What is the fastest computer that will run Win98


L

letterman

I have no intention of upgrading beyond Win98se. I currently run a
pentium III, 1ghz computer, which I purchased as a refurbished
computer with Windows 2000 installed. It took me less than one day to
dump Win2000, and downgrade to Win98se. Actually, I didn't downgrade,
I just removed the tiny 10gig harddrive that came with the computer
and installed a larger drive, and Win98. Since then, I've installed
the maximum Ram allowable (512M), and added other hardware.

I'm considering taking this to the limit. What is the fastest
computer that will still run Win98se? I know the limit is not so much
a matter of speed/power, but more a matter of getting drivers for 98.
Therefore. I guess the real answer is what computer and/or motherboard
brands make the fastest systems that have drivers for Win98?
I can and will buy a motherboard/CPU combo and build my own system.

As a final note, I will upgrade to Windows ME if it will help get the
maximum speed. 98 and ME are nearly identical anyhow. And, if anyone
happens to know, does WinME allow for more Ram than 98?

Thanks for all advice.
(Please dont waste your time trying to talk me into XP, I hate it.
I'm also not interested in Linux whatsoever).
 
Ad

Advertisements

E

Eric P.

I have no intention of upgrading beyond Win98se. I currently run a
pentium III, 1ghz computer, which I purchased as a refurbished
computer with Windows 2000 installed. It took me less than one day to
dump Win2000, and downgrade to Win98se. Actually, I didn't downgrade,
I just removed the tiny 10gig harddrive that came with the computer
and installed a larger drive, and Win98. Since then, I've installed
the maximum Ram allowable (512M), and added other hardware.

I'm considering taking this to the limit. What is the fastest
computer that will still run Win98se? I know the limit is not so much
a matter of speed/power, but more a matter of getting drivers for 98.
Therefore. I guess the real answer is what computer and/or motherboard
brands make the fastest systems that have drivers for Win98?
I can and will buy a motherboard/CPU combo and build my own system.

As a final note, I will upgrade to Windows ME if it will help get the
maximum speed. 98 and ME are nearly identical anyhow. And, if anyone
happens to know, does WinME allow for more Ram than 98?

Thanks for all advice.
(Please dont waste your time trying to talk me into XP, I hate it.
I'm also not interested in Linux whatsoever).
Personally I would never install Windows ME again.
I once did and it was a big disappointment.
It's mainly a stripped down version of Windows 98SE which will restrict
you in many ways.

Next to Windows XP I still use Windows 98SE on several computers.
My main computer has dualboot XP/Win98SE.
It has an MSI K7T Turbo2 (MS-6330) motherboard, a 2GHz AMD Athlon XP
2400+ CPU and 1GB RAM.
It is running very very stable for five years now.

In Windows 98SE I use 897.0MB RAM after reading:

Memory Management by James A. Eshelman
http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm

and some experimenting.

I use
[386Enh]
MAXPhysPage=38E00
[vcache]
MaxFileCache=524288
in System.INI
 
P

Paul

I have no intention of upgrading beyond Win98se. I currently run a
pentium III, 1ghz computer, which I purchased as a refurbished
computer with Windows 2000 installed. It took me less than one day to
dump Win2000, and downgrade to Win98se. Actually, I didn't downgrade,
I just removed the tiny 10gig harddrive that came with the computer
and installed a larger drive, and Win98. Since then, I've installed
the maximum Ram allowable (512M), and added other hardware.

I'm considering taking this to the limit. What is the fastest
computer that will still run Win98se? I know the limit is not so much
a matter of speed/power, but more a matter of getting drivers for 98.
Therefore. I guess the real answer is what computer and/or motherboard
brands make the fastest systems that have drivers for Win98?
I can and will buy a motherboard/CPU combo and build my own system.

As a final note, I will upgrade to Windows ME if it will help get the
maximum speed. 98 and ME are nearly identical anyhow. And, if anyone
happens to know, does WinME allow for more Ram than 98?

Thanks for all advice.
(Please dont waste your time trying to talk me into XP, I hate it.
I'm also not interested in Linux whatsoever).

I don't think you'll find an easy answer somewhere.

My guess would be, for Intel chipsets, something with 875/865/848.
Those have AGP.

This has socket LGA775, and takes stuff up to early Conroe. It
won't run the latest stuff, due to FSB limits. The chipset is
really an FSB800 chipset, with the record for that family being
about FSB1200, and more likely the stated FSB1066 is a safer limit.
If clocked too high, there are graphics artifacts on at least 865PE.
And I suspect the internal graphics of the 865G have to be
disabled at FSB1066 anyway, but you'd be more likely to have
a graphics card in it.

http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.asp?Model=ConRoe865PE&s=775
http://www.asrock.com/mb/cpu.asp?Model=ConRoe865PE&s=775

AFAIK, Win98 is single core ? Perhaps a P4 672 at 3.8Ghz
would be the fastest processor. Some examples of processors
here, and at least some of them will be pulls.

http://www.pricewatch.com/cpu/3.8ghz.htm

I think the Nvidia Nforce3 chipset was the last Win98
chipset they offer. You can probably find a motherboard
with S939 and that chipset. Then pop an FX-57 at 2.8GHz
into it. That would be roughly comparable to the Intel
solution. Note that there were stuttering issues with
Nforce3 and Nvidia 6800 family cards, so if going
that route, you'd want to research the problem a
bit. I don't think it was totally solved.

Basically, it takes a lot of dredging of web sites,
to figure out whether a particular combo will work
or not. You'd have to want Win98 pretty bad, to
find more candidate systems (hours and hours of
research).

Paul
 
G

GT

I have no intention of upgrading beyond Win98se. I currently run a
pentium III, 1ghz computer, which I purchased as a refurbished
computer with Windows 2000 installed. It took me less than one day to
dump Win2000, and downgrade to Win98se. Actually, I didn't downgrade,
I just removed the tiny 10gig harddrive that came with the computer
and installed a larger drive, and Win98. Since then, I've installed
the maximum Ram allowable (512M), and added other hardware.

I'm considering taking this to the limit. What is the fastest
computer that will still run Win98se? I know the limit is not so much
a matter of speed/power, but more a matter of getting drivers for 98.
Therefore. I guess the real answer is what computer and/or motherboard
brands make the fastest systems that have drivers for Win98?
I can and will buy a motherboard/CPU combo and build my own system.

As a final note, I will upgrade to Windows ME if it will help get the
maximum speed. 98 and ME are nearly identical anyhow. And, if anyone
happens to know, does WinME allow for more Ram than 98?

Don't do it - ME is riddled with problems. It was a half-way house upgrade
that didn't work!
There is no speed limit on performance for Win98 - any new PC would be able
to run it, but you will find potential hurdles over new drivers, hard disk
sizes etc.

If you are happy with your current PC and Win98, then why change? More
memory would always speed things up, but otherwise - it is really worth it?
 
C

CBFalconer

Rarius said:
I'm not going to argue with you, but I would like to know what
it is about XP you hate so much.

Start with the license. Add the registration etc.

Please don't strip attribution lines. I have added the missing one
here.
 
J

Jon Danniken

Thanks for all advice.
(Please dont waste your time trying to talk me into XP, I hate it.
I'm also not interested in Linux whatsoever).

While I begrudgringly use XP at the moment, if I could use any operating
system, it would be Win2k. It's modern as with XP but without the crippling
and hand-holding built into XP to cater to the ignorant masses.

Win2k also has a far larger amount of functional drivers on modern equimpent
as well, and is a lot more stable than 98 ever was (not to knock 98, it was
a alright for it's time, but it did suffer some long term stability issues).

Jon
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

jaster

While I begrudgringly use XP at the moment, if I could use any operating
system, it would be Win2k. It's modern as with XP but without the
crippling and hand-holding built into XP to cater to the ignorant
masses.

Win2k also has a far larger amount of functional drivers on modern
equimpent as well, and is a lot more stable than 98 ever was (not to
knock 98, it was a alright for it's time, but it did suffer some long
term stability issues).

Jon

I read a Computer Shopper help section where the author suggesting
turning off the extra bells and whistles by setting the system
performance to "performance" instead of "let windows decide" in system
settings.
 
D

Derek

I have no intention of upgrading beyond Win98se. I currently run a
pentium III, 1ghz computer, which I purchased as a refurbished
computer with Windows 2000 installed. It took me less than one day to
dump Win2000, and downgrade to Win98se. Actually, I didn't downgrade,
I just removed the tiny 10gig harddrive that came with the computer
and installed a larger drive, and Win98. Since then, I've installed
the maximum Ram allowable (512M), and added other hardware.

I'm considering taking this to the limit. What is the fastest
computer that will still run Win98se? I know the limit is not so much
a matter of speed/power, but more a matter of getting drivers for 98.
Therefore. I guess the real answer is what computer and/or motherboard
brands make the fastest systems that have drivers for Win98?
I can and will buy a motherboard/CPU combo and build my own system.

As a final note, I will upgrade to Windows ME if it will help get the
maximum speed. 98 and ME are nearly identical anyhow. And, if anyone
happens to know, does WinME allow for more Ram than 98?

Thanks for all advice.
(Please dont waste your time trying to talk me into XP, I hate it.
I'm also not interested in Linux whatsoever).
My current system ran ok in 98se ( its not that much slower in XP once all
the crap is turned off) Athlon xp3200+ Nvidia 5900XT msi k7n2 delta 2 and
it is supported in 98se should be a bit quicker off the mark than your
current setup.
Derek
 
M

meow2222

Glad to hear it. IME they're more downgrades than upgrades.


I dont know - but have been surprised to find how much new hardward
still supports 98. Even some kit that says nt only I run on 98.


ugh - you get the 2k style UI, which is much worse than 98. DOS
support becomes a pain, and I dont think it has any advantages once 98
is suitably patched.


not many of us about

Considering that modern software may not even install on
Win98se

I get told this all the time. All modern apps run on 98, though the
latest versions of the most popular brands of them often wont. Which
tbh is a good thing if you want performance, as much of todays
software is so very bloated. Use an earlier version or another app
that does the same job, and I dont know anything you cant do. Yes I
do... one app with no 98 equivalent... I forget but its a secondary
defence security app. Note also that a few apps that say winnt only
actually do usually run on 98, skype being a well known example.

Single core only support is the big limit with 98. Fastest I've seen
was just over 5G, using some extremely aggressive clocking. However 98
vs xp gives quite different performance in real world apps, so that 5G
is equivalent performance wise to a much faster single core cpu under
xp.

If an onboard feature like sound isn't supported, you'd
simply have to buy a legacy sound card that is supported.
Those can be rather inexpensive, about $5-15 for some of
them at surplus computer 'sites.

yeah, it an easy solution when this happens.

IIRC, both WinME and Win98se allow up to 1GB of memory so
long as you do the system.ini edit necessary to limit the
vcache.

98se handles upto 512M RAM with no modification, so use that much or
less during install. (And a complete install only takes minutes on a
new machine.) The simplest workaround is to limit how much RAM win
uses with system.ini. A better option that enables 98se to access a
few gigabytes is... well its a 3rd party patch created by someone
still wanting to run 98. There are several patches you'll need:
* nusb3.1 for decent usb support - works with most chipsets but not
all
* replace defrag, chkdsk and scandisk, and scandskw with versions from
win ME, as 98's originals corrupt >128G internal discs. (check your
eulas as its not freeware)
* for >137G internal hdd support theres another 3rd party patch
* RAM support patch - There's a thread on some ms forum called
"Unofficial Win98 SE Service Pack" that should get you there.

I'll not try to talk you into a newer OS, but keep in mind
that this system will last a few years if all goes well and
that is going to make it harder and harder to support all
the various modern software and hardware out there.

Its slightly bit harder than it was, but I've not found it any
challenge. Most new hardware runs fine on 98.
 A
simple thing like plugging in a scanner or MP3 player could
be a showstopper when there's no driver for win9x.

No mp3 player needs any driver on 98 once you've put nusb3.1 on. In
fact I've so far had marginally better usb support under 98 than xp.

Re scanners, there are lots of used scanners about with 98 drivers
freely available online, its not really an issue. Its not as if any
useful new features have come out since then.

 It's
also more of a pain to deal with hard drives larger than
120GB

a patch takes support to - and I might be wrong about the figure but I
think 2.2TB

and you don't have support for more secure browsers
like IE7 or Firefox 3.

Plenty of good 3rd party browsers run on 98, including Opera and
various others.

98 will never be as secure as xp, and it has real stability issues,
but in so many other respects it wins.

One important point with 98: when it crashes it often takes out a few
bites of data from C:. This is one reason why 98 needs a reinstall
after a year or 2. The key thing then is not to put your user data on
C:, or it will get quietly corrupted over time. D: and up dont seem to
suffer any problems from crashes. And of course 2x HDDs gives
marginally better performance.

Obviously 15,000rpm large cache sata drives will maximise performance
of the main bottleneck, if you can justify the cost. Add raid for more
speed...

In fact if you wanted a serious performance boost, you could use a 4G
flash based HDD as C:. File access times would be tiny compared to a
mechanical hdd. Life expectancy of flash is limited, but 4G's cheap
now, and it would go like a rocket. Stick with a reliable mechanical
hdd for user data.

98 leaves xp for dust performance-wise, even with a standard 7,200
hdd.

A few more basic necessities with 98, apps rather than patches:
* Wintop, so you can spot runaway processes instantly
* Taskill for instant death to any misbehaving process
* Prior - this gives you a process priority system as found in winNT.
Its not perfect, but its a big improvement.
* and of course a decent multipane explorer / file manager - plenty to
choose from


NT
 
L

letterman

Considering that modern software may not even install on
Win98se, that it'll have SSE support and maybe SSE2, you'll
probably get the most performance out of an Athlon 64
(single core, dual core is not supported in Win98/se).

The most modern chipset that'll run Athlon 64 and has
Win98se drivers is nForce3. Take your pick of what's still
available with that chipset, you still have some other
choices as to onboard features on the motherboard.

If an onboard feature like sound isn't supported, you'd
simply have to buy a legacy sound card that is supported.
Those can be rather inexpensive, about $5-15 for some of
them at surplus computer 'sites.

Most network adapters will be supported in Win98, while
you'll have to look into the video support before picking a
card. You didn't mention if there'd be any gaming that
required a higher end card but then older games aren't
nearly so demanding so a higher end card might be a waste of
money unless you needed some particular feature they
offered.

IIRC, both WinME and Win98se allow up to 1GB of memory so
long as you do the system.ini edit necessary to limit the
vcache.

I'll not try to talk you into a newer OS, but keep in mind
that this system will last a few years if all goes well and
that is going to make it harder and harder to support all
the various modern software and hardware out there. A
simple thing like plugging in a scanner or MP3 player could
be a showstopper when there's no driver for win9x. It's
also more of a pain to deal with hard drives larger than
120GB and you don't have support for more secure browsers
like IE7 or Firefox 3.

I just had this discussion with someone else. I bet I will be running
Win98 when XP no longer works. The reason is that MS will soon
abandon XP, and XP requires that live online or by phone activation.
Once MS abandons XP, I doubt they will still activate it. Yet, I (or
anyone else) can continue to install Win95, 98, ME or 2K.

I do see your point about drivers and such, but this PIII 1ghz
computer wont likely run XP, or at least not fast. And as far as
drivers, there's tons of old hardware that can be gotten cheap, so why
would I want to buy a NEW scanner or printer....

I dont see any reason to NEED over 120GB harddrive. I dont have XP
that eats up drive space as well as XP software. Right now I have
50GB (a 20gb and a 30gb) drive. I have lots of space to spare. I'm
also not as worried about security with IE7 or Firefox 3 because
viruses are not targeting Win98 anymore. Not saying I cant get one,
but in one sense I feel safer, in another I got less security. One
seems to balance the other.

I know you're not trying to talk me into upgrading, but this is my
feelings about it. I do have Win2k on my laptop. I dont care for it
very much, but it sure beats XP. I still like 98 the best though.
 
M

meow2222

A large percentage of new hardware doesn't even have win9x
drivers.

Some individual products may not, but of any type of product there are
always enough that do to make the situation IME a non-issue. If OTOH
you want to be able to run _every_ printer or scanner, then sure its a
problem, but thats true of xp as well.

And you get the sometimes-benefit that lots of 98 compatible hardware
is free.

Not quite accurate, some need proprietary software because
they either don't support UMS models or need the alternative
software to use DRM'd music.

ok, I've not yet encountered one that doesn't do 98. FWIW 98 supports
drm via wmp9 - if thats the path you want to go down. I don't much
like DRM, if I've bought music I want to be able to play it on
whatever whenever, but I know some like it.

It's an issue the moment you want a specific piece of
hardware... I'm not claiming it's impossible, just limiting
and sometimes problematic,

guess it depends on your situation. I've never found it an issue yet,
but your hardware use is probably different to mine.
as well as settling for lower
performance since hardware gets better over time including
scanners.

I've not found any limitation with printers and scanners in this
respect. But then I dont need to go above 1200dpi & >40 bit depth -
perhaps some folk do.

The question is not one of what is possible, it's what is
practical.  Yes you can find *something* that'll work but if
one has to keep making such concessions

I dont see how choosing the favourite version of one's favourite
browser is a concession. OTOH I can understand that some people really
do want the latest and most bloated version of everything.

then at some point
those concessions were more than the one of which OS to use.

Don't overlook the existence of lots of old early win apps, all of
which run perfectly on 98.

Yes it is a good OS to use for many purposes, but for a full
featured primary use PC it shows it's age.

Yes, and has done for many years now. Some of its features out of the
box just plain suck. When you install xp you update/patch it, if you
do the same with 98 it gets sorted out.
 How much modern
performance and capability is really needed if a system is
regularly running out of resources or can't handle jobs that
require more than 512MB-1GB of memory without a lot of
swapfile activity?

I'm thinking of suitably patched 98 rather than straight out of the
box, so it does >512 RAM and releases memory properly. I know it has
inbuilt resource limits, but with decent software even running masses
of apps at once it still runs.

True but a well performing flash based HDD costs a few
hundred, probably more than a legacy system is worth.

I've seen a whole notebook laptop with 4G chip hdd for less than that.
 You
could use raid card and raid a few flash cards but this is
also a significant increase in expense when there doesn't
necessarily need to be any further drive optimization
schemes for win9x since it is so much smaller and faster
already.  IMO, main limit for modern use is the 1GB memory
limit.

just wondering which 1G limit you mean there. Patched 98 does well
over that - not that its needed.
Yes it's faster, but with modern hardware the difference is
small enough that the user becomes the bottleneck.  If it
were some special purpose system with limited performance
that difference in performance might matter but for a
primary use desktop the target has moved, now anything
modern will run xp acceptibly fast and Vista is the slug if
extra money isn't put into a bit faster system to offset
it's higher requirements.




Seems like more and more work and limitations to make 98
only a bit closer to the usability of 2K or XP.  IMO, 98SE
is acceptible for an old system but to build a new one it's
like crippling it before it even had a chance.

Dual booting 98 & xp is hardly crippling, and most of us have paid for
the right to do it. It does mean using fat32 for the user data disc,
but for drives other than c: fat32 behaves fine in practice. Ntfs isnt
perfect either.

As for more work, 98 and xp both need patching at installation. 98
patching is slower if you install each app individually, but fast if
you make a master disc with everything done & clone it.

It all depends what you want. Personally I just hate xp, and use 98
wherever possible. Computers are at the stage now where the most time
consuming task a lot of the time is navigating the UI, and xp is just
plain awful in this respect, making 98 faster in practice.


NT
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

meow2222

As we both know, "type" of product isn't quite enough... is
any random CPU acceptible?  Any random amount of memory?
Video card?  It's never about type or we'd all be running
some 486 box instead of spending a few hundred every now and
then.

I dont think its hard to see that thats in no way comparable to having
limited (but still many) choice of scanner & printers

yes that is nice, but many tend not to want this free
hardware because for the most part it's inferior to it's
predecessors (which is why the predecessors exist).

Well, I sure dont need anything better than my laser printer &
scanner. Their specs are OTT already. No doubt some people do though.

The main point is, it's not that some kind of computer can't
be made to run, it's that choosing win98 is a concession
because of all the other trade-offs that have to be made,
not just the tradeoff of which OS from a user /GUI
standpoint.  Once you disable a lot of junk in XP and have
it set up as desired, it's the same user experience when it
comes to icons, folders, start menu, etc.

If it were I'd be using it.

Practically all need a driver - that's extra time/work.
Once they have this driver they can be used in UMS mode but
not the proprietary mode - none of them can.  WMP I don't
use to manage music so I have no idea if it's enabling
something otherwise missing.








It's not just DPI and bit depth, it's what the image looks
like, quality of the scan, plus the speed of the scan.  I
seldom scan anything as high as 1200 DPI but there's quite a
difference in the results even at 300DPI from any of the
several scanners I have and even on these only one is old
enough it doesn't have drivers for 2K or XP.

I'll take your word. I've not had problems with any of my 98
compatible scanners, so I'm not motivated to buy new.

To many, which browser they use is a far more significant
change than whether it's XP or 98SE.  That is, unless the
other limitations of 98SE cause them continual problems.
While I'm often against newer applications for their bloat
if they bring nothing needed for the jobs, browsers are
quite a different matter because older ones don't even
render webpages well, aren't tested much if at all when
websites change (so you're effectively prevented from normal
use of some websites) and are far less secure.  With some
old browsers on 9x, all you have to do is visit a website
and it's instant viral infection, no choosing to install
anything, no popups, nothing.

Is opera plus blacklist open to that? If it is its news to me - but
I'm no expert on that.

 Antivirus isn't so effective
for these kinds of threats because virus writers have become
more effective at using refreshed or mutating code and
installing dozens of malwares instead of depending on only
one bug.



I use lots of old (though not "early win") apps myself, but
sometimes they just don't get the job done or are terribly
slow by today's standards like comparing one that writes to
HDD for scratch space and uses only one CPU core, versus one
that can allocate an extra GB of main memory and is
effectively multithreaded.  Basically it again comes down to
how much waiting is someone willing to put up with - since
there is no normal mandate to run win9x, it is also a
choice.

Don't think I've ever found one thats too slow - they were designed to
run on historic machines after all.

If that were true many people wouldn't have switched.

We both know most people switch because they choose a standard package
new PC and they assume the latest is the greatest, so they want it.

 Right
now I am running more than Win9x could handle, it'd simply
run out of resources.  I remember all too well a fully
patched win98 box that had to be rebooted every few days
just to reduce the chance of it locking up while something
important was running - and losing the data.  Same box runs
Win2k for weeks or longer without any problem.

Maybe you use yours more heavily than I do. I can run 50 windows on
this without a problem.

Re crashes, ahem! Thats 98's big weakpoint. Hopefully the win99 pack
will make a major difference.

That's not a patch, you have to manually edit 98 to support
over 512MB.

Its an automated install, along with loads of other bug fixes.
 It doesn't run masses of apps, it can't even
support the number of IE instances I used to have open.

how many?

It's a very light duty OS and for some uses that is fine but
it just doesn't make sense for a main-use PC today with a GB
of memory costing $10 or less, with dual core CPUs ordinary,
and a standard hard drive using only one side of one platter
already exceeding it's natively supported capacity.



Less than what?  Which laptop?

Unfortunately I dont remember, so can't confirm. I think it was at
Bennetts, a year or so ago.

Generally, you can't get decent flash performance for under
$200.  This is quickly changing, but since that $200 will
buy over 1TB of HDD today or 3+ smaller drives it's still a
pretty big concession unless someone needs the durability,
graceful failure mode.  One $200 flash drive is nowhere near
as fast as $200 worth of 2 HDDs plus an extra GB of memory
to do filecaching.





Show us the patch that allows universal (Practical, no
hidden gotchas) use of more than 1GB.
http://www.msfn.org/board/98SE2ME-Killer-Replacements-ME-98-t46349.html




Until you have to do it to get work done, which means
several minutes of pause instead of clicking an icon and
getting same thing done in 2 seconds.

why would you reboot if you can already run the app in xp that youre
using? When I boot up I choose which one will do it all.

FAT32's 4GB filesize limit is unreasonable on today's
typical > 320GB hard drives.   OS itself doesn't have any
4GB files so FAT32 would be most suited for OS partition
unless it needs have more security than FAT32 allows.

I've never bumped up against the 4G limit, but sure its a problem for
some.
 
M

meow2222

An unpatched XP is more stable and secure (if you want it to
be) than a fully patched 98.
totally!


 To some this won't matter, but
XP starts a mile after where 98 ends.  Remember primary
infection is the browser today, and primary bugs that are
showstoppers tend to be drivers  - developers quit releasing
new 98 drives so you're stuck with old bugs that were fixed
in subsequent 2K/XP/Vista driver releases but never fixed on
98.

Maybe... but again I dont seem to be suffering. I dont think its true
to say there isnt decent 98 compatible software about - there's more
or less everything.

What do you do on XP that takes longer navigating the UI?  I
Mean a task that is done on a regular enough basis that it
would matter?

Almost every time I use it its an issue. Next time I use XP I'll try
to make a note of the specifics.

98 is close to the 95 GUI that was the result of the usability work MS
did. Everything is keyboardable, I rarely touch the mouse. In XP otoh
one routinely needs to mouse for things, and its far slower. XP is
just one long series of annoyances that slow work down. Sure it has
bells on, but I really dont care for bells, and I don't appreciate the
bad UI design.

The only thing I did that took longer on XP was to
momentarily pause and marvel at how much more stable it is.
Granted, the overly noobified UI settings take some getting
used to if left in their default state, personally I liked
win2k's defaults more than XP's, but in practice there is no
longer any UI issue with either OS if one is used to using
it, that is an argument better left to why not to use Vista.

I expect Vista will be appropriate on machines in 10 years - today its
like a 40 stone human trying to run. I like to do lots of things and
do em fast. Vista has only one thing I like the look of - IIRC its the
use of unused RAM as hdd buffer / prefetch. The poor people with new
laptops with it on - even my oldest machine in use is far faster
running 98.


It all comes down to what you want. I like working fast, so I want
speed, good tools & a friendly GUI - and I get the benefit that I can
keep machines for years before there's any reason to upgrade the core
hardware - and it still goes faster than other peoples xp systems. Xp/
Vista is so not what I want.


NT
 
M

meow2222

98 is great for old systems though at some point anything
new enough that it's still reasonably reliable will be fast
enough to run 2K or XP.  That day might be here already, if
you consider that 10 years ago the typical system was
roughly 8GB HDD, 500MHz CPU, 256MB of memory... that'll run
Win2k acceptibly, even better with a memory upgrade.

Just because one can doesnt mean its the best option. Only my opinion
though - and certainly most people vote with you on this, and run xp.


NT
 
H

Hlafordlaes

The fastest 98SE build would most likely be an Athlon 64 FX-72 single
core, as mentioned already in the thread, altho I wonder if some of
the higher end dual or quad cores, which run at clock speeds above
2.8GHz, would edge it out. Given that a new FX-72 is still expensive,
"misusing" a dual-core in one of the several Asrock boards that
support Conroes on older chipsets is perhaps a more viable option.

I was on a build similar to yours, and for reasons of my own, gained
quite an attachment to the PIII and 98SE. I also wanted to run 98SE
when I upgraded, and chose the Asrock 4CoreDual-VSTA, a great
transition board and one that I was dual booting in 98SE/Vista. The
real problem, however, lies with modern video cards and drivers,
especially from NVidia, tho ATI's AGP support is spotty as well).

You cannot use any card higher than a 6800 Ultra and still get driver
support. My 7600GT, for example, requires use of a hacked driver
v82.69 you can find on the MSFN site linked earlier in this thread.
Now, since new most games will not run on 98SE, sort of who cares
about newer drivers, but the 82.69 is a slow performer, so I was
stuck.

So given my love of classic PC games, I upgraded my Core2 system to XP/
Vista dual boot, and built a second PC soley for enjoying 98SE. I
chose in this case the fastest PIII system board I could still find
(an Abit VH6T), which allows for the PIII-S (Tualatin), which runs at
1.4Ghz stock, and overclocks verrry nicely as well. Since the board
uses a VIA Apollo Pro chipset, which artifacts if an AGP card with an
NVidia bridge chip is in it, I stuck my trusty 6800GT (@Ultra clocks)
in there and the system ROCKS! A nice little KVM allows me to connect
both PCs the my keyboard, mouse and speakers. One little added
advantage is that when I am doing maintenance on one machine, I can
connect to the other and access the internet for whatever (I hate
installing an OS an being offline just when I'd like to check a fact
online about some configuration or IT tidbit).

I ramble. Point is: Keep what you've got for 98SE; upgrade to a new
board only when and if you want XP or Vista (or Win7).
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

meow2222

Now, since new most games will not run on 98SE, sort of who cares

For any 98ers reading this, the kernelex patch claims to run a lot of
xp apps under 98 - and run some 98 apps with greater stabilty too.
I've not yet tried it.


NT
 
J

Jon Danniken

kony said:
The main factor I see in your use is wanting mostly keyboard
control. I've not spent the time to figure out what things
I can't do in XP with only the keyboard but certainly there
are some. Beyond that on a reasonably modern system there's
not so much slowdown by XP these days except if you're not
used to using it... same with 98, I had to stop and think
for a second what the equivalent of ipconfig was in 9x so a
simple task like start-run-winipcfg would take me longer
than it should've.

This reminds me of the frustration encountered when they changed the hot key
assignments for such common activities such as file ordering (arrange icons
by (M)odified instead of by (D)ate.)

And then there's the issue of forced folders (mypictures, mymusic, et
cetera) with a plethora of unused "features" like forced thumbnail view when
saving a file into one of those folders, et cetera.

What MS should have done with XP was to give us throwback users a way to
retain the old "feel" of the UI, instead of forcing us to adapt to the new
and unwanted "features." Yes, we can change the StartMenu and turn off
transition effects, but there are a lot more substantial things that we
can't change back or turn off, and that's what is frustrating.

As far as I am concerned, a new OS should have the same accessibility as
previous versions, or at least a way to restore same for experienced users.

Jon
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

meow2222

This reminds me of the frustration encountered when they changed the hot key
assignments for such common activities such as file ordering (arrange icons
by (M)odified instead of by (D)ate.)

And then there's the issue of forced folders (mypictures, mymusic, et
cetera) with a plethora of unused "features" like forced thumbnail view when
saving a file into one of those folders, et cetera.

What MS should have done with XP was to give us throwback users a way to
retain the old "feel" of the UI, instead of forcing us to adapt to the new
and unwanted "features."  Yes, we can change the StartMenu and turn off
transition effects, but there are a lot more substantial things that we
can't change back or turn off, and that's what is frustrating.

As far as I am concerned, a new OS should have the same accessibility as
previous versions, or at least a way to restore same for experienced users.

Jon

Everything seems to be slower and/or less accessible in xp. As a
fairly heavy puter user I dont want an OS that seems determined to
waste so much of my time.
 
Ad

Advertisements


Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top