| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Ankhesentapemkah
    |
Posted - 2006.08.22 08:43:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 22/08/2006 08:50:40
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 22/08/2006 08:46:48
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 22/08/2006 08:45:51
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 22/08/2006 08:45:33
 Originally by: Nexus1972
This affects a small minority of eve users.
I'd rather devs were working on fixing bugs than trying to support an OS that should have been dropped by anyone with > 10 braincells years ago.
I have no sympathy for luddites there think 98 is better. It is not. End of.
Reasons why Win98 > WinXP
1) FPS in basically all games is about 20% higher in Windows 98 (tested with World of Warcraft, Guild Wars and Eve)
2) Windows 98 uses 12MB of RAM. Windows XP uses 150MB.
3) Contrary to popular belief, Windows 98 is much less vulnerable to spyware. Windows XP has a lot more places to hide spyware in, places which are also much more damaging to the system (windows 2000 shares this problem).
4) Windows 98 is more easily repaired in case something happens
5) Windows 98 has MUCH faster networking
6) Windows 98SE works perfectly unpatched out of the box. Try running Windows XP without service packs or critical updates.
7) Windows 98 is much more stable (literally no crashes or "this program has performed an illegal op and will be shut down" for years on my work/game PC and uptimes of 6 months or more for my win98 server), compared to Windows XP that is slow and freezes for upto 30 seconds and shuts down programs sometimes.
8) Windows XP does all kinds of stuff behind your back, Windows 98 does not.
9) Windows XP forces you to install all kinds of bloat which takes you over an hour to delete or disable after installation (such as the Luna interface, horrible POS!), while Windows 98 allows you to deselect a lot of it at installation.
10) Windows XP has a horrible directory structure, especially the way it handles user profiles is infuriating (documents and settings and 1000 folders in that, EEEK!), where windows 98 only has 5 folders for users of which my documents is conveniently in the root.
11-100) Windows 98 is faster.
Reasons why XP > Win98
One and only reason: Windows 98 can only handle 1.5GB of memory. Windows 2000 and Windows XP can handle 4GB IIRC.
Oh and to bust the myth that "windows 98 can only use 128/256/512MB of Ram and won't use the rest":
http://80.60.190.55/pics/performance.jpg
(and yes I would play like that)
|
Khan Dhu
|
Posted - 2006.08.22 08:55:00 -
[32]
If you don't want to upgrade to XP, nothing's stopping you from going to Win2k SP4. You can set up a Power User account to trim off some of the Admin services and 2k uses less overhead than "home-centric" XP.
I think you can get licenses for 2k for ~80-90 bucks nowadays, possibly cheaper. And MS isn't ABOUT to kill off support for Win2k anytime soon, I think most of the business world still uses it because Win2k3 is still WAY too damned expensive and doesn't offer much for the price premium.
|
Prolixious
|
Posted - 2006.08.22 09:47:00 -
[33]
Upgrade to XP. 98 Is unsupported by Microsoft. You'll have to move with rest of the crowd eventually so why not do it now? If you cant afford the $100 to upgrade. You've got other problems and probably shouldnt be spending your money on EVE.
|
Prolixious
|
Posted - 2006.08.22 09:48:00 -
[34]
Upgrade to XP. 98 Is unsupported by Microsoft. You'll have to move with rest of the crowd eventually so why not do it now? If you cant afford the $100 to upgrade. You've got other problems and probably shouldnt be spending your money on EVE.
|
Caliwyrm O'Libr
|
Posted - 2006.08.22 19:51:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Caliwyrm O''Libr on 22/08/2006 19:54:52
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
stuff
Opinions, no matter how creative or no matter how they're disguised as self-proclaimed 'facts', are still opinions.
1) If you're comparing 98 to XP running on the same older computer (ie PIII 1GHz) then of course 98 will run faster. That doesn't mean XP "sucks", that just means XP wasn't designed for that rig.
2) Creative math. I can make 98 use as much or as little memory as possible if I were inclined.
3) If you say so but my repair business says that spyware thrives equally on any Windows platform thanks to ignorant users who HAVE to have 16 different toolbars running in IE.
4) Good luck trying to reinstall 98 on top of itself--especially since the 98SE disk only has an older IE on it. Ever try to install an older IE on top of a newer IE? In contrast, XP has a handy 'Repair' function on the CD that handles most reinstalls painlessly and even keeps your registry entries for programs--unlike 98.
5) /shrug If you say so.
6) That is so vague as to be borderline stupid. Either machine will work perfectly fine 'out of the box' except XP will work on the internet a helluva lot better since it comes with IE6.0. You can't even go to windowsupdate.microsoft.com in 98 without first going to www.microsoft.com and downloading IE6SP1..
7) XP can't turn a pile of dogturds into gold granted, but my XP boxes at home have only ever had to be rebooted because of power outages, security updates, etc for YEARS--never because of a crash. This is an age old fallacy brought about by people up refuse to do a clean format when installing XP on an existing computer. Of course XP will be unstable if you start off by putting it over an unstable (often spyware infested) version of 98.
8) LOL...Riiiiiiight.
9) Straight vanilla XP isn't full of bloatware, that is all put on by vendors (Dell, eMachines, etc). XP simply does NOT come installed with 2 different versions of "Spiderman Cartoon Creator" tyvm. As for Luna: a) that is a matter of opinion, b) yes, 4mb and 8mb video cards have a problem with Luna--get an upgrade c) I'd take Luna over the bloat that was Desktop Themes anyday (Underwater, More Windows, etc)
10) . . . People said the same thing about the Win95 directory structure when switching from Win 3.1/3.11. Adapt, it isn't a deal breaker.
11+) See response #1. I can gaurantee you I can build a machine using new parts that 98 will choke and puke on and XP will run like butter. Putting XP on a P3 700MHz with 128 MB of ram is like putting a trailer hitch on a MoPed. It simply wasn't designed for it so of course it isn't the best in that situation.
For the record, there WAS a RAM limit in the 95/98/ME kernel. HOWEVER, if a program had its own memory manager (like Photoshop and more than likely WoW) it could make full use of the memory. The *OS* had a limit of what it could efficiently use, individual programs-if coded properly-could bypass that limit. Trust me, Win98 running on 1 gig of 72 pin RAM was NOT efficient nor fast.
You obviously feel very strongly about this issue, and more power to you, but everything you listed is still merely your opinion. With Dell machines being as little as $299 (they even include XP *AND* an AGP slot in most cases) there really isn't much reason to support a dead/dying OS.
Should I be unhappy with Ford because they don't make parts for 1980 Pintos anymore?
|
Spaced Skunk
Oriundus Cineris
|
Posted - 2006.08.22 19:52:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Colette Reynard
Guess I have to say goodbye then. I still run 98SE, and eve has always worked fine for me. No crashes, very very few lockups, etc.
But now CCP says as of tuesday Eve will no longer run on my machine.
This is a new experience. I don't think I've ever been told to foxtrot oscar quite so bluntly before, or at least not by a company to whom I was paying regular monthly fees.
Need I say I'm a bit unhappy?
Try to get EvE running on Linux and a partition or second harddrive (Free operating system). I have heard EvE will run on that.
 |
Ankhesentapemkah
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 03:03:00 -
[37]
|
Valeris
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 03:07:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Valeris on 23/08/2006 03:08:03
Originally by: Caliwyrm O'Libr
8) LOL...Riiiiiiight.
Yep.
Originally by: Caliwyrm O'Libr
9) Straight vanilla XP isn't full of bloatware, that is all put on by vendors (Dell, eMachines, etc). XP simply does NOT come installed with 2 different versions of "Spiderman Cartoon Creator" tyvm. As for Luna: a) that is a matter of opinion, b) yes, 4mb and 8mb video cards have a problem with Luna--get an upgrade c) I'd take Luna over the bloat that was Desktop Themes anyday (Underwater, More Windows, etc)
No XP comes with a DOG that wants to search files for you. *runs away from evil dog screaming*
Originally by: Caliwyrm O'Libr
10) . . . People said the same thing about the Win95 directory structure when switching from Win 3.1/3.11. Adapt, it isn't a deal breaker.
Maybe because people want to decide for themselves where to put their files instead of having windows make a huge mess of it?
Originally by: Caliwyrm O'Libr
11+) See response #1. I can gaurantee you I can build a machine using new parts that 98 will choke and puke on and XP will run like butter. Putting XP on a P3 700MHz with 128 MB of ram is like putting a trailer hitch on a MoPed. It simply wasn't designed for it so of course it isn't the best in that situation.
See #1 for my system. And tell me why an OPERATING SYSTEM needs system resources in the first place. APPLICATIONS use system resources, not the OS! (unless the OS is bloated with applications, like WinXP).
Originally by: Caliwyrm O'Libr
For the record, there WAS a RAM limit in the 95/98/ME kernel. HOWEVER, if a program had its own memory manager (like Photoshop and more than likely WoW) it could make full use of the memory. The *OS* had a limit of what it could efficiently use, individual programs-if coded properly-could bypass that limit. Trust me, Win98 running on 1 gig of 72 pin RAM was NOT efficient nor fast.
That's VCache, which I already fixed so it can use 1GB properly, and fast!
Originally by: Caliwyrm O'Libr
You obviously feel very strongly about this issue, and more power to you, but everything you listed is still merely your opinion. With Dell machines being as little as $299 (they even include XP *AND* an AGP slot in most cases) there really isn't much reason to support a dead/dying OS.
Hahaha... If you recommend a DELLete PC, then you really know nothing about computers.
On the other hand, I've been building computers from components since the XT was around |
SirWOLFE
Caldari
Council of Lords
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 04:54:00 -
[39]
Its not just Eve that no longer supports windows 98 or ME, a huge amount of other deverlopers are doing the same, I have several machines one with xp pro and one with windows 98SE so i can play old games. With the new graphics cards that are comming out means that u will need to upgrade if you have not already done so, when the Kali expansions grpahical update is released its ment to be dx10 so no AGP graphics cards will support it. So thats a new cpu, new ram new motherboard and new grpahics cards for a lot of us + windows Vista should be out and running. I know its annoying and will amke a lot of people un happy but windows 98 and me have more holes than swiss cheese which is probably the real reason microsoft has given up on them and working on xp and vista
---------------------------------------------------
SPACE IS BIG, VERY BIG SO BIG INFACT THAT WE NEEDED TO MAKE UP A NEW WORD TO DISCRIPE IT SO WE DSECIDED ON "VERY BIG".
----------------------- |
hellsknights
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 05:11:00 -
[40]
Tell me guys whats the point of talking/debating any longer about this...
The fact is that u can no longer run the game on the older os's...It does not matter which is better,uses less memory,all u gotta do is upgrade or stop playng pretty simple.
Btw just get a friend to burn u a copy and download a decrypter to change u your serial,that way u can download sp2. After that its back to a happy gaming environment
|
|
Ankhesentapemkah
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 08:17:00 -
[41]
Originally by: SirWOLFE
Its not just Eve that no longer supports windows 98 or ME, a huge amount of other deverlopers are doing the same, I have several machines one with xp pro and one with windows 98SE so i can play old games. With the new graphics cards that are comming out means that u will need to upgrade if you have not already done so, when the Kali expansions grpahical update is released its ment to be dx10 so no AGP graphics cards will support it. So thats a new cpu, new ram new motherboard and new grpahics cards for a lot of us + windows Vista should be out and running. I know its annoying and will amke a lot of people un happy but windows 98 and me have more holes than swiss cheese which is probably the real reason microsoft has given up on them and working on xp and vista
Like I said, I have no problems getting Vista on a 64-bit machine. I DO have a problem with getting Windows XP on a 32-bit machine.
Windows XP == Windows ME in quality.
I have no problems paying for an Operating System. As long as I get value for money. Windows XP has no value, so I won't buy it, nor abuse my hardware by putting that piece of malware on it.
In Windows Vista, one can install it completely without GUI, I heard. I love it already. Operating Systems should be the bare minium, and only facilitate communication between software and hardware. Nothing more. Applications should have all the eyecandy.
Yes I should run Linux, but I'm a gamer (and gamedesigner on top of that), so I'm basically forced to use Windows.
|
Nadija
Wolfenrecon
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 09:00:00 -
[42]
I found windows 98 to be worse than XP personally
MY SIG BANNER GALLERY |
Laureli
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 09:20:00 -
[43]
You dont *have* to upgrade. You could try it and see if its ok. You only need to worry about upgrading if you do have problems as CCP won't be able to help you.
Its not an issue of all of a sudden it *won't* work - just that you won't get any support if it doesn't.
And I think its only fair that CCP concentrate on supporting OS's that they can receive support with.
I like the linux idea - is that a definate "EvE works on Linux" or just a rumour?
|
Nexus1972
cosmos operations
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 09:46:00 -
[44]
I work running an IT department at a school in a UK university, supporting about 1000 users. My 10+ years of experience have made me understand that users are always opposed to change, there isnt much you can do if someone pig-headedly believes that the old OS is better than the new.
The only exception in my experience to the rule of newer is generally better is windows Me - it was a complete pile of toss, and wasnt worth M$ developing.
Perhaps when you tested Xp it was before it was mature, probably pre SP1/SP2 and probably your hardware had driver issues.
Microsoft havent released security updates for your OS for some time now, and if a new critical security vulnerability arrises you will have to pay M$ for a hotfix - assuming you're NOT a pirate who doesnt pay for his/her software.
Windows 2000 IMHO isnt worth moving to, because it is near end of life for M$ support also.
I've seen so many windows 98/98se machines over the past 5 years that contained far more spyware than the equivalent XP machines ever did. If you are comparing running windows 98se on a p3500 with 256mb ram to running xp on the same spec i'm not surprised it runs slower.
If you run xp and use firefox and turn on the sp2 firewall your machine will be reasonably safe, so long as you keep the windows update up-to-date. I'd still recommend something like spybot search and destroy, or lavasoft ad-aware as a precaution and of course some AV software.
--------------------------------
CEO of Cosmos Operations
Building COSMOS Minmatar BPC's and supplying Sleeper components |
Reathyr
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 10:37:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Reathyr on 23/08/2006 10:37:56
Listen there is not real use in complaining about this, CCP doesn't really have a choice in this, they can't support any OS that the company that made the OS doesn't support itself.
If Microsoft says we stop with support, that's it, sure there always will be a couple of enthusiast coders who will selfsupport an unsupported OS, but that's no good for companies who make programs for a sertain OS line, they need pretty much 24/7 support for any problems that surface, amateur support can not do that.
If you can't accept that I suggest you take it up with Microsoft.
As for what's the more stable or superior OS, 98/98SE/ME/2k/XP, honestly I couldn't care less.
|
Alexis Flamestar
Gallente
ANZEP Australia-New Zealand Eve Players Group
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 10:59:00 -
[46]
I want to run this on a TRS-80 :)
|
Chandra2
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 12:08:00 -
[47]
Quote:
This affects a small minority of eve users.
I'd rather devs were working on fixing bugs than trying to support an OS that should have been dropped by anyone with > 10 braincells years ago.
I have no sympathy for luddites there think 98 is better. It is not. End of.
I just agree with this...
|
Valeris
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 12:09:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Nexus1972
I work running an IT department at a school in a UK university, supporting about 1000 users. My 10+ years of experience have made me understand that users are always opposed to change, there isnt much you can do if someone pig-headedly believes that the old OS is better than the new.
First of all, I've got 18 years of experience with PCs. Had an XT, several 486s, and the whole spectrum of Pentiums/K6s/Athlons. I'm a freelance computer fixer, and got my own webserver which has over 100GB upsteam bandwidth each month from several fora with thousands of members. I have also built databases and servers for the ministery of transportation and public works.
Secondly, I don't believe old is better. However, sometimes the next product in line is simply not satisfactory. Products such as Windows 95 and Windows ME. I place Windows XP in their catagory. Not worth upgrading to, better to sit out the wait for the next product (windows vista). I tried windows 95, I tried windows ME and I tried windows XP. I decided to use none of these. Instead I went DOS -> DOS6/Win3.11 -> Windows 98 -> Windows 98SE -> 98SE/2k -> Windows Vista
I am skipping Windows 95, Windows ME, and Windows XP, as they are the worst products in the line of development.
Originally by: Nexus1972
The only exception in my experience to the rule of newer is generally better is windows Me - it was a complete pile of toss, and wasnt worth M$ developing.
Perhaps when you tested Xp it was before it was mature, probably pre SP1/SP2 and probably your hardware had driver issues.
Yes I tested it pre SP1, and that was horrible. However I also tested it post SP2, and it was indeed much more stable, but still horribly bloat and slow.
Originally by: Nexus1972
Microsoft havent released security updates for your OS for some time now, and if a new critical security vulnerability arrises you will have to pay M$ for a hotfix - assuming you're NOT a pirate who doesnt pay for his/her software.
Windows 2000 IMHO isnt worth moving to, because it is near end of life for M$ support also.
I always purchase my games and other software legally except for programs such as 3d max and virtools which I need for my study and are too expensive normally, or programs which aren't for sale in the local shop. I got 5 Windows 98 SE licences, 1 win 95 licence, 2 winME licences, 2 Win2k pro licences, 1 Windows XP pro licence and a whole bunch of Office licences. Most of them are OEM though.
|
Doublewhopper
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 12:16:00 -
[49]
Why not see this a a chance to upgrade to Linux instead of XP, as CCP supports it?
Agreed, there is a learning curve, but with XP or Vista you will have to learn again anyway, so why not spend that time Linux?
|
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 12:46:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 20/08/2006 01:12:15
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 20/08/2006 01:01:59
Im still with Win98SE as well, and I hate it that games do not support it for no reason (basically programming lazyness, as everything that runs on 2k and XP can run on 98SE too)
You're obviously not a programmer.
The problem is more correctly stated as:
99% of Win98 applications can run under Win2K/XP
90% of Win2k/WinXP applications can runder Win98
The problem is that missing 10% in the second statement. That represents new API functions and enhancements to existing API functions that make empower developers (ie;give them more possibilities to please the end user).
What happens is that a developer develops for the current versions of Windows (2K and XP) and implements something that best utilises the features of those operating systems. That way the end user gets the best possible experience.
The problem is that when they try to run that application under Win9x one or more of the API calls they are making use of isn't supported or doesn't work the same way or is limited in what it can do. This requires the programmer to implement additional code (usually very technical code and something only a few programmers can do). This takes time and costs money - often a lot of time and money because you are effectively writing part of the operating system.
If all that time and money only helps 2% of your target audience it just doesn't make economic sense to bother.
Some functions you can just live without but as time goes on Win9x is dropping further and further behind what developers need. It takes more and more effort to adjust programs to support it and there is less and less point in bothering.
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
|
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 12:52:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Colette Reynard
Originally by: Kruugore
As someone who works at a University Help Desk, dealing with technical calls all the time.
I have no sympathy for people complaining about moving on to newer platforms. You may not have problems. But I've dealt with enough problems to know that when it comes technology, the overwhelming majority of people are idiots. And from my experience, when tech companies say 'we don't support X program anymore', it really means that they don't want to be bothered dealing with keeping newer systems compatible with older systems because it takes too much time to help the overwhelming idiot majority.
So when the company is running updated machines with updated software, has new staff trained on the new machines and new software. They don't have to waste time training the new employees on the older, less advanced systems that are more finicky.
If someone calls up, I can just say "I'm sorry, our new systems are not meant to support X tecgh/software, please upgrade to the new version"
It's not a matter of lazyness, I already get too many calls for the current systems to be bothered trouble shooting for an obsolete one.
Thanks for telling us about your lack of sympathy. That was an extraordinarily helpful contribution to this conversation.
It's economics and practical neccessity. As every day passes Win9x becomes more and more of a drain on resources for developers and support staff. There comes a time when companies and people just have to call time on the whole thing. CCP could have given a bit more warning I'd agree (seems like they only gave one week and it should have been a month).
There is no good reason for people running Eve not to upgrade to WinXP.
If their machine can run the Eve client it can run 2K/XP
If they can afford to fritter money away on a monthly subscription they can afford to upgrade their OS.
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
Roy Gordon
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 13:02:00 -
[52]
To be perfectly honest you can pick up XP Home Edition with SP2 here in the UK for next to nothing now. I too held out using XP prefering to use 98SE, but, I have to grudgingly admit XP is so stable and easier to use that I will never go back to using 98SE again.
XP Pro has a feature which allows you to setup multiple OS's and bootups for them, so you might prefer to go down that path. I can run 98SE and even Dos under XP with some emulators such as DosBox etc so you might consider that option as well.
|
Slaadi
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 13:05:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
Yes, with Windows 98 you can. But you CANT make Windows XP use as little memory as you want. Or can you squeeze XP in 12MB?
With even Corsair memory being around 10 cents a meg, how is this even an issue?
And how is it that all these computer experts can't get XP to run without crashing? Beyond some buggy games like CoH mucking up my system, XP has been far more stable than anything else I've run. Even if it bombed as much as older OS's, 9 times out of 10 it deals with a program crashing without more than that "Do you want to report this error?" dialog box, I can't remember it ever completely locking or BSOD'ing that wasn't related to me doing something dumb.
|
Shinon Asahina
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 14:27:00 -
[54]
Win2K Pro is a very good OS that I ran for many years -- why you are still clinging to a buggy unstable OS like Win98 I have no idea. The memory leaks and blue screens with 98 are so aggravating .... whereas 2K won't melt into a puddle if you look its way, and can stay running for months at a time.
So yes I guess it is goodbye because you feel like CCP is obligated to continue supporting a nearly decade old inferior OS.
How about Adobe Premiere which requires WinXP SP2? :)
|
Skeltek
Caldari
Asgard Schiffswerften
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 14:48:00 -
[55]
Microsoft has seized support for WinME, Win98 and Win98SE at 11.July2006. Any improves on the engine regarding DirectX and the like will simply not run, might damage the computer or are too expensive to programm workarounds.
It¦s like your local store breaks into your appartment and removes your PAL-compatibel TV which you bought for one that does not support your format. Just continue paying your TV company, even though you cannot look anything any more = P
EA for example had a courtfight some years ago... one of the points was that the purchased product did not/no longer run on computers that were written as system requirements on the game package.
But imho Microsoft are the first to blame. It is simply not possible to keep improving the client if DirectX and stuff is no longer being supported on the operating system.
I am not familiar enough with the EULA or local law, but basicaly you bought something that was replaced by something dramaticaly different from what you bought...
|
Retar Jore
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 15:00:00 -
[56]
/signed to OP.
(And no, you can't have my stuff. Its MY stuff.)
|
Slaadi
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 15:33:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Skeltek
It¦s like your local store breaks into your appartment and removes your PAL-compatibel TV which you bought for one that does not support your format. Just continue paying your TV company, even though you cannot look anything any more = P
....
I am not familiar enough with the EULA or local law, but basicaly you bought something that was replaced by something dramaticaly different from what you bought...
Maybe it's just me, but the only item I own that has a lifetime warranty is my zippo lighter. Everything else has a point where the manufacturer will no longer support or fix it.
Believe it or not, there reaches a point where a piece of code will just not function properly on an older OS. Given the choice of spending the extra effort to make sure everything they do works on every version they ever released or at certain points saying "Ok, this is now 8 years old, anything new we will not guarantee will work on it from this point on", I'll take the latter.
The really ridiculous thing is a machine made up entirely of 8 year old parts couldn't run this or many other games, assuming you had hard drives and video cards and SDRAM that still even work after almost a decade. People buy better video cards, faster CPU's, more (and faster) RAM, bigger hard drives all the time... but say the OS needs to be upgraded and people start complaining. Hell I've probably spent more mony on mice and keyboards in the last 8 years than I did on buying XP.
|
Draygo Korvan
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 16:47:00 -
[58]
Simple, 95/98 have an unprotected kernel (it is very possible during a crash for the kernel to become damaged). WinXP's kernel is protected (I havent had any issues with the winXP kernel).
Also I havent found a peice of old software that wouldnt work on WinXP, its compatability modes are great. Usually you have to remember to run the install file in 95/98 compatability mode to get it to work (make a shortcut to the install/setup file and tell the shortcut to run in 95/98 compatability).
As for the spyware issue, there is no peice of spyware that I have fought that I have not completely recovered from in WinXP. Windows 95/98 there are malware/spyware/viruses that will destroy your kernel and thus force a reinstall of your OS. I have also found WinXP with Windows Defender far more secure than Win98. I also know of a certain breed of malware that can hide much better behind Win98 than WinXP.
It is also possible to streamline WinXP into a few MB. One major step would be to turn off the themes services, and some bloatware (turn off system restore, automatic updates etc etc etc). MSCONFIG alone in winxp can turn off a majority of the bloatware.
I actually used to like 98, but WinXP also has alot more to offer, though it can take a bit more work to make WinXP more effecient in RAM usage - its performance is very comparable after you complete all optimizations.
|
Trom Zatagnia
Ars Caelestis
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.08.23 21:53:00 -
[59]
Anyone choosing Vista over XP is going to have a rough first year, more than likely. XP -> Vista may well be a more radical code change than 9x -> XP. XP is a good operating system as it now stands. The "documents and settings" complaint is valid only on single user machines. If more than one person uses the machine, its a godsend. My only complaint is the long folder name with spaces there. No big deal.
|
Drano Kay
Caldari
Peekaboo Perfect Space Explore
|
Posted - 2006.08.24 01:54:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
1) FPS in basically all games is about 20% higher in Windows 98 (tested with World of Warcraft, Guild Wars and Eve)
Prove it. Show me *ANY* proof, even FAKE proof. Windows XP is MUCH faster than 98.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
2) Windows 98 uses 12MB of RAM. Windows XP uses 150MB.
No, Windows XP SHOWS you how much RAM it's using, Windows 98 HIDES how much RAM it's using. Much like it's back-end service processes are hidden, whereas XP shows then.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
3) Contrary to popular belief, Windows 98 is much less vulnerable to spyware. Windows XP has a lot more places to hide spyware in, places which are also much more damaging to the system (windows 2000 shares this problem).
No, Windows 98 has much more places to hide spyware in.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
4) Windows 98 is more easily repaired in case something happens
No, you know HOW TO REPAIR windows 98, and you don't know how with 2K/XP.. There's a difference between easy for you and easy in general.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
5) Windows 98 has MUCH faster networking
Uhh, this is prolly the DUMBEST thing you've said so far. 2K and XP are built upon the NT networking architecture which was designed for a production environment. Windows XP has less network overhead.. and saying 'faster' is just retarded, speed test XP vs 98's networking you'll see no difference, the only difference is in the resource overhead.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
6) Windows 98SE works perfectly unpatched out of the box. Try running Windows XP without service packs or critical updates.
Well, I spose this may be true.. Not really for me, I install the version which has SP2 already applied.. and anything else that is critical (like the PNG hack fix) windows 98 needs as well.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
7) Windows 98 is much more stable (literally no crashes or "this program has performed an illegal op and will be shut down" for years on my work/game PC and uptimes of 6 months or more for my win98 server), compared to Windows XP that is slow and freezes for upto 30 seconds and shuts down programs sometimes.
My god, I take back the networking is the dumbest thing you've said so far statement.. cause this just takes the cake. Windows 98 is the most UNSTABLE piece of crap ever, in the history of windows I think the only thing more unstable than 98 is ME.. Not to mention when something crashes in XP you get a program has crashed dialog.. in 9x you get BSOD (if you're lucky, mostly just reboot all of the sudden.)
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
8) Windows XP does all kinds of stuff behind your back, Windows 98 does not.
98 does infact do MANY things which are completely hidden from you, required system services. XP simply shows them to you.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
9) Windows XP forces you to install all kinds of bloat which takes you over an hour to delete or disable after installation (such as the Luna interface, horrible POS!), while Windows 98 allows you to deselect a lot of it at installation.
If like 100 megs ****es you off..
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
10) Windows XP has a horrible directory structure, especially the way it handles user profiles is infuriating (documents and settings and 1000 folders in that, EEEK!), where windows 98 only has 5 folders for users of which my documents is conveniently in the root.
Attempting to be multi-user is where we agree, that is a horrible idea of Windows.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
11-100) Windows 98 is faster.
It most certainly is NOT.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
Reasons why XP > Win98
One and only reason: Windows 98 can only handle 1.5GB of memory. Windows 2000 and Windows XP can handle 4GB IIRC.
Not to mention NEW SOFTWARE, GAMES, and SPEED.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
Oh and to bust the myth that "windows 98 can only use 128/256/512MB of Ram and won't use the rest":
(and yes I would play like that
So special.
I had to tackle the forum chr limit=)
|
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |