which version of windows?????

  • Thread starter Thread starter rferoni
  • Start date Start date
R

rferoni

All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming. Is
XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the different
versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....

Ron
 
rferoni said:
All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming. Is
XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the different
versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....
Click to expand...


If you want reliable, forget about anything Win9x.

XP or Win2k should suit you just fine.


-WD
 
All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming.
Is XP all that?<

I will only upgrade to XP when game makers ditch w98se :-(

Only then will i get XP of course Longhorn or whatever will by then have
started to replace XP.
 
All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming. Is
XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the different
versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....

Ron
Click to expand...

I have Windows 98SE. It runs all my applications and is very stable.
That's all I care about. I don't like WinXP's licensing and high
cost. I might load Linux someday. However, Windows XP is probably
the most recommended O/S today and it will browse, email, and run most
games you can find. If you have the extra money the Pro version is
better than the Home version.
 
rferoni said:
All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming. Is
XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the different
versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....

Ron
Click to expand...
I have a dual-boot XP & Win98, I rarely use the XP. It's a pain in the butt.
After replacing a video card, I had to call MS to re-activate it. Finding
drivers is another problem. Getting games to run correctly is a pain. I'll
use Win98 for as long as I can.
 
rferoni said:
All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming. Is
XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the different
versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....

Ron
Click to expand...

Before you change look at your games.

Are they XP, 2K compatible.

I do not know about XP, but DOS based games or those that load their own DOS
can be difficult to run on 2K.

Other than that, if it works, why change.

Or install 2K, XP over Win98 so you can dual boot allowing 98 for games and
XP/2K for everything else.

That is if you MUST have XP or 2K

the_gnome
 
I have Windows 98SE. It runs all my applications and is very stable.
That's all I care about. I don't like WinXP's licensing and high
Click to expand...


The licensing is the same as with all other MS OSes, it just has a
Product Activation, which will be no problem for legitimate users.
AFAIK, the XP Home upgrade and full retail is on par with what Win98
sold for.
 
rferoni said:
All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming. Is
XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the different
versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....
Click to expand...

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. As for myself, I am running *very* happy with Win2kPro on my
machine, and you couldn't *pay* me to go over to XP.

Jon
 
Ok then.......thanks. I actually wanted to know for my mother as I'm
building her a computer. I don't even think she's ever used XP but thats
what she wants. I think I have her talked into upgrading to SE.........

Ron


| rferoni wrote:
|
| > All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming.
Is
| > XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the
different
| > versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
| > greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....
|
|
| If you want reliable, forget about anything Win9x.
|
| XP or Win2k should suit you just fine.
|
|
| -WD
 
If its for your mom, go XP...it does make some things easier and is very
stable. Microsoft announced today that they are retiring Win98 and it will
be no longer available to consumers after Dec 15th...part of the settlement
with Sun. I just built one for my mom's Christmas present with WinXP to
replace her 98 machine because of the ease of picture management, etc.

mb
 
All I know is Win98....I use my PC for web browsing, email, and gaming. Is
XP all that? I like win98 but figured maybe I should check the different
versions to see if I should upgrade. I don't care about the latest and
greatest, I want reliable and fast.....thanks....

Ron
Click to expand...

As you might be able to tell this machine is a Windows box (XP).
However the other box here is Linux (Mandrake 9.2).

Don't rule out the excellent alternative.
 
Win2KPro SP2. It is mature, stable, and fast.

XP has slowed down every machine I've seen. I see nothing to recommend
it over win2k.
 
Ok then.......thanks. I actually wanted to know for my mother as I'm
building her a computer. I don't even think she's ever used XP but thats
what she wants. I think I have her talked into upgrading to SE.........

Ron
Click to expand...

XP is better for the... uh... eh... common user.

Since I actually have some knowledge of 9x (actually Win95, many years
ago) internals:
A small hole in 9x memory protection has recieved much publicity. In
reality 9x memory protection rarely fails. It's not the problem.
Contrary to common beliefs, Win9x is not really, by itself,
'significantly' (mainstream desktop use) less 'stable' than NT or
2000/XP. At least in the sense that the things that brings W9x down,
in 99.9% are the same things that will bring down NT or 2000. Corrupt
priveliged code. Driver code. Basically, OS being ****ed up.

Thing is, since Win9x doesn't wear any knickers and has a very short
skirt, that sort of situation can happen very easily.
But if you install and configure your W9x carefully, and don't
'experiment' with driver installs and don't mess around with a lot of
real mode drivers, 'early' demos or shady 'cracked' software, Win9x
should run fine for months between system crashes. Mine always have
since W95.

But some people have real problems with W9x, for whatever reasons.
Multiple crashes a day. And though the same can be said for NT,
experience shows that they benefit from a change to NT or XP, so all
problems cannot be attributed to hardware ;-).

I have one Win98SE and three XPpro PCs. I love 98SE for its speed when
ram is scarce, and willingness to run older stuff. But XP is MS best
effort yet. For your mom, that's what I'd choose. And do it NTFS only.
No FAT32, no dual boot. And arrange for her to login on an account
without administrator rights, for normal use.


ancra
 
what is NTFS??

ron
| On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:50:48 -0500, "rferoni" <[email protected]>
| wrote:
|
| >Ok then.......thanks. I actually wanted to know for my mother as I'm
| >building her a computer. I don't even think she's ever used XP but thats
| >what she wants. I think I have her talked into upgrading to SE.........
| >
| >Ron
|
| XP is better for the... uh... eh... common user.
|
| Since I actually have some knowledge of 9x (actually Win95, many years
| ago) internals:
| A small hole in 9x memory protection has recieved much publicity. In
| reality 9x memory protection rarely fails. It's not the problem.
| Contrary to common beliefs, Win9x is not really, by itself,
| 'significantly' (mainstream desktop use) less 'stable' than NT or
| 2000/XP. At least in the sense that the things that brings W9x down,
| in 99.9% are the same things that will bring down NT or 2000. Corrupt
| priveliged code. Driver code. Basically, OS being ****ed up.
|
| Thing is, since Win9x doesn't wear any knickers and has a very short
| skirt, that sort of situation can happen very easily.
| But if you install and configure your W9x carefully, and don't
| 'experiment' with driver installs and don't mess around with a lot of
| real mode drivers, 'early' demos or shady 'cracked' software, Win9x
| should run fine for months between system crashes. Mine always have
| since W95.
|
| But some people have real problems with W9x, for whatever reasons.
| Multiple crashes a day. And though the same can be said for NT,
| experience shows that they benefit from a change to NT or XP, so all
| problems cannot be attributed to hardware ;-).
|
| I have one Win98SE and three XPpro PCs. I love 98SE for its speed when
| ram is scarce, and willingness to run older stuff. But XP is MS best
| effort yet. For your mom, that's what I'd choose. And do it NTFS only.
| No FAT32, no dual boot. And arrange for her to login on an account
| without administrator rights, for normal use.
|
|
| ancra
 
what is NTFS??
Click to expand...

New Technology File System which can be used by NT based systems like
Win2k/Win XP etc.
Supposedly les prone to data corruption and can be made more secure
and does not have the partition and file size limits of FAT and FAT32.
ron
| On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:50:48 -0500, "rferoni" <[email protected]>
| wrote:
|
| >Ok then.......thanks. I actually wanted to know for my mother as I'm
| >building her a computer. I don't even think she's ever used XP but thats
| >what she wants. I think I have her talked into upgrading to SE.........
| >
| >Ron
|
| XP is better for the... uh... eh... common user.
|
| Since I actually have some knowledge of 9x (actually Win95, many years
| ago) internals:
| A small hole in 9x memory protection has recieved much publicity. In
| reality 9x memory protection rarely fails. It's not the problem.
| Contrary to common beliefs, Win9x is not really, by itself,
| 'significantly' (mainstream desktop use) less 'stable' than NT or
| 2000/XP. At least in the sense that the things that brings W9x down,
| in 99.9% are the same things that will bring down NT or 2000. Corrupt
| priveliged code. Driver code. Basically, OS being ****ed up.
|
| Thing is, since Win9x doesn't wear any knickers and has a very short
| skirt, that sort of situation can happen very easily.
| But if you install and configure your W9x carefully, and don't
| 'experiment' with driver installs and don't mess around with a lot of
| real mode drivers, 'early' demos or shady 'cracked' software, Win9x
| should run fine for months between system crashes. Mine always have
| since W95.
|
| But some people have real problems with W9x, for whatever reasons.
| Multiple crashes a day. And though the same can be said for NT,
| experience shows that they benefit from a change to NT or XP, so all
| problems cannot be attributed to hardware ;-).
|
| I have one Win98SE and three XPpro PCs. I love 98SE for its speed when
| ram is scarce, and willingness to run older stuff. But XP is MS best
| effort yet. For your mom, that's what I'd choose. And do it NTFS only.
| No FAT32, no dual boot. And arrange for her to login on an account
| without administrator rights, for normal use.
|
|
| ancra
Click to expand...



--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
email shepATpartyheld.de
Free songs download,
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm
 
Ancra said:
Contrary to common beliefs, Win9x is not really, by itself,
'significantly' (mainstream desktop use) less 'stable' than NT or
2000/XP. At least in the sense that the things that brings W9x down,
in 99.9% are the same things that will bring down NT or 2000. Corrupt
priveliged code. Driver code. Basically, OS being ****ed up.
Click to expand...


My primary reason for switching from Win9x was the "resources" problem
with the entire line. If you run too many programs at once and your
GDI or User resources drops below a certain level... BAM! The whole
system crashes. You don't even have to be running a ton of programs at
once, either. All it takes is one or two poorly coded programs to suck
up your Win9x resources. (I just noticed today on my parents' machine
that SpyBot Search & Destroy uses lots of resources)

WinNT/2k/XP do not have this same resource limitation. Run as many
programs as you like. The worst thing that'll probably happen is that
the system will slow down as it starts swapping.

For this reason, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Win9x is
significantly less stable.


-WD
 
My primary reason for switching from Win9x was the "resources" problem
with the entire line. If you run too many programs at once and your
GDI or User resources drops below a certain level... BAM! The whole
system crashes. You don't even have to be running a ton of programs at
once, either. All it takes is one or two poorly coded programs to suck
up your Win9x resources. (I just noticed today on my parents' machine
that SpyBot Search & Destroy uses lots of resources)

WinNT/2k/XP do not have this same resource limitation. Run as many
programs as you like. The worst thing that'll probably happen is that
the system will slow down as it starts swapping.

For this reason, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Win9x is
significantly less stable.


-WD
Click to expand...

I've never had a problem with system resources in Win95/98/ME but then
I also don't run unneeded programs or as you say badly coded programs
unless required.Many programs run in the Taskbar just to advertize
themselves which is a major cause of problems in any windows version.
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/startup.html
http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_pages/startup_full.php

HTH :)



--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
email shepATpartyheld.de
Free songs download,
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm
 
Will said:
My primary reason for switching from Win9x was the "resources" problem
with the entire line. If you run too many programs at once and your
GDI or User resources drops below a certain level... BAM! The whole
system crashes. You don't even have to be running a ton of programs at
once, either. All it takes is one or two poorly coded programs to suck
up your Win9x resources. (I just noticed today on my parents' machine
that SpyBot Search & Destroy uses lots of resources)

WinNT/2k/XP do not have this same resource limitation. Run as many
programs as you like. The worst thing that'll probably happen is that
the system will slow down as it starts swapping.

For this reason, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Win9x is
significantly less stable.
Click to expand...

I don't know a lot about it but what you say seems to be correct to me. If
you have an older slower machine it's real obvious. Win XP seems to handle
the programs much better. I need to have four programs running at once on an
older machine I have and with win 98se they were always glitchy and slow.
With win xp they all run very smoothly and with no slowdowns or glitches or
crashes at all. Imho A big difference.



Roger
 
Back
Top