Win98, Win2k or WinXP?

[ilovejedd]

The office will be upgrading to Vista so they'll be re-formatting the hard drives and donating the PCs to charity. The old copies (retail version) of Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional, they'll just be giving us. I have an old machine, probably 6-7 years old, that's still running Windows 98. It has a PIII-733MHz CPU w/128MB PC133 SDRAM. It also has an integrated graphics card so that brings the usable RAM down to 96MB.

My question is, should I keep Win98 or should I upgrade it to either Win2k or WinXP? Will the PC even work with Win2k or WinXP without being unbearably slow? What are the advantages and disadvantages of using either of those operating systems?

Currently, the PC is being used for typing reports and stuff (Office 2000), surfing the internet (Firefox), chatting on IRC (mIRC), ripping CDs to mp3 (CDex), listening to mp3s (Winamp), some minor burning (Nero) and occasional watching of VCDs & DivX files (MPC/VLC). That's basically it. Oh, and Linux is not an option. I once left one of our computers running a live CD of Ubuntu and my mom panicked.

[Sirber]

2k should be less powerhungry than XP, on that small config, and yet more stable than 98.

[Sharktooth]

get xp and disable all the fancy themes, shadows, menues and windows animations, etc...
disable also the unneded services (you may want to look on the web for a guide).
once you've done that it should be as light as 2k if not lighter...
however you may want to get an old PC133 memory module to expand the system memory to at least 256Mb...

[DarkZell666]

I got XP running on a 400mhz pentium celeron with 192MB of RAM, so don't worry, XP is a safe bet (and boots much quicker than windows 2000, even on such a low config ;)).

[zambelli]

Yeah, XP is the best choice. As mentioned, you can disable most of the UI additions and make it very similar to 2000 in performance.
XP is also your best choice in terms of support. It still has many years ahead of it.

[Blue_MiSfit]

True... I've seen XP running on a 400 MHz K6-2 with 64 MB of PC100. It had all the graphical options installed and a lot of spyware, so it was essentially the slowest POS I've ever seen... Even after booting into safe mode, running a virus scan took hours and hours :)

A little extra RAM and that would be a rockin' XP box :)

[ilovejedd]

Ok, then, XP it is. Now, I just have to wait for the new office PCs with Vista (and LCD monitor and wireless keyboard/mouse) probably in the middle of February or so. :)

[4Dude]

Keep 98 on 1 of them my friend :)

98se with alot of ram and CPU speed IS 1 FINE OS!!!!!!!!

[Sharktooth]

98se = memory leaks, insecure, unstable, no longer supported and no multicore CPU support...
in practice, a POC.

[4Dude]

98se was one of the BEST os's ever released :)

[DarkZell666]

There isn't any best ... once again XD
Why do you like win98 in particular ? Stop trolling and explain why you think it's a good OS, if you want anyone (me including) to believe you :) It's lightweight compared to 2K and XP, but it doesn't necessarily work faster and has many bugs indeed. BSOD anyone ? I haven't had any BSOD's with XP except in rare occasions, but I had a good handful every day with 98.

So much for being the best OS in your life lol ;)

[*.mp4 guy]

I think he is going by speed, by which 98se was a pretty good os. Personally I would go with 2k just to avoid wga on xp, If you upgrade your hardware often like I do wga is a pita, even if you don't it can be annoying. I've had to revalidate my XP machine twice for NO reason, wga just pops up out of the blue, tells me my computer configuration has changed and If I don't revalidate in 3 days it will deactivate my os. Microsoft lost any possible future business from me when they put wga in XP.

[setarip_old]

@DarkZell666

Hi!

For one (significant) thing, Win98SE didn't attempt to be "smart for you" - and automatically, without announcement of any kind, "secretly" drop your drives out of DMA mode and into PIO mode, after 6 read errors.

For another, it occupies less space and requires less overhead than XP or 2K.

Further still, I don't beieve anyone would challenge the statement that Win98SE is faster than XP and 2K.

And, as far as system crashes, the last time I saw any meaningful number of "BSODs" was when I was running Win95.

Win98SE was/is a rock-solid performer...

[DarkZell666]

Now you mention it, the win98 CD I was given when I bought the computer at that time was an OEM version, and I can't remember clearly if it was a second edition or not. I guess I'll have to find someone who still has an official CD and give it a try :)

Since microsoft doesn't sell win98 anymore, is it considered legal to download it off P2P or not ? (a simple yes or no will be enough, I don't want to get into trouble for deviating from the topic :/).

[AVIL]

Hi,

XP has better support on hardware devices (in fact, almost plug and play). You can install it on an old machine without the manufacturer's drivers (those lost diskettes...) . W98SE needs specific drivers. You can buy a USB disk and start to use it without do any installation. Also I think that system restore is a good tool. And also the ability to configurate a domestic lan easily. You can share your PC with the children. You can put a 500GB disk and use all the space in a single volume. You can store huge video files of 30GB. And in the other hand you must install 100 XP patchs to minimally secure your PC. And disable CPU consuming services and bogus utilities. But, in my particular balance, XP win.

Nevertheless, other type of user can state that W98 is more suitable for his needs. And it will be true.

Good luck

[Blue_MiSfit]

98se is quite capable - I still install it on older PCs occasionally - when my customers still have their product keys of course, and it can really be quite usable on systems with less than 128-256MB of RAM. Perfectly acceptable for your typical 'mom' pc that does E-Mail, light web browsing, and office software...

My main gripes:
1) No NTFS support
2) 1GB of RAM is the max
3) DOS... :)
4) Lack of drivers - especially for hard to find support for older hardware. Lots of newer stuff doesn't support it at all (nVidia and ATi cards for one)
5) Comes with IE 4 :P - Firefox fixes this one thankfully...
6) Networking is teh sux on 98...

[4Dude]

Yes.98se is quite awesome!

To me its the one of the BEST os's out there.......

With alot of ram and fast CPU speed,you have a dream OS!!!

[evilclive]

I trust you know about the Unofficial Service Pack (http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html) for Windows 98SE, and the Internet Explorer remover (98Lite) (http://www.litepc.com/98lite.html)?

[scharfis_brain]

I also recommend running Win98SE (maybe with Win95B Taskbar (98lite micro) for better speed and stability).
Cause 96 MB of RAM is definitely not enough to run Windows XP or 2k properly. Even 256 MB RAM is not enough with Win XP/2k.

[evilclive]

Since microsoft doesn't sell win98 anymore, is it considered legal to download it off P2P or not ? (a simple yes or no will be enough, I don't want to get into trouble for deviating from the topic :/).

I'd imagine it depends on whether you've got a licence sticker for it.

Microsoft's take on this is that if you have a licence for XP, you are allowed to downgrade to an earlier MS OS on that XP licence. (I think XP Home allows you to use 98SE or ME; XP Pro also allows you to use NT4 or 2K.) They don't specift how you can get your hands on the earlier OS, but tell you not to expect them to send you a copy.

Of course, if you already have a 98SE CoA, it saves you having to buy a more expensive XP one just to use 98SE.

For what it's worth, Windows 3.11 is freely available to download.

[evilclive]

Cause 96 MB of RAM is definitely not enough to run Windows XP or 2k properly. Even 256 MB RAM is not enough with Win XP/2k.

The problem with Windows 2000 if you have 128-256MB of RAM is that by default, it sets the virtual memory swap file to be 1.5 times the size of the computer's physical memory.

If you go into the System control panel and set the swap file to a fixed size of 1GB, Win2K is perfectly usable in 128MB of RAM. WinXP requires a bit more, unless you disable all the unnecessary services.

But I agree that 64-96MB is not enough RAM.

[Inventive Software]

For what it's worth, Windows 3.11 is freely available to download.
Where? :D

[evilclive]

Where? :D

There (http://www.sirendesign.net/ernweb/redmond311.shtml) on the stair.

[Nematocyst]

If you opt for 2k or XP, I'd definitely look in the BIOS for a way to reduce the video memory. For the tasks mentioned, all you need is enough video memory to support the resolution / color depth you're running. You can surely get by with 8MB, and I'd even try 4MB if possible. Assuming you can get 2k or XP running at all with 96MB, it's got to be much better with 124MB.

[4Dude]

I trust you know about the Unofficial Service Pack (http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html) for Windows 98SE?Yes i have The 1st version of this service pack (I havent gotton the latest one)

[Blue_MiSfit]

If you opt for 2k or XP, I'd definitely look in the BIOS for a way to reduce the video memory. For the tasks mentioned, all you need is enough video memory to support the resolution / color depth you're running. You can surely get by with 8MB, and I'd even try 4MB if possible. Assuming you can get 2k or XP running at all with 96MB, it's got to be much better with 124MB.

That's a great point. 4MB is enough to do 1024x768 @ 32bpp easily, which is what most people run anyway - especially on a smaller CRT or 15" LCD.

[ilovejedd]

19" CRT, but yeah, I'm just using 1024x768 @ 32bpp. That's the max the integrated video card will support. Still waiting on those Vista PCs...

[scharfis_brain]

you may try 24bpp or 16bpp to raise resolution...