PDA

View Full Version : should I use win XP or win 98?



gmot_ka
09-14-2004, 07:38 AM
Hello,

I have to install windos on my system. But which one should I install? My problem is that I have not a very good system. What I have:

AMD 1800+
512 MB ram
Radeon 8500 pro.

I think that sometimes my processor is not fast enough. I have the BOE addon. In a mission where I had to escord B17 bombers I got a framerate of 16 fps on excellent and on very low graphics settings. So the limitation comes from the CPU.

So, I don't know if it makes sense too install win XP. What do you think?

thanks.

gmot_ka
09-14-2004, 07:38 AM
Hello,

I have to install windos on my system. But which one should I install? My problem is that I have not a very good system. What I have:

AMD 1800+
512 MB ram
Radeon 8500 pro.

I think that sometimes my processor is not fast enough. I have the BOE addon. In a mission where I had to escord B17 bombers I got a framerate of 16 fps on excellent and on very low graphics settings. So the limitation comes from the CPU.

So, I don't know if it makes sense too install win XP. What do you think?

thanks.

DuxCorvan
09-14-2004, 07:46 AM
XP is far more stable and resource-wise than 98. The only issue is its incompatibility with some DOS and Windows 95 based old programs.

As for that mission with B17s, you must know that big bombers are frame killers, specially when they appear together in big numbers.

Using XP will improve your Windows experience -specially not having those hangs and blue screens so often- and maybe even FB performance, but it's unlikely to improve your frame rate significally.

Tully__
09-14-2004, 07:58 AM
Having used both, WinXP!

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)
Joysticks & FB (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/sticks.htm)

Salut
Tully

nearmiss
09-14-2004, 08:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gmot_ka:
Hello,

I have to install windos on my system. But which one should I install? My problem is that I have not a very good system. What I have:

AMD 1800+
512 MB ram
Radeon 8500 pro.

I think that sometimes my processor is not fast enough. I have the BOE addon. In a mission where I had to escord B17 bombers I got a framerate of 16 fps on excellent and on very low graphics settings. So the limitation comes from the CPU.

So, I don't know if it makes sense too install win XP. What do you think?

thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WINXP - Backward compatibility is built into XP so you can go back and run the old sims and games that used Win98. The max competent memory use in Win98 was 512M.

I suggest you do a cheap upgrade and add one more stick of 512 memory. Combat flight sims are ram memory hogs, because there is so much math processing required to simulate combat flight.

Forget about Win98 (buggy as heck as well). WinXP will also work well with all the newer games and sims, and Win98 will not.

It's a no-brainer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://avsims.com/portal/modules/liens/images/banner.gif (http://avsims.com/portal/)

SlickStick
09-14-2004, 08:08 AM
Listen to the smart folks above. WinXP is head and shoulders above Win98 in terms of stability, compatibility and the fact that most of the accessories are built-in already.

I always hated that everytime I re-installed Win98SE, I always had to go get a picture viewing program or add Win Zip or some other thing that is native to WinXP these days.

Once you go XP, you'll never go back. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

___________________________
çk"*¯k 2004

http://imageshack.us/files/sigSpitIX.JPG
Coming Soon to a Six near you...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

mortoma
09-14-2004, 08:12 AM
I disagree, Win98 is not nearly as unstable as what they claim, nor is XP as stable as what they claim. I have a degree in computer engineering and been messing with computers for a long time and I have an A+ cert. I am a local guru to many people and have gotten called to help fix problems on hundred of PCs. While you are correct that XP manages resource ( in some ways ) better than Win98/ME, if configured and tweaked correctly, Win98/ME is extremely stable!!! I can leave my Win98 running for days at a time if I wish. Plus, the people I know who have XP have a lot more headaches than those I know that still run WIn98/ME!! I have been involved in situations with WinXP that left me pulling out my hair and bad probelms with XP always seem to be worse and harder to fix than Win98/ME. XP is more vulnerable to trojans, worms and viruses ( virus writers and hackers no longer exploit old OSs ) and being hacked than ME or 98 is, so that accounts for many of my bad experiences. People I know who have XP get their computers locked up more than I do running Win98 too, and have to reboot. I now have a hard drive which I have installed XP on and can run it at any time I wish but I choose to run my Win98SE install more and that's the one I run FB on. I have fewer problem with my install of Win98 than I do my XP!! WinXP manages resources better in only one way, it recovers resources better, once GDI and User resources run low in Win98/SE, they won't come back as well, if at all. But Win98SE actually has some advantages running FB!!! Since the RAM footprint of Win98/ME is smaller than XP, it devotes more RAM to games like FB out of a certain amount, like say 1GB of RAM for example. What I do to play FB is reduce my background programs to only systray and explorer and boot up like that, then play FB for a while. Then I'll set up the PC to run the other stuff, like anti-virus and such and reboot again to cruise the internet. In this way, I use about 800MB of my total system RAM for running games like FB. Whereas with XP, I can only get about 600Mb of RAM for games like FB!!

[This message was edited by mortoma on Tue September 14 2004 at 07:21 AM.]

Von_Zero
09-14-2004, 08:25 AM
I kinda agree with mortoma, here, but i have to make one little tiny observation:
Win XP+SP2
For quite a long i had a dial-up conection and runner 98, Rrrely catched a virus (the worst i can remember was win32...something, evades me atm, but it only multiplied himself without doing much harm). Then i switces to Xp. OMG! i'm not the kind of guy that updates his SO, so, it was simply Horrible! even on a dial-up, wich i was using ocasionaly, i was overwhelemed by trojans,worms,...etc. then i simultaneously switched to cable and Win Xp+SP2. since this day never had one single problem...
my sugestion is to get WinXp+SP2, especialy if you plan upgrading (wich would be wise, especialy the video card).

http://www.d13-th.com/user/mytzu/RO4_16.jpg

mortoma
09-14-2004, 08:35 AM
I get called by my brother to fix his XP troubles nearly night and day. While I run Win98 ( took years to learn to get win98 stable, though ) with nary a hitch at all, just runs fabulous!!! Even when I get all the viruses and stuff like adware off of his computer and kill a lot of unnecessary services and background programs, his computer is always locking up and acting like garbage. Same thing for a friend of mine, his computer runs like craps. When I get lock ups on my Win98 install, 9 times out of 10 it's only the application I'm running that locks up, not the OS itself, so I can recover without reboot, not so with my XP drive, the one I seldom use. I get all sorts of comments from people like, "You should be more modern and up to date and run XP." and they sometimes nearly laugh at me. But I will get the last laugh most times. While they are having trouble everyday, I am up and running.

mortoma
09-14-2004, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Zero:
I kinda agree with mortoma, here, but i have to make one little tiny observation:
Win XP+SP2
For quite a long i had a dial-up conection and runner 98, Rrrely catched a virus (the worst i can remember was win32...something, evades me atm, but it only multiplied himself without doing much harm). Then i switces to Xp. OMG! i'm not the kind of guy that updates his SO, so, it was simply Horrible! even on a dial-up, wich i was using ocasionaly, i was overwhelemed by trojans,worms,...etc. then i simultaneously switched to cable and Win Xp+SP2. since this day never had one single problem...
my sugestion is to get WinXp+SP2, especialy if you plan upgrading (wich would be wise, especialy the video card).

http://www.d13-th.com/user/mytzu/RO4_16.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My brother got SP2 and now he has more trouble than ever!! So it doesn't work for everybody. SP2 can and has been a nightmare for some people.

nearmiss
09-14-2004, 08:46 AM
Win98 is not as stable as WinXP. You may have the ability to work through "your" issues, but most computer users don't.

There are recovery options built in as part of XP as well.

Probably, the most important part is... You can use the XP and it will be supported through the next generation of softwares.

I've still got a Win98, which I used to run the old Jane's sims. I got ready of that old nag and I now run all of my old sims, including WW2 FIghters, in WinXP smooth as silk.

I wouldn't argue with your experiences with XP, but we don't know the whole story. It is astonishing how many ways people can mess up the works.

I run a dual boot Win2000 server and WinXp Pro, and I have absolutely no problems with either.

I suggest XP is the better system for current users for one simple reason...it is current and being supported.

No one is attacking you for being big on Win98, but it's like keeping an old car... You know you need a new one, but it's still a good old car. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://avsims.com/portal/modules/liens/images/banner.gif (http://avsims.com/portal/)

mortoma
09-14-2004, 08:49 AM
Blackdeath track, FPS:

My install of XP:
2004-09-02 14:04:41 - IL2FB
Frames: 5485 - Time: 155777ms - Avg: 35.210 - Min: 12 - Max: 74

My install of WIn98SE:
2004-02-29 12:31:53 - IL2FB
Frames: 6522 - Time: 155194ms - Avg: 42.024 - Min: 16 - Max: 56

As you can see, my average is better with Win98, with exactly the same settings, both min and max are lower and higher, respectively, with XP.
Seems to be smoother with Win98, over all. I set up everything exactly the same in both installs.
Only difference is the Nvidia driver, which is different from Win98 to XP.

mortoma
09-14-2004, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
Win98 is not as stable as WinXP. You may have the ability to work through "your" issues, but most computer users don't.

There are recovery options built in as part of XP as well.

Probably, the most important part is... You can use the XP and it will be supported through the next generation of softwares.

I've still got a Win98, which I used to run the old Jane's sims. I got ready of that old nag and I now run all of my old sims, including WW2 FIghters, in WinXP smooth as silk.

So...no one is attacking you for being big on Win98, but it's like keeping an old car... You know you need a new one, but it's still a good old car. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://avsims.com/portal/&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://avsims.com/portal/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)


I am curently not having any issues to work through, nor have I for quite a while!! What issues are you referring to?? Besides, your are asking me to ignore the huge amount of trouble I have experienced with Win XP. By the way, I have both a new "car" and and old one!! You apparently didn't read my post well enough, as I wrote that I do indeed have a hard drive with WinXP on it. Just don't really need it for much. I can boot into it any time I want and play FB on it if I wish. Just don't need to is all.

[This message was edited by mortoma on Tue September 14 2004 at 08:00 AM.]

mortoma
09-14-2004, 09:05 AM
Nearmiss wrote:

"WINXP - Backward compatibility is built into XP so you can go back and run the old sims and games that used Win98. The max competent memory use in Win98 was 512M.


This urban legend refuses to die!! Win98SE and ME can easily use 1GB of RAM, with a tiny tweak
it will not only recognize it, but utilize it!! After a game of FB, my system usually reports that it has used over 900Mb of my 1GB of RAM. So please don't pereptuate old wive's tales!! I use most of my 1GB RAM running Win98 every day, please!!! Another computer expert here?? Eveyone thinks they're a PC expert. I can see they're not.

nearmiss
09-14-2004, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Nearmiss wrote:

"WINXP - Backward compatibility is built into XP so you can go back and run the old sims and games that used Win98. The max competent memory use in Win98 was 512M.


This urban legend refuses to die!! Win98SE and ME can easily use 1GB of RAM, with a tiny tweak
it will not only recognize it, but utilize it!! After a game of FB, my system usually reports that it has used over 900Mb of my 1GB of RAM. So please don't pereptuate old wive's tales!! I use most of my 1GB RAM running Win98 every day, please!!! Another computer expert here?? Eveyone thinks they're a PC expert. I can see they're not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't get your panties in a knot. The original poster asked for a recommendation.

I recommend XP because it is a current OS. WinXp is being currently supported and has more potential for use with future sims and games.

Also, I have no problems with it...and I don't have to tweak nuttin'.

http://avsims.com/portal/modules/liens/images/banner.gif (http://avsims.com/portal/)

stubby
09-14-2004, 09:23 AM
WinXP is the ticket. I've had zero problems since upgrading from win98SE. Win98SE isn't as polished as WinXP. For gaming, XP has been way better in terms of how memory is managed (ie minimized memory leaks and background processes way more streamlined ).

steve_v
09-14-2004, 09:24 AM
Win 98, for all its pluses, is no longer being supported by M$ or hardware manufacturers. If you will take a look at current drivers now available, you will see the vast majority are for 2K/XP. On that one point alone, I reccommend XP Pro.

http://home.earthlink.net/~viner45/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/airwarfare3.jpg (http://www.airwarfare.com/)

Unofficial Community Created FAQ (http://www.airwarfare.com/sturmovik_101/faq_index.htm)

BinaryFalcon
09-14-2004, 09:47 AM
XP all the way, and I was a 98 holdout at one point.

XP is about a hojillion (that's a technical term) times more stable than even the most properly set up and tweaked Win98 system. Despite all of my knowledge and tweaks and squeezing every bit of performance out of 98 as I could, it would still crash on me about once a week. I'm not talking about applications crashing, I'm talking about OS death, or screwup that requires a reboot to fix. That rate was for "normal use". Any time I was trying new stuff or tweaking things with respect to hardware it tended to crash a good deal more. Still, at it's worst, it rarely went down more than once every couple of days.

In just over 2 years of using XP, I've had it crash exactly 3 times. That's it. Twice was in IL-2/FB, where the game locked up so badly I had to power off to clear the problem. The third was on my one machine running XP Home. Explorer crashed and had to be restarted, but I lost my taskbar in the process. Rather than restart it manually, I just did a restart. Everything else I had running kept running though, so it was more of an odd annoyance than a real, critical problem.

As for RAM and Win98:
You can hack it to make it work with 1GB, but it doesn't work well with it. There's a reason it's disabled by default. I've been there, done that. Even though I had my system working with 98 and 1GB of RAM, it would flake out occasionally and pull the usual OS death once in a while. When I finally got annoyed enough at the frequency of it, I cut back to 512MB of RAM and it became a good bit more stable. Not perfect, but better.

When I finally got my hands on XP Pro I decided to give that a shot on the exact same hardware that I'd been running Win98. It was rock stable with 1GB of RAM, save for that 1 crash in the first year.

In short, compared to XP, the memory management in Win98 blows. 98 can be made to work with 1GB, but it doesn't handle it nearly as well as XP. If you're running with 512MB or more, you need to be using XP. Win98 works best with less than 512MB.

No matter how clean you make it or how tweaked the install, a Win9x session is going to start getting sluggish after about 4-5 days of use. You'll also likely never see a month+ uptime for a Win9x session, and in the rare case that you do, you'll want to restart anyway because it's lugging so badly. XP can be left up for weeks or months at a time without issue. I've tried it with both OSes, and XP is by far superior in that respect.

As far as XP and backwards compatibility goes:
It's actually pretty good. In most cases, if it was designed to run under Win9x to begin with, you can get it to work under WinXP. The only stuff I've ever found to be truly broken were Win95 or DOS programs that didn't quite work correctly under Win98 either. It's even possible to get DOS Mechwarrior 2 running under XP and DOSbox, but it requires a bit of work.

To be honest, I wasn't expecting much out of XP when I first installed it, but I can honestly say it's what I've always felt Windows should have been from day 1. It's also the first MS GUI based OS that I really felt was worthwhile. I hated Win 3.x, 95 was better, 98 was almost there. With XP, they've finally gotten it.

[This message was edited by BinaryFalcon on Tue September 14 2004 at 08:58 AM.]

munnst
09-14-2004, 09:57 AM
One thing you should consider.

If you have old peripherals (printers, scanners etc) they may not work with XP.
Also MS FFPro1 does not like XP.

I use Win98 and is very stable, Il2 runs well on it. Also Il2 will use the same memory on win98 as on XP, it's only the O/S that is restricted to 512k.

TD_Klondike
09-14-2004, 10:18 AM
I am far from being a computer guru, and I learn things about my computer as I need to repair or upgrade them (kind of like my 12-year old Ford). What I like about XP is that it's "smart" enough to compensate for my lack of understanding. I don't know if it makes the best decisions about things, and to be honest, I don't even know IF it makes decisions about things. But it makes using it a lot easier for me than 98. I think 98 is sort of like XP's ******ed older brother.

On a side note, I have CH gameport controllers, and they're not XP compatible. To get them to work, I had to devote a sliver of my hard drive to Windows 98 to load the drivers for my controllers, and then they work in XP. Something to consider if, on the outside chance, you have CH gameport controllers.

mortoma
09-14-2004, 10:51 AM
I will continue to use Win98, even for PF, but when BOB comes out I will probably be forced to use XP due to the nature of the programming in BOB. BoB will finally be too much for my old buddy, Win98.

Nero111
09-14-2004, 11:48 AM
Ninety what? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://qwrety.cc/nero.jpg

mortoma
09-14-2004, 12:11 PM
Let's wrap up this thread and suffice it to say that Win98 is not nearly as bad as what people claim. Moreover, most of the people who chide me about still using Win98 do so out of a need to feel superior and elite. The crowd that questions people who use of an old OS with the "You still use what?" attitude amuse me. I mean they act like you are crazy or something. Like I stated, I can use either OS just by a 10 second change of hard drives. But the one that stays in my computer most of the time is the one that gives me fewer problems, and that's Win98. It just works like a reliable workhorse, day after day. Nuff said!!! The dozens of computers with XP so far that I have experienced, including my own, act totally nutty at times. My brother just installed SP2 and while we were on it the other day, it shut down and rebooted itself for no reason as we cruised the internet!! Inexplicable.... Yet we can find no trace of a virus on it as it stands now. Win98 never did that to me. Good luck to you superior and elite XP users!!!! I admire those who run modern OSs ( not really ).

mortoma
09-14-2004, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BinaryFalcon:
XP all the way, and I _was_ a 98 holdout at one point.

XP is about a hojillion (that's a technical term) times more stable than even the most properly set up and tweaked Win98 system. Despite all of my knowledge and tweaks and squeezing every bit of performance out of 98 as I could, it would still crash on me about once a week. I'm not talking about applications crashing, I'm talking about OS death, or screwup that requires a reboot to fix. That rate was for "normal use". Any time I was trying new stuff or tweaking things with respect to hardware it tended to crash a good deal more. Still, at it's worst, it rarely went down more than once every couple of days.

In just over 2 years of using XP, I've had it crash exactly 3 times. That's it. Twice was in IL-2/FB, where the game locked up so badly I had to power off to clear the problem. The third was on my one machine running XP Home. Explorer crashed and had to be restarted, but I lost my taskbar in the process. Rather than restart it manually, I just did a restart. Everything else I had running kept running though, so it was more of an odd annoyance than a real, critical problem.

As for RAM and Win98:
You can _hack_ it to make it work with 1GB, but it doesn't work well with it. There's a reason it's disabled by default. I've been there, done that. Even though I had my system working with 98 and 1GB of RAM, it would flake out occasionally and pull the usual OS death once in a while. When I finally got annoyed enough at the frequency of it, I cut back to 512MB of RAM and it became a good bit more stable. Not perfect, but better.

When I finally got my hands on XP Pro I decided to give that a shot on the exact same hardware that I'd been running Win98. It was rock stable with 1GB of RAM, save for that 1 crash in the first year.

In short, compared to XP, the memory management in Win98 blows. 98 can be made to work with 1GB, but it doesn't handle it nearly as well as XP. If you're running with 512MB or more, you need to be using XP. Win98 works best with less than 512MB.

No matter how clean you make it or how tweaked the install, a Win9x session is going to start getting sluggish after about 4-5 days of use. You'll also likely never see a month+ uptime for a Win9x session, and in the rare case that you do, you'll want to restart anyway because it's lugging so badly. XP can be left up for weeks or months at a time without issue. I've tried it with both OSes, and XP is by far superior in that respect.

As far as XP and backwards compatibility goes:
It's actually pretty good. In most cases, if it was designed to run under Win9x to begin with, you can get it to work under WinXP. The only stuff I've ever found to be truly broken were Win95 or DOS programs that didn't quite work correctly under Win98 either. It's even possible to get DOS Mechwarrior 2 running under XP and DOSbox, but it requires a bit of work.

To be honest, I wasn't expecting much out of XP when I first installed it, but I can honestly say it's what I've always felt Windows _should have been_ from day 1. It's also the first MS GUI based OS that I really felt was worthwhile. I hated Win 3.x, 95 was better, 98 was almost there. With XP, they've finally gotten it.

[This message was edited by BinaryFalcon on Tue September 14 2004 at 08:58 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I never have any such problems you are describing. You may have had a sneaky, undetectable virus or something. My experience is totally opposite, I have to travel around this whole portion of Indiana fixing peoples computer problems, both hardware and software, so I should know. And after the switch to XP, circa 2002, I had a lot more call to fix problems than ever before. I never cease to be amazed by the weird quirky problems people have with XP. It is a total mess as far as I'm concerned. I have never thought it (XP)to be all that stable. I haved also worked a lot on Win 2000 and Win NT and they were quirky but Win 2000 is more stable of them all. People who had/have problems with Windows 98/ME usually are not savvy people technically. And anoher thing I think my install of Win98SE runs 1GB of RAM superbly, not just "well" but superbly. And who needs to leave a computer running for days or weeks anyways?? Unless it's a server or something. I actually turn off my PC every night when I'm not using it. Nice to cool things down a bit ya know.

[This message was edited by mortoma on Tue September 14 2004 at 11:43 AM.]

BinaryFalcon
09-14-2004, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Good luck to you superior and elite XP users!!!! I admire those who run modern OSs ( not really ).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Respectfully, you need to step back for a minute and not be nearly so defensive about this.

It's an OS choice, not a religion. It's a tool and nothing more.

For the hardware he listed, XP is without question the most appropriate version of Windows to be using.

Windows 98 was by far the best of the Win9x based OSes (with Win ME being the worst), however, it was never intended or designed to be running on 2+GHz machines with 130+GB harddrives and more than 512MB of RAM.

Win98 had and still has its place, but on machines with any of the specs above, XP is a much better solution.

I liked Win98 at the time. Prior to 9x I thought DOS was great, and I knew it inside and out (still do, but I'm a bit rusty). I still think there are certain things that are best done at the command line, without any sort of GUI.

But that doesn't change the fact that Win98's time has passed. On anything resembling modern hardware (most PCs built in the last 2-3 years), XP is the way to go.

It's not about being "elite" or "superior", it's about using the right tool for the right job.

And that's all.

EDIT (since you posted while I was writing the above):

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I never have any such problems you are describing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I find that to be... highly unlikely. The problems I listed are widely known limitations of the Win9x code, as are the results of those limitations. The only way you could have never had any such problems is if you have some special version of Win98 that no one else in the world has had access to, or if you simply haven't used 98 much at all.

While good for its time, and the best that MS had produced to that point, Windows 98 had some serious limitations that really started to come into play one processors got faster, hard drives got bigger, and amounts of RAM exceeded 512MB.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You may have had a sneaky, undetectable virus or something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I did not. Even if I had, the fdisks and subsequent reformats and reinstallations on brand new hardware would have taken care of that. Starting from bare parts with a factory sealed HDD means I can make this claim with absolute certainty, even though there was no doubt before anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>so I should know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, you should.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And after the switch to XP, circa 2002, I had a lot more call to fix problems than ever before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Almost as many, I'm willing to bet, as you would have had when people switched from 95 to 98, or DOS to 95. Users tend to break things when trying to install a brand new OS on their 7 year old PC. You should know that as well as anyone else who has worked in support for any length of time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I never cease to be amazed by the weird quirky problems people have with XP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you mean "computers in general". Quirky problems are by no means unique to XP. 98 had tons of them, whether you experienced them or not. They were due to limitations in the code itself. All programs have these kinds of problems to some extent.

Beyond that, I'm willing to bet most of these "quirky problems" you've experienced are due to users attempting to do an upgrade install over Win98 installs that are a couple of years old.

That's hardly XP's fault, as one thing that MS has never managed to get quite right is the upgrade install of one version of Windows over an older version. Something always gets screwed up, and it's never quite the way it should be.

Rule #1 is always start from a fresh reformat when installing a new OS. Always. Anything less is just asking for trouble, but like you said, you should know.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>aNd anoher thing I think my install of Win98SE runs 1GB of RAM superbly, not just "well" but superbly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Try it for a while on a properly installed and configured XP machine and you won't think so. At least not if you're halfway honest.

I felt much the same way until I started running XP. It really is better, and you have to be slightly nutty if you insist that Win98 runs "superbly" with more than 512MB of RAM. Personally, I'd never go back.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And who needs to leave a computer unning for days or weeks anyways??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You'd be surprised, a lot of people do it. And these days, at least for home use, the lines between a "server" and a regular machine are becoming quite blurred. A lot of people have networks in their homes now, which would effectively make each machine a server to some degree. For convenience, it's very likely they might leave a machine on for days or weeks at a time, just so they don't have to wander into the room a few times a week to turn it off or on when they need something from it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I actually turn off my PC every night when I'm not using it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As do I. However, this in no way changes the fact that Win98 doesn't handle uptimes of more than a couple of days very well, while XP can go months without problems.

[This message was edited by BinaryFalcon on Tue September 14 2004 at 11:56 AM.]

mortoma
09-14-2004, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BinaryFalcon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Good luck to you superior and elite XP users!!!! I admire those who run modern OSs ( not really ).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Respectfully, you need to step back for a minute and not be nearly so defensive about this.

It's an OS choice, not a religion. It's a tool and nothing more.

For the hardware he listed, XP is without question the most appropriate version of Windows to be using.

Windows 98 was by far the best of the Win9x based OSes (with Win ME being the worst), however, it was never intended or designed to be running on 2+GHz machines with 130+GB harddrives and more than 512MB of RAM.

Win98 had and still has its place, but on machines with _any_ of the specs above, XP is a much better solution.

Loved Win98 at the time. Prior to 9x I thought DOS was great, and I knew it inside and out (still do, but I'm a bit rusty). I _still_ think there are certain things that are best done at the command line, without any sort of GUI.

But that doesn't change the fact that Win98's time has passed. On anything resembling modern hardware (most PCs built in the last 2-3 years), XP is the way to go.

It's not about being "elite" or "superior", it's about using the right tool for the right job.

And that's all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well you are not seemingly smug or superior but there are those who are in this respect. And of course, anybody with more than 1GB of RAM should use XP. But how many people have or need more than 1GB?? Five or six?? I never claimed it was wise to use Win98 with more than 1GB. Actually it would be foolhardy to do so.!! It probably would barely run. But unless you are running professional graphics software, such as CAD, there's little likelihood you need more than 1GB of RAM. No game I know of yet needs more, except maybe Lock On and a couple of the very latest titles, but even those will run well with less than 1GB. 1GB is more than enough for anything out there now. Besides, I'm not being all that defensive, just nothing better to do right now.

mortoma
09-14-2004, 12:50 PM
BinaryFalcon wrote:
"But that doesn't change the fact that Win98's time has passed. On anything resembling modern hardware (most PCs built in the last 2-3 years), XP is the way to go."

================================================== ============

You are right, if I were to build a new computer ( for the first time in 3 years ) I would not bother to install Win98 on it. It may not work with the very latest hardware as well, ( but you could get it to work if you wanted, even so. )
But for those of us running machines built before 2002, Win98 is actually superior in a lot of ways. I mean, the hardware then was designed more to run with ME and 98.

musickna
09-14-2004, 01:09 PM
Personally, I prefer Windows 2000 to either of them. All the stabilty of XP without all the bloatware that fills XP out. Runs FB beautifully.

flyingscampi
09-14-2004, 01:18 PM
Best think I like about 98 is formatting it off a disk - and I used to do that quite a bit in my line of work.

If you have a PIII 500 and 256MB RAM then 2000/XP is the way to go (unless u fly FB then multiply specs by 4...)

If you supported several hundred users running 98 you learned to loathe it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BinaryFalcon
09-14-2004, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But how many people have or need more than 1GB??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given the speeds of the current processors on the market, I would not build a new machine based on one of them with less than 1GB at this point.

1GB is now (or will be within the next 10 months or so) what I would consider the standard amount of RAM for a new machine.

My next build, which I expect to do sometime around the 1st of the year, will have 2GB of RAM installed.

However, that's in line with my personal system building philosophy. Look at the current "standard" in RAM and then double it.

I've taken this approach since 1995 and I followed it when I built my current machine roughly 2 years ago and installed 1GB of RAM.

As a result, I've not had to touch the machine with respect to upgrades (short of adding an additional hard drive) in over 24 months. By the time it gets retired as my primary machine it will only be slightly behind the curve for the "average" machine with respect to system performance. A large part of that is because I bought the fastest processor I could reasonably afford (at the time, an XP 2000+) and put in 1GB of RAM.

I intend to follow the same guidelines with my new system, and expect it'll also be good for another 18-24 months.

More RAM helps the system to run faster overall, and can buy you a lot of time before you need to "upgrade" again. Shorting your processor of RAM is one of the most common and easiest ways of crippling overall system performance.

Most users could significantly improve the speed of their systems simply by increasing the amount of RAM installed in the machine.

In any case, this gets back to the point of any semi-modern machine needing XP. My personal guidelines are as follows:

1. Processor rated 1GHZ or faster.
2. HDD larger than 120GB.
3. Installed RAM 512MB or greater.

If your machine meets or beats at least one of the above specs, install XP. You'll be much better off doing so.

If it falls below the specs listed above, you might still be better off with XP, but that becomes more of a case by case basis.

mortoma
09-14-2004, 03:08 PM
I still don't understand why my FB runs overall better on my Win98 hard drive than it does on my XP hard drive. And I have tweaked my XP install to the max, eliminating almost everything it doesn't need as far as service modules and other junk. My processor, with my Win98 install, beats my brother's computer in processor speed benchmarks. And his computer has a P4 2.4Ghz processor and mine had a AMD XP-2100, which has a true speed of only 1.733Ghz. I never tested my computer against itself, ( with the two different OS installs ), been meaning to do that!!! Still hearing from people who hate Win98 because they didn't know how to run it ( apparently ). In that case, XP is better for those who are deficient in PC skills.

[This message was edited by mortoma on Tue September 14 2004 at 02:22 PM.]

JorBR
09-14-2004, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
(...) What I do to play FB is reduce my background programs to only systray and explorer and boot up like that, then play FB for a while. Then I'll set up the PC to run the other stuff, like anti-virus and such and reboot again to cruise the internet. In this way, I use about 800MB of my total system RAM for running games like FB. Whereas with XP, I can only get about 600Mb of RAM for games like FB!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi mortoma. I installed XP recently, well... somebody else did, and FB wasn´t the same, program shut downs and so on. I can leave with that, but what bothers me is the dozen programs running background. Even with 1Gig RAM I don´t think I can allow that. Do you have some advice for free mate http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ?

btw, did I mention my monkey-see-monkey-do computer skills?

edit: english, always english... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif
"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

mortoma
09-14-2004, 03:29 PM
Binary Falcon wrote:
"Beyond that, I'm willing to bet most of these "quirky problems" you've experienced are due to users attempting to do an upgrade install over Win98 installs that are a couple of years old."

---------------------------------------------------
Not always, my brother has nothing but trouble with WinXP and his computer came with it on there, plus we did a clean install too. Some of his original problem was an insufficient P.S. and I solved that by talking him into a Antec 430 Watter. But he still has nutty problems with it and it drives me crazy cause he's always calling me wanting me to fix this or that problem.


flyingscampi wrote:

"If you supported several hundred users running 98 you learned to loathe it "

-----------------------------------------------------
No wonder, Win98 was never meant to be networked, more of a home OS. Sure it has the capability, but doing it is beyond sanity. What was your company doing with hundreds of networked Win98 machines?? Should have used NT or 2000, unless this was before that came out.

mortoma
09-14-2004, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JorBR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
(...) What I do to play FB is reduce my background programs to only systray and explorer and boot up like that, then play FB for a while. Then I'll set up the PC to run the other stuff, like anti-virus and such and reboot again to cruise the internet. In this way, I use about 800MB of my total system RAM for running games like FB. Whereas with XP, I can only get about 600Mb of RAM for games like FB!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi mortoma. I installed XP recently, well... somebody else did, and FB wasn´t the same, program shut downs and so on. I can leave with that, but what bothers me is the dozen programs running background. Even with 1Gig RAM I don´t think I can allow that. Do you have some advice for free mate http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ?

btw, did I mention my monkey-see-monkey-do computer skills?

edit: english, always english... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif
"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well Binaryfalcon, do you have any advice for this guy?? You sound like you know XP better than I do. I'd suggest killing as many of the background things as possible. You can do the Msconfig thing ( type it in the run command box ) and uncheck a lot of stuff in the startup tab. But you should know what you're doing to do that. Some things are needed. A free program called "Enditall" can make it easier. Further you can turn off some of the services but I can't remember right now how to do that in XP. Also you can't turn them all off as far as I know. I don't like XP for running FB but heck, you should be able to get it running better than that. Unfortunately, I'm much better at tweaking and fixing computers if I can get my hands on it and mess with it myself. Tell me what all's in your systray if you would, and maybe a screen shot of what comes up when you hit ctrl, alt & delete.

mortoma
09-14-2004, 03:48 PM
By the way, did you ( they ) install XP cleanly or over something else??

SKY_BOSS
09-14-2004, 04:19 PM
Im dual booted with win 98 and xp pro. Game installed on both sides. I get bout 12 more FPS on the win 98 side.

http://members.cox.net/ironwarlock/skynew.jpg

LuckyBoy1
09-14-2004, 05:44 PM
Cousin Billy's XP, then read and actually like, use the guide.

Now with an actual index & more fiber! It is newer & and even more improved! It's Luckyboy's Guide For Complete Users!...

http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

repoman11
09-14-2004, 08:24 PM
You should use the one you prefer. As others have mentioned, having your computer set up to dual boot is done easily enough.

But I'll never go back to 98, nor will I ever willingly put it on another computer. I even prefer it on 500 MHz machines, of the sort I put together for several relatives.

Though I was initially wary, I set it up to dual boot on my primary computer at the time. I soon never used the 98 partition, and finally formatted it.

Getting away from the DOS based 9x kernel was the right move. And NTFS is an objectively superior file system.

LuckyBoy1
09-15-2004, 12:13 AM
I couldn't disaggree more. Dual boot is a mess as many have found out already. Let me break it down into something almost as simple as me. The operating system runs the computer; YOU DON'T! You are simply a casual observer of partial results of command codes. Put the idea completely out of your mind that you are running anything. Having two operating systems leads to conflicts and a much easier way for malware to hide and spread along its merry way. there simply is no reason whatsoever for having a dual boot system. Need to run an old version of Space Munchies game that won't run right on a modern computer? Ok, go get a used, $100.00 computer.

Now with an actual index & more fiber! It is newer & and even more improved! It's Luckyboy's Guide For Complete Users!...

http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

repoman11
09-15-2004, 03:01 AM
My Win98/XP dual boot performed completely trouble free. Of course, after a short time my Win98 partition never got booted up anymore. But it was no problem just being there. It came in handy when I was trying to help someone with a technical problem with 98. If I couldn't remember, I'd boot into 98 and figure it out.
My Win2000/Linux RedHat machine also gave me no problems, using GRUB to manage the two.

I'm not aware that Dual booting operating systems is a particular problem. It hasn't been for me.

JG52MadAdler
09-15-2004, 03:13 AM
98SE if your running just for gaming.
I have two Identical machines
XP3200
Gigabyte Mobo
NVidia FX5600
512 mb DDR
Yadayada

I get better FPS on 98SE and if you know how to
maintain it it runs trouble free.
BUT!
If you are doing multi media stuff and other task besides gaming and you are not the hands on
type XP for ease of operation and decent game play.

~S~


Fliege mit Mut, Fliege mit Ehre

LuckyBoy1
09-15-2004, 03:36 AM
I'm glad to hear that repoman11 Maybe the feedback I've been given is from well, let's just say people who don't work and play well with computers! Either way, XP is the way to go. No fussin' around getting more than 512 of RAM to work and a much more stable processs tree.

Now with an actual index & more fiber! It is newer & and even more improved! It's Luckyboy's Guide For Complete Users!...

http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

starfighter1
09-15-2004, 03:53 AM
hallo,
win 98se if You know how to tweak it !
winXP +sp2 + tweak all reg + inf of win http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
to all old combat sims
(+ FB by the way is one of the last generation of 32 bit win applic)
next generation of combat sims should run on win 64 bit and of course on Linux 64 OS http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

at my information prof. military sim developers (+ defense applic. )are looking forward to more stable Linux 64 OS base.

I use both win systems and Linux ....

anyway: I guess it's also important of future hardware compability on high performance OS systems...just a market penetration of OS systems and not at all the best performance issue http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

LuckyBoy1
09-15-2004, 04:30 AM
starrfighter, what you been smokin'? Name me a single application for PC's that runs on 64 bit now or in the next 6 months? And the Linux thing... yes, these are all great ideas. but if we chose the best ideas, we'd all be running Aplle computers in the past and right now. truth of it is we'll be a long time ridding ourselves of GeekFantasy Island boy!

Now with an actual index & more fiber! It is newer & and even more improved! It's Luckyboy's Guide For Complete Users!...

http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

NorrisMcWhirter
09-15-2004, 06:01 AM
Hi,

I wouldn't even have Win 98 on my mind, never mind my hard disk anymore.

Go XP and try setting up a hardware profile (a la blackviper.com) to minimise background tasks or get something like FSAUTOSTART [not tried with FB but see no reason why it wouldn't work] (http://www.softpedia.com/public/cat/12/2/12-2-188.shtml)

I've been running XP now for 2 years and I've had a total of 4 system crashes, two of which were my fault because I was messing around with something I shouldn't have.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

Ashoka74
09-15-2004, 07:16 AM
XP with SP1 and all security patches and updates and you will have very stable and userfriendly OS.

Win 98 is a non-supported history.

My advice is simple: install XP.

"There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets."
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

Messaschnitzel
09-15-2004, 09:31 AM
Decisions, decisions. I am currently running a P4 1.9 ghz with 512 mb memory and a NVIDIA G4 TI4400 128mb vid card and Win 98. The pros and cons of XP vs.W98 has got Me sitting on the fence. I read in another topic that an XP upgrade is not a good idea. The thought of having to reformat My hard drive for a clean install is not too appealing, having done this in the past. I also am led to understand that the addition of memory to the tune of 1 gig also has its pros and cons, although this would seem to be the easiest performance improvement route to take while still using the Win98 OS. For those who saavy, what is or are the tweaks that enable the system to utilize the additional memory? While My system can juggle a moderate number of planes (8-12) with no apparent problems, I still want more! (greedy little pig that I am!) Also, I understand that to play online, I should have 1 gig of memory to keep stutter to a minimum. The upshot of all this is with this conflicting info, do I bite the bullet and buy the full install of XP, get the XP upgrade, or another memory chip? "Is it door #1, #2, or #3? (I certainly don't want to go home with the donkey...for those who remember what TV show that I am talking about, then You are dating Yourselves!) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Anyway, any info on the W98 memory tweak would be appreciated. Thanks!

"With careless engine mismanagement and diligent practice I became the leading
pilot in powerplant destruction, far surpassing My fellow pilots." -Weiner Moldy of Deals Wheels fame

mortoma
09-15-2004, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ashoka74:
XP with SP1 and all security patches and updates and you will have very stable and userfriendly OS.

Win 98 is a non-supported history.

My advice is simple: install XP.

"There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets."
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Working with peoples computers every day, leaves me pondering why people think XP is more user friendly. It's definitely not more user friendly for troubleshooting problems. And these problems crop up frequently. My computer actally crashes more often when I run the HD with XP on it. As far as Win98 not being supported any more, if you are good enough with OSs, you can support it yourself!! But it runs so well for me it doesn't need support really.

mortoma
09-15-2004, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
Decisions, decisions. I am currently running a P4 1.9 ghz with 512 mb memory and a NVIDIA G4 TI4400 128mb vid card and Win 98. The pros and cons of XP vs.W98 has got Me sitting on the fence. I read in another topic that an XP upgrade is not a good idea. The thought of having to reformat My hard drive for a clean install is not too appealing, having done this in the past. I also am led to understand that the addition of memory to the tune of 1 gig also has its pros and cons, although this would seem to be the easiest performance improvement route to take while still using the Win98 OS. For those who saavy, what is or are the tweaks that enable the system to utilize the additional memory? While My system can juggle a moderate number of planes (8-12) with no apparent problems, I still want more! (greedy little pig that I am!) Also, I understand that to play online, I should have 1 gig of memory to keep stutter to a minimum. The upshot of all this is with this conflicting info, do I bite the bullet and buy the full install of XP, get the XP upgrade, or another memory chip? "Is it door #1, #2, or #3? (I certainly don't want to go home with the donkey...for those who remember what TV show that I am talking about, then You are dating Yourselves!) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Anyway, any info on the W98 memory tweak would be appreciated. Thanks!

"With careless engine mismanagement and diligent practice I became the leading
pilot in powerplant destruction, far surpassing My fellow pilots." -Weiner Moldy of Deals Wheels fame<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you can afford it, I'd suggest getting another new HD and installing XP on it.
If you don't like it or have trouble, you still have your Win98 install to run. I have a Kingwin HD rack, which installs in an empty CD bay and allows you to swap HDs very easily. Better and safer than dual booting a partitioned HD, which is asking for trouble. Plus they almost give away HDs these days and a copy of XP home can be found for cheap. My Kinwin HD changer only cost about $30.00 bucks.

Messaschnitzel
09-15-2004, 09:53 AM
Thanks for the info, Mortoma! this is a great
idea because it would give Me the option of
which to use. It's been a couple of years since
I have purchased any hardware. I didn't realize
how inexpensive the equipment has become.

"With careless engine mismanagement and diligent practice I became the leading
pilot in powerplant destruction, far surpassing My fellow pilots." -Weiner Moldy of Deals Wheels fame

KSS_Shrike_UK
09-15-2004, 09:59 AM
if you have the two, why even ask ?
think of what the developers will make the program on. XP and no doubt a beta of wondows longhorn and possibly with an ear to windows blackcomb too. win 98 is just going to be something they make the program compatible for as an afterthought (or because their program architecture is compatible by design with no extra work), for when the game price gets dropped for platinum editions etc... thats when you get the people who still use a sinclair spectrum trying to install it.

i professionally write apps for my windows 2000 users using an XP box. i know the inner workings of both, but i would never write for NT or win95 (must be joking!) or seek any prog to be compatible with nowadays.

Shrike
Joint Squadron Leader
Kindred Spirits Squadron
kss.dogfighters.net

mortoma
09-15-2004, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
Thanks for the info, Mortoma! this is a great
idea because it would give Me the option of
which to use. It's been a couple of years since
I have purchased any hardware. I didn't realize
how inexpensive the equipment has become.

"With careless engine mismanagement and diligent practice I became the leading
pilot in powerplant destruction, far surpassing My fellow pilots." -Weiner Moldy of Deals Wheels fame<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well for memory management in Win98SE, you should get Cacheman (www.outertech.com (http://www.outertech.com)) to make it easier, this eliminates making manual edits of your system.ini file. For 1GB ( don't use any more than this with Win98 ) RAM, go to the settings button and then click on disk cache. Once there, set it up for min 16,384 and max 503,808 with a chunk size of 2,048. Then go to MSconfig by typing it in the Run command line and uncheck everthing except Scanregistry, System Tray, Loadpowerprofile and Task monitor.
Reboot and play FB this way. If you later wish to do anything else, at the very least reactivate your background virus scanner and your firewall if you cruise the internet. Also after playing any game or doing much of anything, I'd right click on the Cacheman icon in the sys tray and select "Recover memory now" and take it down to about 200Mb each time. Set to recover mem chunk size in Cacheman to recover mem in 64Mb chunks each time you recover memory. You don't have to run Cacheman when you play FB.

repoman11
09-15-2004, 12:54 PM
The www.Overclockers.com (http://www.Overclockers.com) 3D Mark Team members seem to prefer Windows 2000 over XP. Though basically the same OS, there seems to be a little less running in the background with 2000, even after trimming down the **** using Blackviper's or other similar guides. Windows 98 isn't a consideration for them though. I'm happy enough with XP where I would never bother with 2000 (much less 98) for a few extra FPS, or a few more points running 3D Mark 01 or 03.
2000 Pro is a very good OS though, and if it was all I had, I wouldn't bother to get XP

In a voluntary survey of their members, XP Professional was by far the OS of choice, followed by 2000, with 98 a distant third.

You have to feel sorry for Apple, Windows 98 was the best sales tool they had!

repoman11
09-15-2004, 05:01 PM
In this comparison, 98SE wins, http://www.devhardware.com/index2.php?option=content&task=view&id=30&pop=1&page=0&hide_js=1

But not by nearly enough to ever make me consider switching back to the bad old days of blue screens, and an operating system regularly unable to find the USB mouse.

And I'll never go back to FAT32.

mortoma
09-15-2004, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by repoman11:
The http://www.Overclockers.com 3D Mark Team members seem to prefer Windows 2000 over XP. Though basically the same OS, there seems to be a little less running in the background with 2000, even after trimming down the **** using Blackviper's or other similar guides. Windows 98 isn't a consideration for them though. I'm happy enough with XP where I would never bother with 2000 (much less 98) for a few extra FPS, or a few more points running 3D Mark 01 or 03.
2000 Pro is a very good OS though, and if it was all I had, I wouldn't bother to get XP

In a voluntary survey of their members, XP Professional was by far the OS of choice, followed by 2000, with 98 a distant third.

You have to feel sorry for Apple, Windows 98 was the best sales tool they had!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It may hold true that overclockers doesn't rate Win98 very well but it's not because of perfomance issues with the current crop of games. They are more worried about upcoming titles in the next three years. By which time, even I'll be switched grudgingly to XP. Currently, Win98 works great for many games. I run Nascar 2004 better than my brother does on his faster computer with XP!! And I also get better frames with 98SE than I do with XP when running FB. I have hard drives with both OSs on them and both of them have FB/AEP, which I have tested extensively. The folks at overclockers don't always know what they are talking about.

mortoma
09-15-2004, 05:15 PM
repoman11 wrote:
"You have to feel sorry for Apple, Windows 98 was the best sales tool they had!"

Actually it was Win95 that was a good sales tool for Apple. People had such bad experiences with Win95 that that negative phychological feeling carried through to the days of Win98, which was and still is a stellar OS. A good example of that is all the bad memories for bad memory management that is still attributed to Win98, when in fact it was Win95 that was terrible at memory management, not 98. People are just remembering wrong and thinking about Win95. They are not differentiating between the two when there is a big difference.

Towndog_31stFG
09-15-2004, 06:44 PM
to run 1Gb memory in win98se go to system.ini and under {386enh} add(if it's not already there) the following lines.
MaxPhysPage=40000
ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1
and under {vcache}
MaxFileCache=524288
works fine for me

mortoma
09-15-2004, 07:54 PM
Yes Towndog, those are good settings, similar to what I use. I don't use MaxPhysPage setting though, and have no troubles.

EGPWS
09-15-2004, 08:25 PM
Hello,

I have (well, had) Win 98SE and XP on the same HD. I use Norton Ghost 5.1 to switch between OS's.

I put only Windows and drivers on C: partition, and install everything else on D: partition. It takes just 2-3 minutes to switch from one Windows to the other.

I also backup/restore the entire C: partition once in a while to prevent collecting junk in the registry.

I use Win 98SE for FB/AEP because I have weird old hw that doesn't seem to work in XP.

Rogodin
09-15-2004, 09:35 PM
Ran the 9x Kernel for years but I'm sick of it and to be honest I put on XP whenever the hardware specs meet the minimum.

I wouldn't touch 9x with a tenfoot pool on my main rig-don't even want to dual boot it.

I used to tweak the hell out of my 98 rig-now I tweak the hell out of my xp pro rig.

and drivers are quite large part of it-as well as stability and smoothness.

Pragmatically you'd have to be nuts to install 98/2000 on client rigs-unless they're nerds.

Rogo

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-12/554733/RogoSig-1c.jpg

"Those who long for exaltation look upwards, but I look downwards for I am the exalted."
Thus Spake Zarathustra.

Ashoka74
09-16-2004, 12:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ashoka74:
XP with SP1 and all security patches and updates and you will have very stable and userfriendly OS.

Win 98 is a non-supported history.

My advice is simple: install XP.

"There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets."
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Working with peoples computers every day, leaves me pondering why people think XP is more user friendly. It's definitely not more user friendly for troubleshooting problems. And these problems crop up frequently. My computer actally crashes more often when I run the HD with XP on it. As far as Win98 not being supported any more, if you are good enough with OSs, you can support it yourself!! But it runs so well for me it doesn't need support really.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well I work as IT specialist in our company and have responsibility of proper work of user computers - we have here only XP Pro with SP1 and two W2K machines - and honestly say I have no work with XP - if you patch it, no calls that something is wrong, blue screens, freezes... I can work in this branch for about 7 years already - started to support Win 3.1, went throught all MS platforms and I can honestly tell that most stable MS system is probably W2K followed by XP Pro. If someone have at least 20 gigas on disk and 256 memory, it is safe for him to install XP.
But that's just my experience and opinion. I wont never ever downgrade my OS from XP Pro to WIN98... And that's it.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets."
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

G13man
09-16-2004, 10:31 AM
well i was trying win 2000... it started stutering [bad]. I don't have time to relearn os es...I've switched back to win 98 se and appreciate those memory tip tweaks... thanks...I won't be upgradiing to a new game until it's a 64 bit linux tho... my 2 cents worth ..I surf with linux and catch no bugs...

k6-2 .5g,198m,8megAIWvid
Albatron K8X800 PROII :64|3200
1G MushkinPc3500[2-3-2-6],9800xt
reusing,case,os98se,[64?]hd,cd

mortoma
09-16-2004, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ashoka74:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ashoka74:
XP with SP1 and all security patches and updates and you will have very stable and userfriendly OS.

Win 98 is a non-supported history.

My advice is simple: install XP.

"There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets."
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Working with peoples computers every day, leaves me pondering why people think XP is more user friendly. It's definitely not more user friendly for troubleshooting problems. And these problems crop up frequently. My computer actally crashes more often when I run the HD with XP on it. As far as Win98 not being supported any more, if you are good enough with OSs, you can support it yourself!! But it runs so well for me it doesn't need support really.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well I work as IT specialist in our company and have responsibility of proper work of user computers - we have here only XP Pro with SP1 and two W2K machines - and honestly say I have no work with XP - if you patch it, no calls that something is wrong, blue screens, freezes... I can work in this branch for about 7 years already - started to support Win 3.1, went throught all MS platforms and I can honestly tell that most stable MS system is probably W2K followed by XP Pro. If someone have at least 20 gigas on disk and 256 memory, it is safe for him to install XP.
But that's just my experience and opinion. I wont never ever downgrade my OS from XP Pro to WIN98... And that's it.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"There are only two types of aircraft -- fighters and targets."
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nobody in this thread suggested downgrading to Win98 from XP. Most people who already have XP are
ok, just far more vulnerable to virues and such than us Win98 holdouts are. Another thing I'd like to point out is there have been several people in this thread who mentioned "blue screen of death" when referring to Win98. Another case of people confusing Win95 with Win98. Win95 had terrible problems with that. While I can't remember the last time I had the blue screen in Win98. Once you learn how to operate Win98, you don't have that problem and you don't have to be a "nerd" level computer technician to run it that well either. If you have patched Win98 to all the latest stuff and tweak it only a tiny bit, you won't have any problems. It has been a lengendary performer for me, day after day, month after month, etc.....

repoman11
09-16-2004, 12:33 PM
Nope, not confusing 95 with 98. Maybe you don't have a motherboard with a Via chipset. That's what I had when I switched, and the difference (improvement in stability) between 98 and XP was night and day. But it wasn't really a hardware problem. The hardware worked great with a better OS.
When I was using a K6-2+ on an Asus P55T2P4 motherboard, Win98 wasn't too bad. The Intel chipset seemed to get along with 98 better than Via. I'd imagine 98 was designed with Intel chipsets in mind.

Maks25
09-16-2004, 01:21 PM
You shoud by a new hard disc 40GB, and make onem a new operation system XP and from time to time change cables. one disc 98 primary master
second dsic XP primary slave

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mortoma
09-16-2004, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maks25:
You shoud by a new hard disc 40GB, and make onem a new operation system XP and from time to time change cables. one disc 98 primary master
second dsic XP primary slave

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I do a similar thing with my Kingwin data storage tray system. They mount in an empty CDrom bay and you can have a hard disks with different OSs in different inserts. You just slide one in and boot your computer. Pop in WinXP one day, then pop in Linux or Win98 the next. Infinitely better than dual booting, which is dangerous and problematic. With dual booting, if your hard drive gets a glitch, you can lose both ( or more ) OS installs on it!! It happened to me once when I dual booted a long time ago and had this grown man in near tears...LOL...I will never dual boot again!!

mortoma
09-16-2004, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by repoman11:
Nope, not confusing 95 with 98. Maybe you don't have a motherboard with a Via chipset. That's what I had when I switched, and the difference (improvement in stability) between 98 and XP was night and day. But it wasn't really a hardware problem. The hardware worked great with a better OS.
When I was using a K6-2+ on an Asus P55T2P4 motherboard, Win98 wasn't too bad. The Intel chipset seemed to get along with 98 better than Via. I'd imagine 98 was designed with Intel chipsets in mind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well VIA was never a good chipset. I have an Asus A7M-266 and it has an AMD 761 chipset on it. Runs Win98 like a bat out of hell and as tough as a Tiger tank.

panther3485
09-18-2004, 11:33 AM
Hi guys!

I'd run 98SE for years and became very familiar with it. I've begun to get familiar with XP Pro in about the last 6 months.

Funny thing is, having worked on at least a couple of dozen PCs, I'd have to say that I haven't had any really serious stability problems with either OS - at least, none that I couldn't fix with proper maintenance, setting changes or - as a last resort - re-format. On the few occasions that I did have seriously difficult problems, and thought it was the OS, it has turned out to be something else!

My recommendation for anyone starting out is if you've got anything from a mid-range Pentium III (or equivalent) upwards, go for XP. Anything much older than that, you're probably better off sticking to 98SE. My main reasons for leaning towards XP are the lack of support for 98 (which the majority of users would want) and the fact that most newer applications will run better with XP. Just my opinion, of course.

But I do have a question for those whose experience of XP is greater than mine. Everyone seems to emphasize XP Pro. XP Home doesn't appear to rate much of a mention. Is XP Home significantly inferior in any way that affects gaming?

Best regards to all,
panther3485

carguy_
09-18-2004, 06:15 PM
I stayed with win98 becuz I`d need to upgrade to 1gb ram which isn`t the wisest choice if I have SDRAM...better wait for mobo upgrade and then but a whole 1gbDDRRAM.

Other than that through 4 years of using win98 I`ve learned that if anything is important about win98 is to keep it clean.Manage your memory,control background programs,deny any future hardware/software conflicts and it`s really ok.

I don`t have movies or any media files on my HD so it`s easy to keep it from becoming a mess.


My brother has weaker PC than I on XP and he can`t run most new games other than NBA2004.Sure he has no problems with this OS but he had to format 3 times becuz of trojans before he learned his lesson and got a firewall.

Even though I`d like to switch to XP it`s not bad with win98.Hope software makers won`t abandon this OS in a year at least.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002

mortoma
09-18-2004, 07:39 PM
You really should go into the registry and manually delete a lot of stuff too. Just make sure you do a reg backup just prior. Registry editing is very important with Win98. Pretty important in XP too. Don't trust a prgram to delete unused stuff in your registry either, take out an hour every month and do it yourself.

BinaryFalcon
09-18-2004, 08:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But I do have a question for those whose experience of XP is greater than mine. Everyone seems to emphasize XP Pro. XP Home doesn't appear to rate much of a mention. Is XP Home significantly inferior in any way that affects gaming?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. I've got Home on my laptop and Pro on my desktop system. Home came with the laptop so I just stuck with that.

I had a choice for my desktop, and since I could either pay $100 for XP Home or get XP Pro volume license edition for free, I obviously went with Pro.

That aside, I still prefer Pro anyway, as it's got a few more features that Home doesn't have, but in most cases I'll never need them anyway. I just like having the option.

For most people, Home is perfectly fine. I can't really see much difference between it and Pro on my two current machines.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Other than that through 4 years of using win98 I`ve learned that if anything is important about win98 is to keep it clean.Manage your memory,control background programs,deny any future hardware/software conflicts and it`s really ok.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, that's part of the thing. Win98 requires regular maintenance. It also pretty much required a complete wipe and reinstall every 12-18 months if you wanted to keep everything really going well. Even working hard to clean up after everything and maintaining it, Win98 just starts getting a little flaky after a couple of years and it's best to just periodically blow it away and start all over again.

XP isn't like that. Put it on a clean system, make sure you've got it all set up right, patch it up (you'd need to do that for 98 too) and you're good to go.

In the 24+ months I've had my XP Pro install going, I've not had to do any maintenance on it outside of the occasional defrag. It's still as solid and quick as it was when it was installed over two years ago. That's something you could never say about Win98.

I suppose if you want to spend all of your time screwing around with the OS to keep things running smoothly, 98 is still a decent choice. Personally, I got tired of having to do that about 5 years ago. XP is great for that. Do a clean install, turn on automatic updates and basically forget it. I'm assuming of course you'll be using a firewall and AV software as everyone should be using those these days no matter what OS they're running.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well VIA was never a good chipset.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually it was. It wasn't the best out there, but if you knew what you were doing it was perfectly fine. The two motherboards I've had with VIA chipsets have been rock solid and have never once given me a problem. They were even better than my old Intel BX chipset, which up to that point was the best I'd ever used.

IIRC, the biggest "problem" with the VIA chipset appeared to be trying to use a Soundblaster Live with it. That wasn't really VIA's fault, as it was Creative's (broken) implementation of the PCI spec that was the root cause of the issue.

Bottom line, build it right and set it up properly (which isn't difficult), and you've nothing to fear from a VIA chipset.

Win98 can be made to work, but it's less than ideal. XP is the way to go on anything recent.

Why waste the time and effort to round off the corners of an octagon when you've got a ready made wheel right in front of you? Same idea.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You really should go into the registry and manually delete a lot of stuff too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
The registry is just about the last place you want to have people mucking around unless they know exactly what they're doing. If that's the advice you're giving out on a regular basis to your users, no wonder you know so many people who are constantly having problems.

panther3485
09-19-2004, 10:49 AM
Ok BinaryFalcon, thanks.

I had some mates who said "No, man, don't bother with XP Home cos XP Pro is much better" and then I spoke to a tech who reckoned the two were essentially the same but Pro had a few extra features. After that and what you've said, I think the tech was closer to the mark.

There are 3 PCs in my household, the last of the older machines running 98 was just traded in for a new rig. We run Pro on two and Home on one and I was wondering if we'd be likely to see any differences regards gaming. Apparently not!

Thanks again for your input,
best regards,
panther3485

92SqnGCJimbo
09-19-2004, 05:29 PM
mortima dont go flaggin yer certs around m8.
i too am A+ qualified as well as having a MCSE in networking.
i find that xp is more stable and better at managing memoery than 98. however i have experienced that 98 is better at running old programs and programs that dont use alot of mem power so i suppose its what yer using it for.

however if u really want a fun time go for win xp and experience the blue screen of death Mwahahahaha. (ahem) just kidding

good luck

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SAAdAw4WtzPYT61v!yppc6SYD2P3ggcTWMMmL4W7lz3DT55bt MgSrUkavH5fKBaIH6dxowvLFCMpf9NMlaw9lVhQNwAzPpaqk!a 5gRLb6l9GAAAAynJ5Ag/spitfire.jpg?dc=4675488547654422032

mortoma
09-19-2004, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The registry is just about the last place you want to have people mucking around unless they know exactly what they're doing. If that's the advice you're giving out on a regular basis to your users, no wonder you know so many people who are constantly having problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I never tell people to do that if they don't know what they're doing. I only tell them to do it if they do. Besides even if you screw up the registry, if you have a recent backup you're ok. I also get people into cloning their hard drives too. Learning to clone a drive is the best thing you can do. I clone my drives just before doing anything major and most minor stuff, like intalling SP2 in XP for example.

[This message was edited by mortoma on Sun September 19 2004 at 07:12 PM.]

mortoma
09-19-2004, 08:08 PM
Binaryfalcon wrote:
"See, that's part of the thing. Win98 requires regular maintenance. It also pretty much required a complete wipe and reinstall every 12-18 months if you wanted to keep everything really going well. Even working hard to clean up after everything and maintaining it, Win98 just starts getting a little flaky after a couple of years and it's best to just periodically blow it away and start all over again.

XP isn't like that. Put it on a clean system, make sure you've got it all set up right, patch it up (you'd need to do that for 98 too) and you're good to go. "


----------------------------------------------------------
Well two years is a long time anyway so it's not a big deal. Besides, what I did with Win98 was I
cloned a fresh install of it after I installed it and put it on CDRs with Norton Ghost. All I have to do is ghost it onto an empty HD and take an hour or two updating drivers and I'm good to go. I redo a Win98 fresh install onto CDRs every six months with the latest drivers and Windows updates at that time, so I'm always fairly up to date. With Win XP, I use Acronis True Image and always have current clones on extra hard drives. By the way, the install of Win98 I am using right this second is about 2 years old and runs like a charm. I play FB on it nearly every day.
I rarely play FB on my XP installs.