Athlon 700-> WinXP or Win98?

[biostud]

XP

 

[Bassyhead]

XP should run fine

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: JEDI
I have enuf spare parts to build a new machine. I have no idea what I'm going to use the machine for.

it's an athlon 700mhz, 256megs ram, matrox g400 16megs video and a 60meg hd.

It'll have Office2000.

I'm thinking since it's a slow machine to go for Win98. On the other hand, I have alot of hd space so WinXp???

Should I use WinXP, or Win98?

XP no doubt but if you have Win2K use that instead.

 

[Netopia]

I'd go XP over 98 or 2000. XP is MUCH more stable than anything on a Win9x kernel ever was and has more compatibility than 2000.

It's the little things in XP that make me like it more than 2000... like the fact that there are very old DOS games I have that will work on my XP machines but won't on my 2000 machines. Or the fact that I had to install various drivers for 2000 to recognize my digital cameras and my various external drives, but with XP all I had to do was plug any of them in the USB port and a few seconds later XP had recognized, installed and mounted them as usable devices.

You can also disable all of the eye candy with XP and switch everything to the classic mode. This way you'll get all the major enhancements of XP while keeping the speed and familiarity of a Win9x look and feel.

Joe

 

[hooflung]

I would say 2000 or xp but if you already have another PC then why not try your hand at linux first. Install Mandrake 10.1 and you might not want to go back. With a little elbow grease you can even run Office 2000 on it. I have a 800mhz Athlon Tbird Slot A, a rare tbird makeshift release from amd, with 512 RAM and a ATI PCI Radeon 7000 with gigabit ethernet and 60gig HD running XP just fine. Its actually a great linux box too but I have other boxes for that so this is just a bit torrent pc using java 1.5 and azureus.

 

[Twista]

Originally posted by: MrChad
Should be plenty for Windows XP.

 

[vegetation]

If it's just for booting up a quick editing session with an office ap or browsing a bit, then win98 is okay. I wouldn't even dare think of using that for a server system though. Look for win2k if you're aiming for continual operation.

 

[mwmorph]

98 sucks. my system freezes or blue screens at least 3x(it's sad cause im not even exagerating, ive had to complete system restore 5 times win98 cause it is so unstable.) a day. go xp all the way.

 

[imported_Phil]

I run a Celeron 400 with 320Mb RAM on Server 2003 Enterprise, and it's fine. Sure, CPU-intensive stuff takes some time, but other than that, it runs perfectly.

Heck, my father used to run XP on a Celeron 667 with 128Mb RAM and it was okay. It's better now he has more than double that, along with a Duron 1.3Ghz.

 

[rbV5]

LOL, yea strip all the fluff to run Office:roll: My Duron 900 rig runs fine on XP SP2 as do the rest of the fleet.

 

[P0ldy]

2000 or Linux.

 

[NeptuneNavigator2001]

I think I'd have to readily agree with Philippine Mango on this one...

Few people realize that there ARE flaws in WinXP. For example, if you have to reformat your hard drive up to eight times, (but who would need to?) it won't let you do it the last time; you'd have to buy a new copy. It's a money-making scam.

Also, while WinXP does have its own firewall, I've heard of people having major security flaws. Personally, I'd go with an OS that I've been using for over 4 years now... I've had problems with Win98SE, true; but like someone else said, hardware DOES make a difference. The newer, the better.

Now, I know that there will be at least one person on here that would say that software would make the difference. True, software does make a difference. But it also depends upon how much knowledge the end-user has. (I'm already getting into rather advanced Registry editing; surely upgrading to anything more than 98SE (or 2000, but ONLY for Doom 3 - yeah, baby!) would add several layers to the Registry that I wouldn't be able to understand. Not that I'm an ace at Registry editing, but I'm learning - gonna be watching my new custom-built PC like a hawk. I'm another one of those "security freaks.")

But hey, there's also one more thing that 98SE has over XP: native DOS support. I'm one of those guys who likes to run the oldest games next to the newest games, so I'm going for major compatibility, i.e., installing 98SE and 2K on different partitions.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: NeptuneNavigator2001
I think I'd have to readily agree with Philippine Mango on this one...

Few people realize that there ARE flaws in WinXP. For example, if you have to reformat your hard drive up to eight times, (but who would need to?) it won't let you do it the last time; you'd have to buy a new copy. It's a money-making scam.

No you don't. If activation is required (which it won't be unless a combination of three things trigger a re-activation) then you simply call Microsoft. They'll examine the hardware change and issue you an activation code. I've done it several times.

Also, while WinXP does have its own firewall, I've heard of people having major security flaws. Personally, I'd go with an OS that I've been using for over 4 years now... I've had problems with Win98SE, true; but like someone else said, hardware DOES make a difference. The newer, the better.

So.... XP's built-in free firewall, or 98's.... um. Oh, that's right, no firewall.
Top idea! :thumbsup:

Now, I know that there will be at least one person on here that would say that software would make the difference. True, software does make a difference. But it also depends upon how much knowledge the end-user has. (I'm already getting into rather advanced Registry editing; surely upgrading to anything more than 98SE (or 2000, but ONLY for Doom 3 - yeah, baby!) would add several layers to the Registry that I wouldn't be able to understand. Not that I'm an ace at Registry editing, but I'm learning - gonna be watching my new custom-built PC like a hawk. I'm another one of those "security freaks.")

The average user doesn't need to do registry editing, certainly not to run Office.

But hey, there's also one more thing that 98SE has over XP: native DOS support. I'm one of those guys who likes to run the oldest games next to the newest games, so I'm going for major compatibility, i.e., installing 98SE and 2K on different partitions.

That's the only point of 98 these days.

 

[CTho9305]

Few people realize that there ARE flaws in WinXP. For example, if you have to reformat your hard drive up to eight times, (but who would need to?) it won't let you do it the last time; you'd have to buy a new copy. It's a money-making scam.

BS! You just call them, they let you install it as often as you need.

Also, while WinXP does have its own firewall, I've heard of people having major security flaws.

You're implying older versions of windows are BETTER?

At least know what you're talking about before disagreeing with somebody.

 

[Mem]

I'd go XP over 98 or 2000. XP is MUCH more stable than anything on a Win9x kernel ever was and has more compatibility than 2000.

I have to agree,btw my backup PC which is an old 900MHz T-bird,18GB HD,256mb ram has XP and runs fine,I don`t know why people are bringing firewalls into the argument,you do know there are plenty of excellent free firewalls available .FYI XP is very stable IMHO and I`ll take it anytime over 98 or even 2K.

 

[Pocatello]

My laptop runs around 300Mhz with XP just fine to save power. So a 700MHz machine should run it fine.

 

[NeptuneNavigator2001]

Bah. All you guys sure are critical. As far as Registry editing goes, I was thinking about spyware/malicious programs. And as far as calling tech support. Forget it! >:| I've always been a loner anyway... Like I said, there are other issues here, and very few people know what those issues are. But this board isn't worth my time, because apparently people on this board like to hound the old-time users who hate the newer OSes. Hell, I know so much about Win98SE that I'd bet that I could modify (legally) every inch of it, bend it and work it to my will.

Whatever. I know what I know for reasons I shall not discuss here, and the reasons why, are also my own. Right now, I could care less if my account was removed, because obviously this board has a "newest-of-the-new" attitude going on. All I wanted was some simple answers to my questions, and I get beat up. Well, I don't see this board as a wise place to do my business, but if I'm going to blow $1000+ on a custom-built PC, then I would appreciate at least a 1% amount of support.

Furthermore, (not that anyone here would care) I have removed all my account information. I will not bring my business here anymore.

Thank you.

 

[Netopia]

But hey, there's also one more thing that 98SE has over XP: native DOS support. I'm one of those guys who likes to run the oldest games next to the newest games, so I'm going for major compatibility, i.e., installing 98SE and 2K on different partitions

Have you TRIED XP in compatibility mode? There are many DOS games that I couldn't play on Win2K that play flawlessly on XP. Exactly which DOS based games have you tried to run in compatibility mode on XP that won't work?

 

[JC]

I must be the only person in the world who managed to have a fast, reliable system with Win98SE. Granted, I don't leave my system up for days at a time....but I can't remember the last time I had a BSOD

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: NeptuneNavigator2001
And as far as calling tech support. Forget it! >:|

Nobody said it's NICE to have to do, but you say you can't install XP multiple times.

Like I said, there are other issues here, and very few people know what those issues are.

Enlighten us. Just don't be factually incorrect when you do it.

Whatever. I know what I know for reasons I shall not discuss here, and the reasons why, are also my own. Right now, I could care less if my account was removed, because obviously this board has a "newest-of-the-new" attitude going on.

You're basing this on two replies to a post in which you made incorrect statements (and useless statements - e.g. the firewall - previous versions of windows had nothing... even a mediocre firewall is better than nothing... and with SP2, it's improved a lot)

All I wanted was some simple answers to my questions, and I get beat up.

I didn't see any of your questions in this thread. Don't trash a product with incorrect information - it's like a smear campaign, spreading FUD.

Well, I don't see this board as a wise place to do my business, but if I'm going to blow $1000+ on a custom-built PC, then I would appreciate at least a 1% amount of support.

Furthermore, (not that anyone here would care) I have removed all my account information. I will not bring my business here anymore.

I'm not selling anything... what "business" are you doing here?

 

[Andres3605]

in a "60meg hd. " i doubt you can fit XP, lol, now being serius Xp is a lot better + most drivers are already include in it.

 

[Mem]

XP has better USB support/driver support and also NTFS which is superior to FAT32,I won`t meantion that has an ex- long term 98 user myself ,I find XP to be a lot better/superior on stablility.


Btw also remember life expectancy of XP is a lot longer then 98 too.DOS support was meantioned and I`m running X-COM "UFO -enemy unknown" and" Terror from the deep" which are two DOS games on my XP at the moment,yes 98 has the edge with DOS games but you can always dual boot,I even have my old DOS 6.22 disks lying around somewhere,bottom line is DOS is more or less dead now so not really a valid comment.

It`s all about times,you want to stick with a dying horse or go with the most current supported OS?

 

[asm0deus]

i made a computer for a friend around christmas, it was a Celeron 200MHz, w/ 192MB SDRAM and a voodoo3. It runs XP ok, just takes forever to boot up. That's because of a really slow 8GB HDD thats in there tho. Turn off the eye candy and disable unneeded services.

 

[Gnarly]

My PII 233 laptop with 6gb hdd runs better on XP than it did with 98 or W2K. I also have the worlds biggest POS desktop HP PII 450 w/ 386 megs of ram that has seen 98, 2000 and XP. XP has been very reliable. After a year of use I have had no failures, compared to 2 failures per year over a four year period with 98, and zero failures with W2K over a one year period. 2000 was great and easier to start DOS but XP has more drivers and seems to have more comptibility with my old hardware (although that seems strange so it might be my imagination). But as a backup system I'd have to say I'd go Linux just to see what it's like (its cheap and easy). You can always scrap it and install windows.

 

[NeptuneNavigator2001]

Alright. Sorry. I was a bit of a hot-head, and was upset at some "no-help" responses in my post.

Well, here's one thing: There's this (bug?) thing, that started in Win98SE, and is easier to activate in XP: it's a different combination of keys for every copy of Windows, but once pressed, (say you accidentally put a plate on your keyboard) it crashes your system. Some say it plants a virus as well, but I wouldn't know. Anyway, it's easier for that to happen in XP. (However, this is NOT common knowledge.)

I don't have XP; I have my reasons.

I mean no harm; I'm simply suspicious of malicious activity. (And, the "unable to install XP over 8 times" was news I got from my dad, who knows more about these things than I could imagine. Don't judge us by what we know, or, as you may or may not be thinking, "they think they know, but we know better."
Sometimes, knowledge is to be shared. Sometimes, knowledge is meant to be hidden, for very good reasons, and like I said earlier, those reasons are my own. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." Even though I am a Christian, I think that this proverb and other said ones are good to live by.

Good day.