Because XP is steaming pile of shit that was designed for industrial
use (read: corporations with hundreds or thousands of PC's).
- Vista is now the steaming pile
- That doesn't make XP any better or worse as a result even
though as soon as Vista is released, somebody is bound to
pretend XP is now crap when /they/ though it was great
previously.
- XP is designed for simplifed (aka - dumbed down) UI and
multimedia. It's the home users XP was targeted towards,
corporations are still reluctant to move away from Win9x and
2K.
Because
XP systems became trojan and virus infested pieces of crap since the
day XP came out until late 2004 when SP2 came out.
SP2 wasn't necessarily a cure-all, even simple things to
exploit on a webpage like VML, persisted.
Much of the same vulnerabilities in XP, are the same in W98
if you use IE, OE, though I can appreciate not wanting to
pay MS for releasing an XP product specifically marketed for
improved security when the most frequent, common
vulnerabilities weren't addressed at all. I'd call that a
defective product.
Because I don't
need an OS with remote-this and remote-that services running on it.
Agreed, they should have taken a different approach in not
running things not expressly needed and later enabled.
Since they seem to like wizards so much, they should have
had an "enable stuff" wizard. Even so, other significant
limitations exist in W98 like 48bit LBA support, amount of
memory, dual core, driverless USB support, hardware drivers
now becoming rarer.
I think you'd be better off moving to win2k for a new system
than Win98 or XP, considering what you'd written.
Because Micro$haft needs to bring out a new OS every 2 years and
suckers like you buy into them hook, line and sinker, even though you
curse and scowl at them for being an illegal monopoly - for being an
evil empire with a totalitarian mindset.
Agreed, but it can also be reasonable to buy what is
necessaary to keep a system fully funcitonal, that not
excluding the hopes and expressions of a desire to find
another alternative. When will there be another
alternative? Sooner if the market perceives two things:
1) People are willing to pay for the alternatie, as they do
with Windows every 2 years or whatever-interval.
2) People expressing discontent, that the market segment
who wants something else, IS spending money- and would be
likely to spend money on another alternative when it becomes
viable (enough).
Win-98se is actually only 1.5 years older than XP. It can handle very
large hard drives, it can handle at least 512 mb of ram (and usually
at least 768 mb), runs very fast on P-4 systems with SATA, etc etc
etc.
Yes, it is an extremely fast GUI on a modern system and the
memory limits aren't such a problem for older software and
certain tasks. On the other hand, most drivers written for
98SE are quite old and newer drivers can make a system more
stable. Even with drivers developed more recently for W9x,
I don't expect as much time spent on new versions or
testing, especially since a lot of bugs are not found in
immediate testing but rather uncovered later.
How many times has your XP system phoned home to Milkro$haft to check
and see if it's still legal?
Yes that is a bit of an annoyance, even moreso if it thinks
it it's "legit", which has been happening every now and then
on large scales. Worse may be when support for pre-SP2
declines, as those who had found workarounds for XP's
weaknesses instead of waiting on SP2, have no good reason to
install SP2 now, except that they'll have to if they want
patches for some things (maybe, only time will tell what
MS's end of support really means for pre-SP2 XP).
How many updates and patches did you
download today?
One of the nicest things about old systems is you can just
clone that Win9x OS and the old apps, drive partition,
fairly quickly and have it take up a minor % of media space
on a newer system. Hit by a virus? No worry, restore the
whole partition in 2 minutes' time.
You can try visiting the sis.com site or viaarena.com