Page 1 of 1

What are the benefits of 98 over XP?

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:11 am
by InFamousKon
I was just wondering if windows98 would be a better OS for a gaming comp, then winxp?
And is one limited on the hardware and software that is compatible with windows98?

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:29 pm
by liljim
In my opinion, XP is more stable due to the NTFS file system instead of 98's FAT32 system. You also have better directX compatibility, such as 9.0c, which is required for most of your modern games. You should also know that microsoft no longer supports 98, which means patches, updates etc. is no longer offered through microsoft.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:57 pm
by InFamousKon
I was curious about this because of something Un4g1v3n posted, he must have his own reasons for, as he put it:.

Un4g1v3n wrote: I just deleted my XP os and reinstalled 98

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:31 am
by liljim
lol...that caught my eye too but "to each his own" :)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:21 am
by icecube
Some of us go back aways. There are a lot of neat Old Dos Games that don't work in XP.

Here is a link http://www.dosgames.com/g_puz2.php

One I have spent hours on is Heartlight P.C. Its a puzzle solving game. You would put Windows 98 in Dos mode and play away. The old dos games are a different flavor than the games sold today. Pinball machines are gone and slot machines don't pay out coins any more when you hit a jack pot :( :( I guess I'm getting old :mad:

Also Windows 98 is no resource hog. I'm tempted to install Windows 98 on a 512 meg pen drive and boot to usb on one of our work computers--a 98 splash screen on an XP machine would make my boss do a double take. April Fools day isn't far away

PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:54 pm
by opheaches
all the games that i buy are not compatable with win 98

PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:55 pm
by Kestrel
if you want a gaming machine.. forget both 98 and XP... and get yourself a nice clean install of windows 2000... the one singular example by microsoft that they CAN actually write a decent operating system...

so good it ended up as the basis for the most successful new gaming console ever..

the only problem is that some games are now being written for XP/2003 only.. which is a pain... also.. only XP is available in 64 bit versions.. which will slowly force users to upgrade.. but I have my x-box for gaming.. and my pc will be staying 2000 for a while yet.. even though it's an athlon 64 cpu... not until they start bringing out more 64 bot only software...

PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:49 pm
by Un4g1v3n
/enhancepostcount

The reason I said I picked 98 over XP is because of old computer specs. I did upgrade from 98 to 2000.

I'd reccomend 2000 to anyone who wants a gaming computer. Needs low resources, and has high stability like XP.

It's the perfect mix.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 5:13 am
by Kestrel
Un4g1v3n wrote:/enhancepostcount

The reason I said I picked 98 over XP is because of old computer specs. I did upgrade from 98 to 2000.

I'd reccomend 2000 to anyone who wants a gaming computer. Needs low resources, and has high stability like XP.

It's the perfect mix.


lmfao... high stability like XP??? you are joking right??? when it comes to stability.. 2000 makes XP look like a stool with three different length legs..

XP has to be the biggest pile of donkey excrement that microsoft have ever created.. no.. I take that back.. Millenium takes that crown.. but XP comes a very close second..

why they didn't just leave the two systems sperate.. let the masses have their 9x family.. and leave the NT stuff for the serious users.. but no..

oh.. and one more thing.. if a system will run windows 98 SE.. it will run a 2000 Install just as well...

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 6:41 am
by liljim
lmfao... high stability like XP??? you are joking right??? when it comes to stability.. 2000 makes XP look like a stool with three different length legs..

XP has to be the biggest pile of donkey excrement that microsoft have ever created.. no.. I take that back.. Millenium takes that crown.. but XP comes a very close second..


The only thing i can agree with concerns millenium. Millenium was rough to say the least but XP is smooth as silk if you know what your doing. I've been running XP since it was first released and yes it was buggy before sp1 was released. After SP1 and SP2 were released its been a solid OS. XP does use more memory than the others and anything that gets released after XP will require more memory than XP but it can definatly compete with 2000 for stability if you have a decent machine.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:51 pm
by Kestrel
liljim wrote:
lmfao... high stability like XP??? you are joking right??? when it comes to stability.. 2000 makes XP look like a stool with three different length legs..

XP has to be the biggest pile of donkey excrement that microsoft have ever created.. no.. I take that back.. Millenium takes that crown.. but XP comes a very close second..


The only thing i can agree with concerns millenium. Millenium was rough to say the least but XP is smooth as silk if you know what your doing. I've been running XP since it was first released and yes it was buggy before sp1 was released. After SP1 and SP2 were released its been a solid OS. XP does use more memory than the others and anything that gets released after XP will require more memory than XP but it can definatly compete with 2000 for stability if you have a decent machine.


I have to disagree.. there is too much of the 9x core incorporated into XP for it ever to match 2000 for performance or reliability..

far too much control is taken from the user and entrusted to the OS for my liking.. maybe I'm a control freak.. but 2000 is a dream when it comes to support.. and xp is a relative nightmare..

and P.S. I do know what I'm doing.. and I do have a decent machine.. but despite all that.. I'd still rather run 32 bit Win2K on my athlon 64 system.. than use XP64 or even XP32..

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:55 pm
by liljim
I apparently havent experienced the problems with XP that you must have, its been solid for me on both 32 bit and 64 bit machines. I havent had the crashes and lockups that would cause me to label it unstable. I use my machine for gaming, network/internet server, video editing, pretty much everything and its never been unstable or lacked performance. I havent had the opportunity to try XP64 yet but i do look forward to testing it. It will eventually become necessary once the development of 64 bit apps increases. I havent done the research on it so i wonder if a 32 bit app will run on a 64 bit OS? I've been meaning to try the 64 bit turbolinux distro too, its suppose to be as solid as red hat.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:37 am
by Kestrel
liljim wrote:I apparently havent experienced the problems with XP that you must have, its been solid for me on both 32 bit and 64 bit machines. I havent had the crashes and lockups that would cause me to label it unstable. I use my machine for gaming, network/internet server, video editing, pretty much everything and its never been unstable or lacked performance. I havent had the opportunity to try XP64 yet but i do look forward to testing it. It will eventually become necessary once the development of 64 bit apps increases. I havent done the research on it so i wonder if a 32 bit app will run on a 64 bit OS? I've been meaning to try the 64 bit turbolinux distro too, its suppose to be as solid as red hat.


32 bit apps will run absolutely fine on a 64 bit OS.. at least they do on XP64... it includes emulator code for 32 bit addressing.. although you can probably expect to see that disappear in later incarnations as microsoft force the push to full 64bit computing (good or bad.. depends whether you think global technology or consumer cost is more important)..

but compared to 2000.. the XP kernel is just so bloated.. I daresay if it got the xbox treatment that 2K had.. a stripped down HAL specific to hardware.. extraneous code removed.. etc.. it would probably fly.. but the way hardware is manyfactured these days means that any OS we get from now on from the microsoft stable is simply going to be a more bloated version of the last.. with a few minor tweaks.. a GUI overhaul.. and another load of security holes that need filling..

Thread has run amock

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:34 am
by icecube
I can't stop laughing, this thread started Feb 9th and went dead, then opheaches jumped on it March 28 and it really came to "life." It kind of reminds me of that post of Lilpink's from ages back that someone posted to and got her all embarrased.

The Windows 98 segment was so dead that I was thinking that PC Guy might close it out.

Then I notice the XP Windows 2000 discussion :|


Talk about chasing a tangent :lol:

You did catch my interest though, what 64 bit apps are out for consumption right now?

Re: Thread has run amock

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:39 am
by Kestrel
icecube wrote:I can't stop laughing, this thread started Feb 9th and went dead, then opheaches jumped on it March 28 and it really came to "life." It kind of reminds me of that post of Lilpink's from ages back that someone posted to and got her all embarrased.

The Windows 98 segment was so dead that I was thinking that PC Guy might close it out.

Then I notice the XP Windows 2000 discussion :|


Talk about chasing a tangent :lol:

You did catch my interest though, what 64 bit apps are out for consumption right now?


to be honest.. I can't say I've looked a great deal.. one has to assume there is a 64 bit flavour of office out there.. IE64 is a bag of donkey balls.. Firefox64.. (Deer Park Alpha) is still quite buggy.. and compatible with as many sites as firefox originally was..

it's not even worth me switching to XP64 until a.. SP1 comes out (as with every OS microsoft has ever thrust down our throats in a half written state).. and b.. I get more memory in this machine.. 512 MB single channel just isn't going to cut it at that level of bloated windows.. lol