XP vs 98SE

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun May 21, 2006 6:16 pm

I'm thinking of getting a computer that's 1.4 Ghz, would running Windows XP or Windows 98SE be better?
Perhaps XP would slow the computer down too much by being a resource hog?
Do they sell 98SE any more? I know it's still supported.

Post by **DiscoDave** » Sun May 21, 2006 6:29 pm

How much RAM does the computer have?

If i had a choice I would probably run that on Windows 2000

and to be honest, i dont think windows 98SE cuts it anymore for a mainstream operating system. XP iteslf is based on 2000, which is based on NT....so compatibility is pretty good ie most things that work for XP will work for 2000 (infact, i haven't come accross a piece of software that will run on XP and not on 2K

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun May 21, 2006 6:35 pm

DiscoDave wrote:How much RAM does the computer have?

If i had a choice I would probably run that on Windows 2000

The RAM's up in the air at the moment. Could be 256 Mb, could be 512 Mb.
I'm experienced with Windows 98SE so if you were recommending Windows 2000, I'd go with Windows 98SE. Unless

the RAM amount wasn't supported by 98SE; that was 98 not 98SE wasn't it that had the RAM restriction?

DiscoDave wrote: and to be honest, i dont think windows 98SE cuts it anymore for a mainstream operating system. XP iteslf is

based on 2000, which is based on NT....so compatibility is pretty good ie most things that work for XP will

work for 2000 (infact, i haven't come accross a piece of software that will run on XP and not on 2K

So you're telling me that there are programs which will run on 2000 which won't run on 98SE? I thought all

programs ran on 98SE. (Except Linux ones, and the like, of course.)

Post by **Foo** » Sun May 21, 2006 7:06 pm

It'll run XP just fine.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun May 21, 2006 7:10 pm

Foo wrote:It'll run XP just fine.

Will it be able to run resource heavy applications like Quake III Arena on top of that, well, though? That's

the question.

Post by **Foo** » Sun May 21, 2006 7:16 pm

Post by **Scourge** » Sun May 21, 2006 7:29 pm

DTS wrote:
Foo wrote:It'll run XP just fine.
Will it be able to run resource heavy applications like Quake III Arena on top of that, well, though? That's

the question.

I ran XP on an Athlon 750 and it ran Q3 just fine. Had 512 sdram in it too.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun May 21, 2006 7:32 pm

Thanks.

Post by **Kills On Site** » Mon May 22, 2006 11:45 am

I had XP on my old 300MHz PII laptop with 256MB or RAM. I have XP on my 1GHz laptop with 512 RAM and it runs it perfectly.

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Mon May 22, 2006 11:55 am

DTS wrote:Thanks.

Post by **dzjepp** » Tue May 23, 2006 3:02 am

My xp runs faster than 98se did

Post by **Oeloe** » Tue May 23, 2006 4:57 pm

256 MB ram is the bare minimum to run games like Q3 on XP though.

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Tue May 23, 2006 6:04 pm

DTS wrote:Thanks.

Post by **CheapAlert** » Tue May 23, 2006 7:03 pm

Oeloe wrote:256 MB ram is the bare minimum to run games like Q3 on XP though.

128mb works as well.

Post by **Tormentius** » Tue May 23, 2006 7:18 pm

CheapAlert wrote:
Oeloe wrote:256 MB ram is the bare minimum to run games like Q3 on XP though.

128mb works as well.

:icon27:

Not without the system choking for resources. XP needs at least 256 for acceptable gaming performance.

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Tue May 23, 2006 7:50 pm

Tormentius wrote:
CheapAlert wrote:
Oeloe wrote:256 MB ram is the bare minimum to run games like Q3 on XP though.

128mb works as well.
:icon27:

Not without the system choking for resources. XP needs at least 256 for acceptable gaming performance.

aye. really depends on your definition of "works".

Post by **dzjepp** » Tue May 23, 2006 8:45 pm

DTS wrote:Thanks.

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Wed May 24, 2006 12:33 am

i know

Post by **KingManULTRA** » Wed May 24, 2006 12:57 am

I used to run 98 SE on a 1.5 Ghz/512 MB Ram configuration before upgrading to XP. I found XP much more responsive all around, and giving me better performance overall once I disabled some of the unnecessary resource hogs. For info on that, go here:

http://www.dead-eye.net/WinXP%20Services.htm

Just go to Start

Run. Type in services.msc. Disable all the crap with the site above as your guide.

Also download and run this:
http://www.xp-antispy.org/

You should have XP cleaned up in half an hour.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue May 30, 2006 7:25 pm

KingManULTRA wrote:I used to run 98 SE on a 1.5 Ghz/512 MB Ram configuration before upgrading to XP. I

found XP much more responsive all around, and giving me better performance overall once I disabled some of

the unnecessary resource hogs. For info on that, go here:

http://www.dead-eye.net/WinXP%20Services.htm

Just go to Start Run. Type in services.msc. Disable all the crap with the site above as your guide.

Also download and run this:
http://www.xp-antispy.org/

You should have XP cleaned up in half an hour.

Thanks, though that has put me off XP a bit, after I got it. Half an hour of clicking little things. I did some,

I'll do the rest later, eh.

Though that program's supposed to do them automatically isn't it? Dunno about this.

Post by **Bdw3** » Tue May 30, 2006 10:24 pm

In any case 98 is crap, and your much better off with XP. :icon14:

Post by **FragaGeddon** » Wed May 31, 2006 3:20 am

Agreed.

Post by **Oeloe** » Wed May 31, 2006 11:50 am

It won't be until after the switch that you'll realize that.

XP is just much stabler than 98 and you have more control over the OS, which is a good feeling.

Post by **mik0rs** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:00 pm

I'm running XP on a 1.4 GHz Athlon with 256MB RAM, it's totally fine.

Post by **axbaby** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:31 pm

win98 was not crap ,ran great and was stable .

you just had to be computer literate to use it,XP caters to the lazy and uneducated.

for it's time win98 SE ruled the planet just like win95 OSR2 did in it's day and win 3.11
and dos 6.1.

looking back you will all say XP was crap too but i agree go with XP because of device drivers

stfu BD :icon26: