is a total load of doublespeak crap. They didn't merge anything. They killed off the windows line. From here on out we all run NT whether we like it or not. However, they did put a lot of work into making XP more compatible with older windows software, which means that out of the NT line, XP is the most compatible with windows 9.x software. In my experience it's only been marginally better than 2000 though.

handy · #16 06-26-2003, 11:32 AM

"You might want to stay away from XP but upgrade to Windows 2K"

XP has drivers for home based products so use it in the home.

"512 megs of RAM and a 40 gig"

512 megs doesn't do much for W98. It's too much, get XP, it can handle that kind of memory better.

DougC · #17 06-26-2003, 04:04 PM

Quote:

512 megs doesn't do much for W98. It's too much, get XP, it can handle that kind of memory better.

- - - Cite? No offense, but I have heard lots of different figures for how much RAM 98 can "use", and none of them were direct from Microsoft--they only publish a minimum, which is what? 32? I have heard as low as 192 megs, and I have read a few program supprt FAQ's that said lot of people have problems if they install more than 512 megs (in Win98)..... -but I have a few programs that are RAM-resident, such as Paint Shop Pro--in which, both the program executable and the image file you are working with must both fit in RAM at the same time, and I know from an older Win98 machine I have that came with 64 megs and I later bought another 256 for that there was definitely a huge increase in the file sizes that PSP would allow working with--so I'd be willing to bet that it very well can use more than 192 megs.....
---------
It seems to me that the only people who would really "know" such technical details are the ones familiar with the source code, and they don't seem to like revealing much.
~

Really Not All That Bright · #18 06-26-2003, 08:49 PM

Thanks for all the responses... keep 'em coming, please!

Incidentally, since I can't be bothered to run them on double boot (unless someone can explain how in 5 easy steps) sticking with 98 appears to be winning right now...

cstamets · #19 06-26-2003, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dutchboy208
Thanks for all the responses... keep 'em coming, please!

Incidentally, since I can't be bothered to run them on double boot (unless someone can explain how in 5 easy steps) sticking with 98 appears to be winning right now...

How about 3 easy steps?

Partition the hard drive into 2 partitions, splitting the size as needed (XP takes up more space the 98, but if you have a lot of software you're only going to use in 98, you may want to give 98 more space)

Install Windows 98 to the first partition.

Install Windows XP to the second partition. The XP install will install the boot loader to enable you to choose between 98 and XP.

Fairly simple process. There are some decisions that need to be made. The partition split is one. You can choose to create 2 primary partitions, hiding your OSes from each other, or you can create a primary and a logical, allowing XP to see the 98 partition, and 98 to see the Xp partition if you don't format it NTFS.

I think with that computer, you're likely to find that XP is just fine and you would be spending less and less time in 98 anyway. The older games are probably going to be your only reason for needing 98 at all, if they don't run on XP with ot without compatibility mode.

engineer_comp_geek · #20 06-26-2003, 11:25 PM

Windows 98 will work fine with 512 MB of RAM. Just don't add any more than that.

http://support.microsoft.com/default...EN-US;q253912&

The article has instructions on what to do if you do have more RAM than that also.

Dual booting is as simple as installing 98 first then XP. Make sure you install a new copy of XP to somewhere other than your C:\WINDOWS directory (in other words, answer no when it says upgrade your existing windows). XP will automatically install a boot manager that will give you a choice between booting 98 and XP when you start the machine.

Don't let XP "upgrade" the partition to NTFS. It's a one way trip (you can't convert it back without wiping the partition and starting over) and 98 can't handle the NTFS partition without some major fiddling.

It's a little easier on your sanity if you partition the drive and keep all the 98 stuff on one partition and all the xp stuff on the other partition, but it's not a requirement.

milk milk lemonade · #21 06-27-2003, 05:47 AM

create 2 primary partitions

how do you do this on a single hdd

Read_Neck · #22 06-27-2003, 06:27 AM

You can partition a harddrive into 4 primary partitions max. Fdisk will do it and there are several programs such as Partition Magic that use a GUI.

milk milk lemonade · #23 06-27-2003, 06:39 AM

Apologies, I was just wondering what the point of different primary partitions was.

Until you set logical drives within the partitions Windows is impotent.

Didn't think about other OSes though. My bad.

Read_Neck · #24 06-27-2003, 09:48 AM

If you google it, there are many good "howto"s on partitioning. I use a 60 gig partitioned into 3 primaries. One for XP,one for Slackware (Linux) and one for any new OS. My XP partition is split in a 4 gig C: and a 16 gig D: which cuts down on defragging time.

Regarding the OP. I have installed XP on a 300Mhz pentium II with 128 meg of RAM and it's very stable and surprisingly fast when you turn off System Restore and all the unnecesary services. With a small C: drive and a D: for backing up your personal stuff,you put the install CD in,reboot and have a brand new clean install in 30-40 minutes.

handy · #25 06-27-2003, 10:12 AM

" Install Windows XP to the second partition. The XP install will install the boot loader to enable you to choose between 98 and XP."

I assume XP asks if you want to do this when you install it?

Read_Neck · #26 06-27-2003, 12:40 PM

Exactly,98 almost has to go on the first partition. Xp will give you an option of where to put it. 98 won't.

DougC · #27 06-27-2003, 06:47 PM

Quote:

" Install Windows XP to the second partition. The XP install will install the boot loader to enable you to choose between 98 and XP."

I assume XP asks if you want to do this when you install it?

- - - Yep. If you choose to install XP on another partition from 98 or whatever, XP even puts its own OS selector in there if you have another selector installed already and don't even want XP's. The selection delay defaults to 25 seconds, but you can shorten it to as little as 5 seconds. -3 seconds, if you're brave. The news from the trenches is that many computers can't start XP at all with this setting put at less than 3 seconds.
~

Panzerfaust · #28 06-27-2003, 08:04 PM

Just keep in mind: XP Professional, not XP Home Edition.

Home Edition, I've been made to understand by several friends more knowledgable than myself, is loaded with spyware and other evil, foul binary entities bent on no less than making you hate life.

ambushed · #29 06-27-2003, 10:22 PM

I'm sticking with 98 SE until something forces me to update, and even then I won't want to abandon it. That means that I won't buy a name-brand pre-packaged system, since many (possibly all) not only come pre-installed with XP, but also set up some malevolent thing on the mboard which prohibits you from installing 98 SE no matter what you do. (Anyone know more about that dirty trick?)

I can't tell you how profoundly, vitally important it's been for repairing accidental file and partition corruption (and for other needs) to be able to run real DOS. Ain't no such thing under XP.

spinky · #30 06-28-2003, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Panzerfaust
Just keep in mind: XP Professional, not XP Home Edition.

Home Edition, I've been made to understand by several friends more knowledgable than myself, is loaded with spyware and other evil, foul binary entities bent on no less than making you hate life.

You're gonna have to back that kind of wild-ass claim up with a cite, because your friends don't know what they're talking about. XP Home is the "dumbed down" version of XP Pro, with some of the more advanced features disabled (and the price dropped) so it's more palatable to the home user.

Urban Ranger · #31 06-28-2003, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dogzilla
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992646

Oh yes, I remember this fundamental flaw.

Very amusing.

Urban Ranger · #32 06-28-2003, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Read_Neck
You can partition a harddrive into 4 primary partitions max. Fdisk will do it and there are several programs such as Partition Magic that use a GUI.

AFAIK, you can only have one primary partition.

YourOldBuddy · #33 06-28-2003, 06:50 AM

Win 98 is a very unstable POS. Win 98 cannot address more than 512mb memory. Only MS OS worse than win 98 is win ME. XP is alot more stable and the latest servicepacks have improved it.

Win 2000 is the most stable MS OS there is. XP home is not full of Spyware. It does have some but they seem pretty innocent and easy to erase using Spybot. XP is very easy to set up and has the biggest driver collection.

Im a freelance technician working mostly for home users.

Balthisar · #34 06-28-2003, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
AFAIK, you can only have one primary partition.

Nope. Four. But in fdisk terminology, you can only have one active partitition. That doesn't mean the others are not active; it means they don't boot.

handy · #35 06-28-2003, 11:02 AM

"Home Edition, I've been made to understand by several friends more knowledgable than myself, is loaded with spyware "

Are you talking about online activation? The corp version doesn't require that, I guess & if you get XP Home with a bios lock xp version, you don't have to activate. My Dell is that way.

nameless · #36 06-28-2003, 11:04 AM

The answer, no matter what the question, is Mac OS X.

You're welcome.

-nameless

Really Not All That Bright · #37 06-28-2003, 11:27 AM

Related question- out of the 512 megs of RAM, how much should be reserved for running video apps.?

(I'm not running any particularly high drain games.)

Charlie Tan · #38 06-28-2003, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by handy
"Home Edition, I've been made to understand by several friends more knowledgable than myself, is loaded with spyware "

Are you talking about online activation? The corp version doesn't require that, I guess & if you get XP Home with a bios lock xp version, you don't have to activate. My Dell is that way.

The corporate edition of XP pro doesn't need activating. This is because the guy doing the installation on a 100+ workstation in an office, won't have to activate every single one. This doen't mean that XP pro is free of the activating thing "out of box experience" in MS-talk.

Back to the OP -

I think W2K is the best OS MS has made. However, I don't regret upgrading to XP. There are some features that I wouldn't want to be without, such as system restore. The disney-esque interface doesn't bother me so much and after using it, since the release, I'm used to it. There are som features that need to be killed, though, since they suck up RAM and CPU at an alarming rate. Lotsa online guides for that. It was pure hell turning off MSN messenger, but I finally got rid of the stupid thing. Having worked with NT4.0, W2K and now XP since '99, I have to say I find NTFS vastly superior to FAT32. There is no way I would ever go back to W95, 98, Me, simply because I want controll over my computer. If this means a little more work when setting it up, downloading drivers ASF, then so be it. W98 and Me suck.

(on preview)
That's more a question about what videocard you have, dutchboy 208. The more memory it has, the better. And more expensive. 64 mb should do.

Really Not All That Bright · #39 06-28-2003, 03:43 PM

What exactly does system restore do?

The video card is an nvidia nforce 2. Wait... is that the 3d card? are they the same thing? I'm so confused...

handy · #40 06-28-2003, 04:39 PM

System restore restores the system to a working version :-)

Some guy made a pretty interesting CD restore program & you all might want to look at it, you download it (about 3megs):
http://www.911cd.net/

"The 911 Rescue CD is an integrated CD-ROM that contains many diagnostics and repairing tools all easily accessed through the 911 Menu, it allows the access to the CDROM drives, the network shares, or both of them at the same time, it also includes the Microsoft Windows 2000/xp Professional Setup files, the Microsoft Windows 98/Me Setup files."

handy · #41 06-28-2003, 04:48 PM

System restore restores the system to a working version :-)

Some guy made a pretty interesting CD restore program & you all might want to look at it, you download it (about 3megs):
http://www.911cd.net/

"The 911 Rescue CD is an integrated CD-ROM that contains many diagnostics and repairing tools all easily accessed through the 911 Menu, it allows the access to the CDROM drives, the network shares, or both of them at the same time, it also includes the Microsoft Windows 2000/xp Professional Setup files, the Microsoft Windows 98/Me Setup files."

Panzerfaust · #42 06-28-2003, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ntucker
You're gonna have to back that kind of wild-ass claim up with a cite, because your friends don't know what they're talking about. XP Home is the "dumbed down" version of XP Pro, with some of the more advanced features disabled (and the price dropped) so it's more palatable to the home user.

A cite would only be required if I gave two shits whether or not your found my comment credible. Apathy is awesome!

Really Not All That Bright · #43 06-28-2003, 07:07 PM

Easy tiger...

biqu · #44 06-28-2003, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nameless

The answer, no matter what the question, is Mac OS X.

You're welcome.

-nameless

According to forum descriptions, witnessing belongs in GD.

Your point would have merit if the OP had not mentioned already being in possession of a custom-built machine made with x86 components. While Apple might be developing a port of OS X for the x86 architecture, such an option is not currently available to the OP, unless he happens to be an Apple software developer with access to the project.

Really Not All That Bright · #45 06-28-2003, 10:12 PM

... and he does not so happen ;-)

Daikona · #46 06-28-2003, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blake
My experience has been the exact oposite. I was offered my choice of operating sytems with my latest machine and opted for XP. Bad choice. Every single time a program stops responding it seizes the whole system. No chance to us the task manager because everything seizes. Total reboot required.

That's been my experience too. On top of that, I really miss backwards compatibility. I'm seriously tempted on a regular basis to go back to 98. That had a breaking in period, but I could get it settled down eventually. I've had XP for almost a year now, and it just keeps getting worse. :-p

DougC · #47 06-28-2003, 11:12 PM

- - - I suppose I am not being fair to WinXP: I expected it to run faster than 98 (on the same computer, with the same amount of RAM), be fully backwards-compatible with all 98 programs and drivers, and bring some new useful functions. That would have been a better product. It is none of these things, and MS is to blame.
- MS broke a huge number of programs and drivers, because they wish to move towards a ever-more complex kernel architecture (the exact opposite of what is known to work best) that will allow them to enforce DRM. I know I never asked for that, did any of you? ......The other problem I have with MS is I tend to wonder how much they care about releasing buggy products--they make a lot of revenue off of corporate support services. The OS fiasco makes more sense if you put the cart before the horse: they come out with a new OS when most of the bugs have been found and most of the maintenance contracts are over on the older OS's.......
~

nameless · #48 06-28-2003, 11:31 PM

Quote:

According to forum descriptions, witnessing belongs in GD.

Ah, the Mac addict's worldview summarized in one snide comment. Brilliant.

Quote:

Your point would have merit if the OP had not mentioned already being in possession of a custom-built machine made with x86 components.

Unfortunately, I didn't really have a point. I was just trying to kick up dust/be a typical Mac evangelist.

And I wouldn't really hold out for an x86 version of OS X. With the G5, Apple's processor issues are at least forestalled, if not terminated.

/thread hijack

As far as Windows operating systems go, I, as an early adopter, cannot resist the latest version of anything. So my advice is to go with XP pro. As it is the newest version of the Windows OS, it will most likely be the best supported and most updated version from this point out.

Or, you could buy yourself a shiny new PowerMac G5 with OS X (10.3) preinstalled on it. Wouldn't that be lovely?