>>> Win98/SE/ME can run 1024mb of ram

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: rogue1979
Man, I get tired of people knocking Win98. I am using both Win98 and Win2K Pro on my machines, so I am not biased one way or the other. There is nothing wrong with Win98 and if you set it up correctly it is just as stable as Win2K. Now of course, this if for the way most people use their PC's, booting on and off several times a day. If you need to run 24/7 without a break, then of course 2K or XP is better. I actually noticed Win98 seems to be snappier in desktop chores. Good work Thugs!

There are plenty of things wrong with Windows 98 (improper memory management), but you don't notice them if you reboot constantly and don't stress anything more than your video subsystem. Also, if Windows 98 performs so much better than 2k or XP, it's because you've got an old video card or something that doesn't have good drivers for 2k/XP. Need I bring out the famous Tom's Hardware comparison again? I could certainly understand using Windows 98 if you can't afford to upgrade or if you need to use legacy applications that won't work with WinXP's compatibility features, but those who religiously stick to it because it gives them some mythical or unnoticeable performance advantages in a few games are using about as much logic as the ultra-conservatives who shout "rock and roll is evil" all the time.

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: jliechty
There are plenty of things wrong with Windows 98 (improper memory management), but you don't notice them if you reboot constantly and don't stress anything more than your video subsystem. Also, if Windows 98 performs so much better than 2k or XP, it's because you've got an old video card or something that doesn't have good drivers for 2k/XP. Need I bring out the famous Tom's Hardware comparison again? I could certainly understand using Windows 98 if you can't afford to upgrade or if you need to use legacy applications that won't work with WinXP's compatibility features, but those who religiously stick to it because it gives them some mythical or unnoticeable performance advantages in a few games are using about as much logic as the ultra-conservatives who shout "rock and roll is evil" all the time.

One of my Win98 systems is a 2100MHz Athlon with a GF4 Ti4200 at nearly ti4600 speeds with the latest 43.45 Omega driver. One of my Win2K Pro systems is a 2340MHz Athlon also with a GF4 @ Ti4600 speeds and the same driver version. If you use the proper settings Win98 manages memory alot better than you think.

System.ini [386Enh]

DMABufferSize=64
LocalLoadHigh=1
ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1
PageBuffers=32
[vcache]
Minfilecache=system ram
Maxfilecache= 2.5X times system ram
Chunksize=512

Msdos.sys [options]

Dblspace=0
Drvspace=0
Logo=0
Bootdelay=0
Disablelog=1

Config.sys

device=C:\WINDOWS\himem.sys
Stacks=0,0
dos=high,umb
devicehigh=C:\WINDOWS\setver.exe
devicehigh=C:\WINDOWS\ifshlp.sys

Set the swapfile minimum to 2.5X times the system ram.

Like I said, I don't favor one over the other. For web surfing, gaming, downloading, cd-burning and regular desktop chores Win98 does just as well as Win2K. I don't care how much better or more stable Win2K is supposed to be, for me they are very close to equal. There are some things Win2K is better at, but for the majority of people practicing simple desktop computing and gaming, there isn't a noticable difference. For a server or desktop running non-stop, a NTFS operating system would be better than FAT32 for sure, but then a Unix or Linux OS would be even better.

 

[grunjee]

I've always heard that "myth" preached like it was gospel, kinda cool to see it's not true.

Although I'm with the guys who can't understand why anyone (esp. an intelligent power user) would use Win98 these days, even if it gains you 1000 points. Just not worth the tradeoff in most cases... and for the record I work on Win98 boxes all day every day! :|

 

[Blain]

"Why in hell would you waste Win9X on such a machine?" &
"But what you gain in performance is not worth it compared to what you lose by having to use a POS like Win9X."



Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
are you offended by this thread?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, but I'm still amazed that people cling to an OS that was outdated before it was released."

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
my gad! some ppl use win98!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And I feel pity for them."



It's not really coming across as "pity", it sounds more like "contempt" for them. :Q

 

[drag]

I don't know..

I'd have to agree with nothinman about this one. I can't realy see any benifit of using such a turd of a operating system like that with this hardware. I mean if that is what you have and you don't want to blow some extra money on it to just upgrade the OS, I can understand it.

With abhorant memory management, instabilities, security problems up the yin-yang, a completely outclassed file system, and a semi-functioning semi-proptiatory networking, there are few aspects of the OS that will not improve considurably by having a simple upgrade to w2k.

Other then just running games any time you are going to push it to use the full resources of the hardware it's just going to fail on you. With newer hardware the threshold of failure is raised up quite a bit, but's it's still going to happen. Unless you don't do anything to the OS and try to keep it as prestine as humanly possible BSOD is a way of life with win98. And so is the lost work and corrupted system files that go along with it.

But then again, whatever floats your boat. I suppose if you don't mind rebooting every few hours and all you use it for is playing games and instant messenger/e-mial/surfing. I suppose win98 would be a ideal OS.

<jk> But why not just use win95? </jk>

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: drag
But then again, whatever floats your boat. I suppose if you don't mind rebooting every few hours and all you use it for is playing games and instant messenger/e-mial/surfing. I suppose win98 would be a ideal OS.

It seems like there's almost a cult surrounding Windows 98 and the propagation of half-truths or outright lies about its supposed eternal righteousness... at least that's the impression I get from reading this thread. After all, no person in their right mind would call something that needs preemptive reboots every few hours "stable," but then again there are also people, who's systems fail at Prime95 within minutes but yet run all day under a light load, who call their systems "stable." Maybe it's "stable enough for you" but to call that "stable" is just rediculous. At least they're lucky that Windows 98 is one of the fastest-booting OSes that MS has made (except DOS), so they don't have to waste too much time with their preemptive reboots.

Oh well, it's obvious that this is going to change exactly no one's opinion, so the Win98-is-God folks can keep their delusions, and I'll keep my 2k, XP, and Linux machines that run for months without a reboot or slowdown (unless I have to install a critical update).

 

[rogue1979]

Reality check! Some of you guys seem to be ignoring these facts:

Most people use their computer as a toy, simply to check email, surf online, and play games for an hour or two and then shut down. Win98 handles this perfectly.

Most people out there do not have machines like us, a much slower computer will handle Win98 faster than 2K or XP.

And the most obvious point, both Thugsrook and myself are using both Win2k and Win98. Your guys arguments make it sound like we are
defending Win98 because that is all we are using. We use both, and what we use them for shows no huge advantage for one or the other!
You guys are brainwashed, you read too much online and take as the absolute truth. Win98 is still the most widely used OS around, and if you had a terrible experience with it, then it just wasn't set up correctly.

I guess I would have the same mentality if I believed my gaming wasn't worth a sh!t because I don't have a DirectX9 video card in the house. Microsoft, Nvidia and Ati would sure like me to believe that and I'm sure many people here in the forums have been brainwashed to have the same opinion. Old doesn't have to be bad, and newer isn't always better! I gotta keep on ranting here, if I followed the opinions of everyone online I would be running an Nforce2 board because it is the best and fastest AMD solution. Let's overlook some of the compatibility problems. Ha! my cheapo 746FX is running a 200MHz fsb and pushing my 1700+ at 2340MHz. If I don't have a Radeon 9700 Pro my gaming is too slow? Ha! I had one of those already and I get more satisfaction from a GF4 128MB card.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: rogue1979
Reality check!

Point taken, but I couldn't resist this one...

Old doesn't have to be bad, and newer isn't always better!

Old doesn't have to be bad, but in this case, newer is definitely better. It just so happens that your average gamer or grandma who uses the computer for emailing pics to her grandkids would be inconvenienced by some of the features of WinNT-based OSes that provide security, stability, etc., so they're better off with the technically inferior Windows 98, just because it's easier to use, and they won't notice / care if it crashes now and then.

I'm sorry, but I've been here long enough to have seen this time and time again, and I just get sick of the BS that is spewed about Windows 98's memory management supposedly being "just fine" - apparently these people have never heard of such concepts as "protected memory" et. al. Thus, I guess I came off a bit too strong in my other posts. A reality check is definitely in order... for the extremists on both sides.

 

[Nothinman]

It's not really coming across as "pity", it sounds more like "contempt" for them.

Infer what you will from my posts, but Win9X needs to die. MS is only still supporting it because they have to, Office 2003 won't run it IIRC and I wouldn't be surprised to see many other apps that require an OS from the NT line.

Most people use their computer as a toy, simply to check email, surf online, and play games for an hour or two and then shut down. Win98 handles this perfectly.

Depends on your definition of perfect. Personally if I shared a PC with other people I'd not want them reading my email or documents, something Win98 can't enforce.

You guys are brainwashed, you read too much online and take as the absolute truth.

Hardly, I've had the pain of working with Win9X too much, it's to the point I that refuse to work on it now.

Win9X is the reason that when a computer crashes now people just go "oh, it just does that sometimes". They've been brainwashed into believing that computers are unreliable and that's just how things are, reboot and you'll be fine.

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: jliechty
Old doesn't have to be bad, but in this case, newer is definitely better. It just so happens that your average gamer or grandma who uses the computer for emailing pics to her grandkids would be inconvenienced by some of the features of WinNT-based OSes that provide security, stability, etc., so they're better off with the technically inferior Windows 98, just because it's easier to use, and they won't notice / care if it crashes now and then.

I'm sorry, but I've been here long enough to have seen this time and time again, and I just get sick of the BS that is spewed about Windows 98's memory management supposedly being "just fine" - apparently these people have never heard of such concepts as "protected memory" et. al. Thus, I guess I came off a bit too strong in my other posts. A reality check is definitely in order... for the extremists on both sides.

Agreed!

 

[Clauzii]

It is VERY nice to read this!

Yesterday I actually ran into that problem - NOT FUNNY!

I had 13 audiofiles recorded in 44.1 kHz/24bit. Using Wavelab4 to batchrun a ´Normalize´ on them.
When it reached file #6 (around 8-900 MB) I was out of RAM AND DISKspace (still 40Gs free....)

Well - I had to run a FULL scandisk on my 60G drive - before the sstem was OK again.

Thanx for the solution!

 

[NokiaDude]

Well I just added 512mb of PC133 RAM to my Windows ME box and it seems normal. I just hope my transfers over my network will be faster.

 

[THUGSROOK]

1st off ~ i have zero problem with my 98, and im not exactly easy on it

all i need is a simple "single user" OS ~ so please explain to me (nicely) why NT is better?

chances are im not gonna care about any of the reasons, but once and for all i really wanna know.
ive used both w2k and Wxp and they offered me nothing besides a huge amount of bloat and newer bugs.

<EDIT> ...and a wide open RPC port

 

[Nothinman]

If the RPC port matters to you it means you should be running a firewall, but it's not like Win9X doesn't listen on ports 137, 138 and 139.

Win9X uses a global heap for UI objects, once that's exausted (which happens easily if you run a lot of apps at once) there is no more without closing down somethings and even then sometimes it requires a reboot to recover totally.

Process management sucks in Win9X, there's no way to just say "kll this process" instead you have to hit "end task" over and over and hope it works.

There's even a part of memory that's world writable meaning any 1 app that accidentally writes there can take down the whole OS.

No SMP support in Win9X, you have no chance of ever using multiple CPUs, and trust me if you ever had a SMP machine you would never be able to use a UP machine without complaining.

No 64-bit port and there never will be. All your apps will be limited to 2G of VM until you upgrade, for some large 3D or CAD programs that's a big limitation.

Process scheduling is terrible, a single 'rogue' app can eat all the CPU and it's a real PITA to get it to die.

FAT is a terrible filesystem, it's slow and fragile.

A lot of it is stuff that you can deal with, but once you've gotten used to an OS that works well and doesn't fight you all the time it's a chore to be forced to use Win9X again. It's like being asked to drive a ford pickup after getting to use a H1 Hummer, you don't want to go back.

 

[ProviaFan]

Nothinman, you realize they're just hardcore gamers that run only one thing at a time (a game) and don't mind rebooting or hard reseting frequently? A few hours of UT2k3 or BF1942 (is that the right number?) might give your memory a workout, but won't cause any problems of lack of protected memory or process management to surface.

Those of us (like you and I) who use computers for actual productivity applications, development, or whatever, where uptime matters and any crashing or instability at all is totally unacceptable, will definitely not want to use Win9x. "The others" would come to appreciate all the benefits of a modern, well designed OS if they gave it some time with some heavy multitasking for weeks without a reboot, but Win9x works "well enough" (according to them anyway) for a few hours per day, so they don't feel like changing.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

Wish I would have known about this last month when I built a customer a computer with a gig of ram. He did not want XP and it's bloat, but rather 98SE. I tried everything I could think of and it would not work .
Alas I put in XP Pro and it worked. But he wasn't too happy and rightfully so.

At least you have the option of using the OS of your choice . I had to make an upgrade to XP for support purposes. The XP boxes are now rolling in more than 9x series (and at a higher rate... Thanks Dell, Gateway, and HP ). At least tweakxp's site is somewhat useful. Not as much as the old annoyances.org was though .

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
He did not want XP and it's bloat, but rather 98SE.

Which is why you use Windows 2000 Pro. Less bloat than XP and many times better than 98SE in stability, security, etc.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

I talked to him about that. But he used 2K before and didn't really care for it.
Most likely because he was not the administrator as it was a work machine.
It never occured to me to ask him being I didn't think of it at the time.

In about a half a year when the computer gets... 'to old' he will be getting another one and giving that monster to the kids. By then I'll have accquired this knowledge. But he may like XP by that time .

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: jliechty
Nothinman, you realize they're just hardcore gamers that run only one thing at a time (a game) and don't mind rebooting or hard reseting frequently? A few hours of UT2k3 or BF1942 (is that the right number?) might give your memory a workout, but won't cause any problems of lack of protected memory or process management to surface.

Those of us (like you and I) who use computers for actual productivity applications, development, or whatever, where uptime matters and any crashing or instability at all is totally unacceptable, will definitely not want to use Win9x. "The others" would come to appreciate all the benefits of a modern, well designed OS if they gave it some time with some heavy multitasking for weeks without a reboot, but Win9x works "well enough" (according to them anyway) for a few hours per day, so they don't feel like changing.

actually i do alot of Divx encoding and of course im multitasking during that time. (hence the reason the 1024mb of ram upgrade) i dont have any problems (never did actually) and of course the system runs much better with the more memory. (during those tasks)
maybe im just blessed or maybe im just really good w/ w98 ~ but it certainly isnt the horror story some ppl make it out to be.
obviously most ppl are using wxp these days, and i read the threads. it aint exactly bug free ya know

im currently also dual booting w2kp and honestly (besides the better memory handling) it offers me nothing and in some ways is worse then 98.

thx for everyones input so far

 

[rogue1979]

Thugsrook, we are two of a kind, I agree with you 100%. I like Win2K also, I just don't see a benefit over Win98 in my personal computing.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

im currently also dual booting w2kp

You mean triple booting?

 

[THUGSROOK]

hehe ~ no just dual, w98se and w2kp

actually w2kp is comin out and im gonna play around with wxp again for awhile

 

[SinfulWeeper]

ahh... I thought that was a typo. w2kp, I thought you were talking about 98, w2k and xp.
My bad.

 

[SkaarjMaster]

As my first post in this forum, I would like to say that I'm going to try the 1GB with Win98SE again this weekend. Hi THUGSROOK!

 

[SkaarjMaster]

I've been reading the tweak guide link stuff above and the key to get DM-2019 running is where in RAM are the files for the game loaded (approx. 100MB) and where is the other 540MB used at in RAM?

VMM (executable area for programs to run and stored data)

OR

Virtual Memory (cache area where recently called hard disk items are stored as they are needed now or soon and can be retrieved quickly)???