WINXP more stable than Windows 98

[DBF]

One of the reasons I upgraded to Windows XP - okay, I actually bought a new
computer with XP on it - was because I was told that it was more stable than
Windows 98. So far it has worked as well as 98, although to my mind a little
bit slower, even though I went from a PIII 1.0 GHz to a PIV 2.8 GHz. But I
see so many posts about people having problems, I am wondering if XP is
really as stable as it is supposed to be.
Or are the problems that I see just a small percentage of the total users
out there? Kind of like looking at the crowd of people in Times Square on
New Year's Eve and thinking, "Gosh, the whole world must be here!"
Anyone have thoughts on this? (The stability issue, not Times Square on New
Year's Eve.)
Dave

 

[N Millsap]

Dave
My opinion is that having to use any Microsoft Windows OS sucks. They
have piss poor support, shoddy programming, and yes, LOTS of problems
with system stability. Welcome to the XP world.

| One of the reasons I upgraded to Windows XP - okay, I actually bought
a new
| computer with XP on it - was because I was told that it was more
stable than
| Windows 98. So far it has worked as well as 98, although to my mind a
little
| bit slower, even though I went from a PIII 1.0 GHz to a PIV 2.8 GHz.
But I
| see so many posts about people having problems, I am wondering if XP
is
| really as stable as it is supposed to be.
| Or are the problems that I see just a small percentage of the total
users
| out there? Kind of like looking at the crowd of people in Times Square
on
| New Year's Eve and thinking, "Gosh, the whole world must be here!"
| Anyone have thoughts on this? (The stability issue, not Times Square
on New
| Year's Eve.)
| Dave
|
|

 

[Ron Martell]

One of the reasons I upgraded to Windows XP - okay, I actually bought a new
computer with XP on it - was because I was told that it was more stable than
Windows 98. So far it has worked as well as 98, although to my mind a little
bit slower, even though I went from a PIII 1.0 GHz to a PIV 2.8 GHz. But I
see so many posts about people having problems, I am wondering if XP is
really as stable as it is supposed to be.
Or are the problems that I see just a small percentage of the total users
out there? Kind of like looking at the crowd of people in Times Square on
New Year's Eve and thinking, "Gosh, the whole world must be here!"
Anyone have thoughts on this? (The stability issue, not Times Square on New
Year's Eve.)
Dave

Windows XP is inherently more stable than Windows 98, due in large
part because it uses the Windows NT Kernel (Windows NT/2000/XP) rather
than the Windows 9x Kernel (Windows 95/98/Me).

If your Windows XP is slower than Windows 98, even though it is
running on a faster CPU then that is probably a RAM related issue. I
suspect, without seeing anything about your actual RAM amounts, that
your new 2,8 ghz machine may have only 128 mb of RAM.

Windows XP requires much more RAM than previous versions of Windows
and 256 mb is pretty much the absolute minimum for any sort of decent
performance. And most users with 256 mb will experience a noticeable
improvement in performance if they upgrade to 512 mb.


As for your comments about problems, your assumption is correct.
Judging Windows (or any software product) based on newsgroup postings
is comparable to going to a hospital emergency room and using your
observations there to draw conclusions about the general health of the
entire population of the city.

Good luck with Windows XP.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[aragorn]

It's much more stable that win98. I never got the blue
screen of death in a year and even if you manage to screw
XP up, it's easy to restore to an earlier working state.

It might feel slower because it's loaded with new visual
extras win98 didn't have, and that takes power.
If you can live without all the shadows and toys and want
full speed...do this:
right click my computer,
properties,
Advanced,
Performance Settings,
click ADJUST FOR BEST PERFORMANCE and Apply/OK

Windows will be much faster.

 

[DBF]

No, it's 512 MB. Same amount of RAM as I had on my old PC, although this is
faster RAM.
But thanks for the input.
Dave

 

[Ron Martell]

No, it's 512 MB. Same amount of RAM as I had on my old PC, although this is
faster RAM.
But thanks for the input.
Dave

My experience has been that with adequate RAM (and 512 mb should be
more than adequate) that Windows XP will perform at least as well and
usually a bit better than Windows 98 on the same hardware.

So there is possibly something worth looking into a bit further.

Are you running a McAfee product? They are renowned for having the
"who dropped the anchor?" effect on computer performance.

What do you have loading at Startup (Start - Run - MSCONFIG - Startup
tab? Check these items out at
http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.htm

You may be able to turn off some XP service by changing them from
automatic to manual. Check out the information at
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

My Windows XP Pro partition boots up at least as fast as the Windows
98 or Windows Me partitions on the same system. Running with 512 mb
RAM.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."