Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Windows 98..

Author
Message
Sergey K
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jan 2004
Location:
Posted: 10th Feb 2007 17:25
Link
after i had Windows 2000, XP and Vista, i finally realized that the fastest windows there was and no bugs it was windows 98..
so after i upgraded my computer twice im kinda wondering if my system power is too power for for 98 or isnt it..

i've got:
Radeon 9550 256MB
RAM 1024MB DDR2 533MHz
Duel Processor 2.8Ghz 2.79GHz
x2 HDD (Sata II 160GB + Norm HDD 160GB) - 320GB

thats my pc..
so my question is does windows 98 could support those stuff or not?
*win 98 working on Fat32 File System, does Sata II could use Fat32 or only NTFS?*

MyNewSite:http://gogetax.com
Forums(About BLO and more):http://gogetax.com/forum
Back to top
Profile PM Website
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 10th Feb 2007 17:29 Edited at: 10th Feb 2007 17:34
Link
Fastest? Yes.
No bugs? No freakin' way.

Yes, go for it.

But have ALL your drivers on a CD-R before you start the install.

If you have a problem finding one try http://driverguide.com/

Motherboard drivers will be your biggest problem.
I doubt if you can actually use your dual processors.

As far as the supported file system formats, my guess is if you can attach it to the IDE cable then the device can operate in legacy mode.

I'm unique, just like everybody else.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Sergey K
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jan 2004
Location:
Posted: 10th Feb 2007 17:34
Link
so does Sata II can support FAT32 file system?
cuz if not..

MyNewSite:http://gogetax.com
Forums(About BLO and more):http://gogetax.com/forum
Back to top
Profile PM Website
heartbone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 10th Feb 2007 17:39 Edited at: 10th Feb 2007 17:40
Link
I think so, but read this and you should know.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=%22Sata+II%22++FAT32&qt_s=Search

I'm unique, just like everybody else.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Cash Curtis II
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Apr 2005
Location: Corpus Christi Texas
Posted: 10th Feb 2007 17:47
Link
Windows XP is more stable than 98 was. Granted, 98 wasn't bad, but it's old now and has no support and little new software.


Come see the WIP!
Back to top
Profile PM
Sergey K
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jan 2004
Location:
Posted: 10th Feb 2007 17:49
Link
i see..
well, im currently standing on Windows Vista wich suprizing me with his slowness.. and XP is kinda old and lots of bugs..
so what OP should i use then?

MyNewSite:http://gogetax.com
Forums(About BLO and more):http://gogetax.com/forum
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 10th Feb 2007 18:18
Link
MacOS or Linux obviously, if Windows isn't proving satisfactory, at least if you use a Mac or Linux, you can do a lot of PC stuff with Wine (Linux) or Crossover (Mac)

But at the moment, you're stuck with XP or Vista, not a happy choice in my opinion either, but I can't help it, unless Linux suddenly ran everything I use and well or if Macs became cheaper and ran all of my programs, I'd go for either one.

Did The Buddha have a Zen micro?
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 11th Feb 2007 05:02
Link
98 runs fine on the several computers I "downgraded" with it... I just don't have full driver support... You basically have to find a computer that is tailored to running 98 in order to bask in its 'glory'. Of course, something’s load slower then on newer computers, while other things are more responsive.

An additional note, I believe there is a NTFS Dos emulator that works with 98... need to recheck that sometime in the very far and unforeseeable future. But then again, you DO need a single partition with FAT32 support, UNLESS (perhaps) you use a bootdisk to load the NTFSDOS and execute C:\WINDOWS\WIN.COM (Naturally, also include= HIMEM.SYS in the CONFIG.SYS).

In the end run, even IF you get the drivers implemented in 98 successfully, you will only use it for a few things... I don't "believe" 98 supports DBP (I might be wrong, it was a long time ago)... nor does it support much else, as most modern applications have a "if (operatingSystemName!="Windows XP") issueFatalWarning=true;" condition. Essentally, having 98 on your computer may look cool, but it is useless.

Waits for Jeku to get up on how 98 is a piece of crap. And how the dos based system is more unstable. Something about how XP and 98 can't be compared (?) because xp has its os internalized while 98 is just a GUI. How the increased usage of system resources is acceptable because "ram is dirt cheap" (Or was that CattleRustler)... and generally saying that 98 sucks.

If you fear speaking for yourself, make use the words of others while discovering your own voice.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nicholas Thompson
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Sep 2004
Location: Bognor Regis, UK
Posted: 11th Feb 2007 06:01
Link
Such a strange suggestion to install 98 on your PC of that spec...

Bear in mind the spec that was around when XP came out and how slow XP was for the first few months while hardware caught up withs its requirements. Installing Vista on a PC with your spec (sergey) is about the same as installing WinXP on a P2 300Mhz several years ago with WinXP came out.

What your suggesting is about the same as installing Windows 3.11 on your P200 when Win XP came out because XP was slower and 98 had loads of bugs.

Tbh, XP I think is the finest OS Microsoft have made so far. Vista has a little way to go to beat it (its still plenty broken), but it will be better.

[center]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Deathcow
FPSC Reloaded Backer
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Nov 2005
Location: Right here!
Posted: 11th Feb 2007 07:26 Edited at: 11th Feb 2007 07:31
Link
With out a doubt win98 will run faster, but to be honest you'll not get full use of the hardware that you've got there. No duel core support and FAT32 will only allow ceiling file-size of 4GB. To add to the mix win98 will only really support 512MB of your 1GB of memory. Also you'll need to download and install the patch for win98 to shutdown correctly on 1GHz machines.

-EDIT-
From experience I've never been able to partition a HD with FAT32 above 120GB on a sata drive. Hope it works for you.

If it is only going to be win98 or winXP. Then I would go for winXP, because you'll get full support for the hardware you plan to use.

I think it's to early for anyone to say weather Vista is any good or not. WinXP was not to everyone's likeing in the begining, plus most complained that it was also broken. To be honest I've moved from winXP to Vista and my laptop runs much better now.

Combat Junkies - A Gamers Paradise
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 11th Feb 2007 11:50
Link
Quote: "Bear in mind the spec that was around when XP came out and how slow XP was for the first few months while hardware caught up withs its requirements."


So true, I was one of the unfortunate ones there Before hardware caught up with the requirements.

Did The Buddha have a Zen micro?
Back to top
Profile PM Website
indi
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Earth, Brisbane, Australia
Posted: 11th Feb 2007 13:11
Link
"free fdisk" will solve the 120 gig limit, lived with a large drive and win98se for a while.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 11th Feb 2007 23:52
Link
Quote: "Waits for Jeku to get up on how 98 is a piece of crap. And how the dos based system is more unstable. Something about how XP and 98 can't be compared (?) because xp has its os internalized while 98 is just a GUI. How the increased usage of system resources is acceptable because "ram is dirt cheap" (Or was that CattleRustler)... and generally saying that 98 sucks."


You know me too well

98 is useless nowadays, as almost anything you could do on 98 you can do on XP. I used to think I couldn't run any 90s games that used FM sound but DosBox allows me to run them all (even 7th Guest!). Seriously, what's the point of running an unsupported operating system on a new computer? AFAIK MS isn't patching 98 anymore, so you're even more prone to hacker nonsense.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 11th Feb 2007 23:59
Link
I will nearly guarantee you that Windows98 will run slower on that box than WindowsXP does. The main reason being that 98 just doesn't support the faster hardware properly, which is one thing most people seem to forget.
Yes, of course older operating systems use less resources, which is the reason why when a new operating system is released, it runs slower on current systems. But then hardware is upgraded, and the new operating system supports it properly, while for example the old operating system is looking at your shiny stick of 2gb ram and is wondering "How the hell do I use that?"

Nephin Games
Devhat Developer Network and IRC Channel
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
_Nemesis_
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2003
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 00:07
Link
Reminds me of Windows 3.1 - that used to start up in not much more than 5 seconds!

I really wouldn't recommend 98 though, for all the reasons mentioned above. A really unwise choice to try and utilize modern hardware with something that's 10 years old.

Your PC is very similar to mine, and I'm surprised that you thought Vista was slow with that setup. It runs quite a bit faster than a clean XP install for me, even on my budget motherboard and RAM.

[url="http://www.devhat.net"]www.devhat.net[/url] :: Devhat IRC Network.
Current Project: ASP Content Management System
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 00:16
Link
Quote: "I will nearly guarantee you that Windows98 will run slower on that box than WindowsXP does. The main reason being that 98 just doesn't support the faster hardware properly, which is one thing most people seem to forget."


Actually that is true, whilst my sister's hard drive was buggered before we bought a replacement, we put in one of our old Hard drives with Windows 98 already installed it ran slowly.

Did The Buddha have a Zen micro?
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Pricey
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Feb 2003
Location:
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 09:55 Edited at: 12th Feb 2007 09:56
Link
Windows 98 is a bugger
i stuck it on my old AMD so i could play Thief (thief+winXP+my gfx card = messeyness)
and its pretty damn fast
but trying to use it for coursework and stuff, i've had about 3 blue screen situations (oh noes)
its been constantly reporting a missing driver, telling me to remove it from WIN.INI, even though it isn't referenced anywhere in there and the driver is for a piece of hardware i don't even HAVE.

also no support for Pen drives (yes i know you can make it work with drivers, but in XP you just stick it in and whooopeee, it works)

yeah, its speedy, but not efficient and definatly not as bug free as XP.

EDIT: you also have the problem of out-dated Windows 98 drivers for your hardware and often now, no drivers at all for new hardware

http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=97191&b=32
God Of Thunder DEMO
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 12:34
Link
For me Win2000 is the 'best' version of Windows I've ever used. XP does have issues. Vista has bags of them (even though I'm running it right this second) and 95/98 had a massive number of problems as well. 2K was rock-solid!

Sometimes I do wish I'd never bothered upgrading at all.

Mind you, most of my Vista problems are related to Creative, and their piss poor ability to code drivers for their own hardware.

Heavy on the Magick
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 12:39 Edited at: 12th Feb 2007 12:41
Link
''But XP is just 2000 with some extra bits''

I agree Rich, but everytime someone proclaims their respect for 2k, someone posts the above - just thought I'd get in there first this time. I'd say 2k is my favourite OS, in fact I use it on any PC <1.5gb at work - I've seen it turn uselessly slow XP machines into smooth running office workhorses .

''Stick that in your text and scroll it!.''
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 12:50
Link
I'd say it's the extra bits that caused the initial instability problems

XP isn't too bad, I was quite happy with it for years, but 2K just seemed so more solid.

Vista has been strange.. the first install of it went horribly wrong, the PC one day decided to not boot at all claiming a vital system file was missing, that no restore could fix. Not even a repair from the Vista DVD. So I format the drive, re-install and this time at least all is well. The only problem I have is an erratic speaker / microphone issue, thanks no doubt to Creative and their dog poo quality drivers. Everything else has worked faultlessly - network printer, file server, VPNs, the lot.

Heavy on the Magick
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 12:50
Link
And I'll give my boxed reply to that one: I was once a very happy 2k user, yet it started to feel sluggish and started to get prone to malware infections compared to other PCs I was using.
I decided to take the leap and upgrade to XP, which turned out to be faster on that machine (Amd 2500+, 1gig ram, Radeon 9800) than Win2K, and a lot more secure (yes, I said it). Windows 2000 is perhaps the greatest ever Microsoft OS, all the beautiful features of NT, without all the ram and graphics hogging of XP or Vista. But it hasn't aged well, and that now shows. You have a fairly new PC, XP will run faster than 2K, unless you turn all graphics features up to the max.

Nephin Games
Devhat Developer Network and IRC Channel
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 13:34
Link
I've never used Win2k, but from the sounds of things, it's pretty reliable, what's the compatibility on that thing compared to XP, if it's good I might consider replaces XP with it, perhaps things will run more smoothly for me.

Did The Buddha have a Zen micro?
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 13:38
Link
It's fairly similar, although 2k has slightly less compatibility than XP apparently, I've never had problems with it though

Nephin Games
Devhat Developer Network and IRC Channel
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 13:49
Link
Well as long as Dark Basic Pro, DevC++, my games and 3D apps run on it, I'd be happy running it, of course money being an obstacle, I'll probable pick it up eventually.

Did The Buddha have a Zen micro?
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 13:53
Link
My advice it so buy an upgrade computer part and see if you can get it OEM

Nephin Games
Devhat Developer Network and IRC Channel
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 13:59 Edited at: 12th Feb 2007 14:00
Link
There is a limit at which it's a better idea to use 2k - like when your PC is <1gb, then 2K would run a lot better on it. But if your PC is a reasonable spec you probably would be best sticking with XP for compatibility sakes.

If you have an old PC, maybe something that is not fast enough for modern games, then putting 2k on that can make it into a very useful piece of kit - as a network file storage and internet/printer server (maybe use a KVM switch to save space), the best thing about 2K is how long it can go without tripping up and needing reset, so leaving it on constantly is not as much of a worry as with XP.

I'm setting up a work PC now, used to have XP and was slow as death - 1.7ghz Celeron with 1gb ram. Now 2K has been installed it'll be switched on 24/7, controlling batch traceability, a fairly big concearn. Probably worth less than the copy of Office97 I had to source for the damn thing!.
You know when your happily using your PC, then XP decides to stop and have a break - while XP is eating kit-kats ignoring you, you can feel the rage building and you can actually imagine smashing it to little bits? - well I never get that with 2K, I think Rich is right, a lot of the bells and whistles cause the irritating problems, along with M$'s deliberate neutering of it's networking functionality in 'Home' versions.

''Stick that in your text and scroll it!.''
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 14:00 Edited at: 12th Feb 2007 14:10
Link
Cool, I'll probably do that if I upgrade my RAM or something. Cheers.

[edit]
Van, my PC is old and low spec, XP lags and my games lag on it, I think we got it in 2001 or 2002. Which is why Windows 2000 sounds like something I should be grabbing. Mine is P4 1.5ghz, 256mb ram, ATI radeon 9550

Did The Buddha have a Zen micro?
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 14:12
Link
VanB: Yea, I had a fight with XP's accessibility features earlier. As I was in the middle of coding and expression, holding the shift key just about to type something, I rethought what I was doing, all the while holding my shiftkey. So, a couple of seconds later, windows popped up with it's filterkeys dialog.
That little dialogue is one of my most hated things about windows, so I went into it, turned off the shortcut for all the different "key" things, and then hit cancel on the dialog asking me whether I want to activate filterkeys. Windows, in its infinite wisdom, decides against my judgement, so it's as if the shiftkey is constantly pressed. With much pain and effort, I manage to get back into the accessibility dialog, and Windows is telling me that the feature isn't on! So one reboot, 5 minutes, and raised blood pressure later I'm able to get back to my coding.

I know this isn't really related but had to get it off my chest.

Nephin Games
Devhat Developer Network and IRC Channel
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 14:28
Link
Sep,
Yeah, if I was you I'd switch to 2K - it might not be as pretty, but the snappier response and better stability more than makes up for XP's looks. You might actually find that 2K is better for compatibility with the games that would run smooth.

Ken,
Yeah, that annoyed the hell out of me till I found out where to turn it off, it's rediculous, like a lot of M$'s stupidity that we all just learn to live with. Another favourite is how when you set your locale, you still have to set your keyboard seperately, otherwise it assumes it's American - with the '@' hiding up there under the '2'. The number of times I've had to switch a keyboard to UK... well I really should charge people for it!.
Ohh, and Explorer, would it really kill M$ to put a shortcut on the start menu instead of nested or behind right clicks - Bill should know that most people use Explorer more than anything, yet Printers get their own slot - as if anyone can't find them in the control panel, which is where I access them all the time, out of spite.

''Stick that in your text and scroll it!.''
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 14:37
Link
Quote: "Sep,
Yeah, if I was you I'd switch to 2K - it might not be as pretty, but the snappier response and better stability more than makes up for XP's looks. You might actually find that 2K is better for compatibility with the games that would run smooth."



Alright, cheers, besides, I've turned off the XP themes anyway, so it wouldn't make much difference anyway

Did The Buddha have a Zen micro?
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 15:13
Link
That's what you think. I bet you XP is still running the themes in the background where you can't see them, just because it's the only thing giving it individuality from 2K. We know XP, we KNOW!

Nephin Games
Devhat Developer Network and IRC Channel
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 16:03
Link
Windows 2000 Pro:
Size: 562mb
Files: 6,009

Windows XP Pro:
Size: 1.25gb
Files: 9,242

Half a gig of graphics bumph, or perhaps something more than just graphical changes.

These are figures are from clean installs with Office2000 installed on each. I really think XP is much further removed from 2K than people believe.

''Stick that in your text and scroll it!.''
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 16:07
Link
Interesting, you don't have a copy of XP Home to compare that with, do you?

Nephin Games
Devhat Developer Network and IRC Channel
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 16:12
Link
Unfortunately no, we just upgraded all our systems to XP Pro, although there might be an old disconnected PC lying around that I can check, I'll have a look.

''Stick that in your text and scroll it!.''
Back to top
Profile PM Email
geecee3
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2004
Location: edinburgh.scotland.
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 16:25
Link
i have to concur, win2K pro is prolly the most stable windows OS i have used, in fact i just the other day I installed it on an old dell dimension 4300 p4 1.7GHz with a lame 128MB SDR RAM, and its fairly motoring along. Win 2K feels quite nice to use and isn't full of the graphical clutter of XP which definatley helps older boxes. i recommend win2k pro to anyone ho has a post 98 grade box but not quite fast enough to fully enjoy XP.

on a side note, i have a laptop with XP home and it's been switched off for approx 48 hours out of 13 months, still on the factory install and going strong, the only problem i have on this system is memory leakage with messenger and media player running at the same time, not a terribly bad issue considering i tend to use winamp for listening to meh choonz.

if your like me, and find linux pretty useless for what you do and the apps you require, then win2k pro might just be the thing you need.

oh yes, before i forget. WIN2K for teh win. :/ er.... yeah.

Ohd Chinese Ploverb say : Wise Eskimo, not eat yerrow snow.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 17:14
Link
Quote: "I bet you XP is still running the themes in the background where you can't see them, just because it's the only thing giving it individuality from 2K. We know XP, we KNOW!
"


Well I'll be damned then, explains why it is still slow.

Did The Buddha have a Zen micro?
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Diggsey
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 12th Feb 2007 17:41
Link
I only recently changed (I wouldn't say upgraded) from win98se to winXP. The only reason was that I had just bought DP, and DP doesn't work under win98.

Win98se is faster, and would have less bugs if hardware hadn't improved so much since when it was made.

The main problem with win98, is that it thinks you have a ancient hardware as well as an ancient os.

(You can tell this, when you install it. It says estimated time to install: 3 hours. It finished in about 30secs on my computer!!!)


VISIT MY WEBSITE!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-18 05:38:06
Your offset time is: 2024-11-18 05:38:06