Dual Operating Systems - Why??

[Papa]

I have noticed quite a few posts in this and other NGs regarding people
retaining Windows 98 or 98SE when they upgrade to Windows XP.

I cannot fathom why. Very little of this seemed to be occuring when people
upgraded from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, or from Windows 95 to Windows 98,
or from Windows 98 to Windows 98SE.

So why the reluctance to let go of Windows 98 or 98SE when upgrading to
Windows XP?

 

[Gordon Burgess-Parker]

I have noticed quite a few posts in this and other NGs regarding
people retaining Windows 98 or 98SE when they upgrade to Windows XP.

I cannot fathom why. Very little of this seemed to be occuring when
people upgraded from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, or from Windows 95 to
Windows 98, or from Windows 98 to Windows 98SE.

So why the reluctance to let go of Windows 98 or 98SE when upgrading
to Windows XP?

One reason is that XP is radically different from Windows 9x - having been
bred out of the NT/W2K stable.

 

[Yves Leclerc]

Windows 98 is a lot easier to configure for older Windows games. A lot of
older games require "tweaking" of the DOS environment and there are a lot a
ordinary users who do not understand how to "tweak" XP.

Y.

 

[George Cruppi]

And there are just some programs and hardware that are not compatible with
XP. And there may not be XP compatible upgrades.

 

[Papa]

Hi George.

In those cases, perhaps the decision to upgrade to XP was a bit premature.
I'd prefer the simpler approach of running just one OS, rather than the
complication of running two of them. I have friends and associates who
upgraded to XP for no other reason than that it is the very latest.

Regards.

 

[Alex Nichol]

I cannot fathom why. Very little of this seemed to be occuring when people
upgraded from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, or from Windows 95 to Windows 98,
or from Windows 98 to Windows 98SE.

So why the reluctance to let go of Windows 98 or 98SE when upgrading to
Windows XP?

Windows 95/98 and to a lesser extent ME, maintained 'loopholes' that
allowed earlier, badly behaved programs to run. This was a major cause
of instabilities. So XP has removed these loopholes, with the result
that there are *some* old programs that will not run under it. If these
are still seen as essential (and I take leave to doubt if they often
really are) then a dual boot is needed

And a lot of people who have heard that things look and behave rather
differently are just plain scared, and want to keep their old familiar
system around, at least for a time

 

[Sunny]

Just to add, from a gamers point of view
WinXP has removed some of the support for game port controllers as well.
(in favour of USB) and some vital programming software for controllers just
does not work.
With a controller set costing $A950.00 it is sometimes cheaper to run a dual
boot system.

I cannot fathom why. Very little of this seemed to be occuring when people
upgraded from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, or from Windows 95 to Windows 98,
or from Windows 98 to Windows 98SE.

So why the reluctance to let go of Windows 98 or 98SE when upgrading to
Windows XP?

Windows 95/98 and to a lesser extent ME, maintained 'loopholes' that
allowed earlier, badly behaved programs to run. This was a major cause
of instabilities. So XP has removed these loopholes, with the result
that there are *some* old programs that will not run under it. If these
are still seen as essential (and I take leave to doubt if they often
really are) then a dual boot is needed

And a lot of people who have heard that things look and behave rather
differently are just plain scared, and want to keep their old familiar
system around, at least for a time