...

View Full Version : Winows 98, still a good choice?



ken_shoti
04-01-2006, 08:36 AM
I have a slow pc, pentium3 600Mhz, 128MB ram and 40GB hard disk.
it's really slow and i felt this change when i switched to windows xp.
so will switching back to windows 98 be a good choice?
*aside of course from upgrading the pc

JamieR
04-01-2006, 09:17 AM
Yeah it would, however on a lot of older PCs like that with limited RAM I tend to install Windows 2000 Professional - its solid, reliable and doesn't need as much RAM as XP does.

kewlceo
04-01-2006, 09:28 AM
Going online under Win98 is about as safe as leaving your doors unlocked and wide open while you go on vacation. I agree with weazel. Windows 2000 is the better choice by far.

JamieR
04-01-2006, 09:29 AM
I only say Win 2k because it's more reliable, a lot more stable, faster and more secure than Windows 98. You still need all the standard security stuff -anti virus, firewall etc..you'd be mad to go online without them nowadays.

J.

oracleguy
04-01-2006, 08:44 PM
I'd also recommend Windows 2000, its much better in terms of stability than 98 and should run decently on that machine.

drhowarddrfine
04-01-2006, 11:43 PM
I would recommend a Linux distribution since there isn't much you can't do there that you could with windows and you don't always need the power that Windows bloat needs.

Spookster
04-02-2006, 03:23 AM
Redhat Fedora would run great on that. Linux is not a resource hog like MS Windows.

ken_shoti
04-02-2006, 09:38 AM
i don't have win2000, can winME be a good substitute?

TR-VandaL
04-03-2006, 09:04 AM
I have a slow pc, pentium3 600Mhz, 128MB ram and 40GB hard disk.
[...]

:eek: I am a spoiled little brat. :o

I think switching to Linux or Redhat would be alittle too intimidating given our friends level of computer geekery. Heck, I've not even done it even though I ha... erm... dislike M$.

raf
04-03-2006, 11:19 AM
i don't have win2000, can winME be a good substitute?
winME is not a substitue for win2k.
winME is kind of the upgrade for the win9x versions, while win2k was the upgrade for the winNT versions.

if you need to choose between win98 and winME, then i'd pick winME.
but if at all possible, get yourself a win2k.

ken_shoti
04-06-2006, 04:23 AM
thnx for your responses, no choice but still have to use win98, no available cd of win2k or me. thnx for your advices, perhaps for my future installations!

kitz
04-06-2006, 08:09 AM
I have a slow pc, pentium3 600Mhz, 128MB ram and 40GB hard disk.
it's really slow and i felt this change when i switched to windows xp.
so will switching back to windows 98 be a good choice?
*aside of course from upgrading the pc

Just for future reference, it was slow because the minimum "requirements"* for windows XP are not met by your machine. I believe it's like 700mhz, and I KNOW it's 256mb of ram.

Also for future reference, Windows Vista which comes out in the next year or so requires 1.4ghz and 512mb of ram.

*(not really requirements if you can still run it, more like recommendedations)

oracleguy
04-06-2006, 08:50 AM
No, the requirements for XP are much lower than that. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx

However I'd definetly say that between the CPU and the memory, the low ammount is what is slowing the computer down. For XP I wouldn't run it below 256 if all possible.

kitz
04-06-2006, 03:52 PM
No, the requirements for XP are much lower than that. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx

However I'd definetly say that between the CPU and the memory, the low ammount is what is slowing the computer down. For XP I wouldn't run it below 256 if all possible.

"It will run with even 64mb of ram, but it's definately not desired."-that's weird. On the Box I have for windows XP home it says minimum required: 256mb. Which is interesting. Maybe microsoft changed their minds....

dw5304
04-06-2006, 04:42 PM
windows xp will work all right on that p.c.

i have windows xp installed on a
pII 400mz
192mb ram
40g hdd

starts up in about 2min
needed to configger it a bit

b/f i configgered it, it started up in about 5 min

harlequin2k5
04-06-2006, 04:53 PM
I installed xp on a computer here at the office to block the user from installing games etc (can you imagine!) and I very definitely am sorry I ever did that - Pentium II 300, 64 meg ram, 6 gig hard drive

takes a few minutes to boot up, then another couple of minutes to finish loading after selecting the user and then you can take a nap after everything is booted up and you have more than 1 application running and you're trying to switch between them...internet seems to run ok provided you don't go to a heavy site

I use win2k here at the office and although I don't particularly care for it on the whole (dunno why?) I've never had a problem with it...I have xp at home and have no trouble with it either but it's a brand new computer so everything is pretty well up-to-date on it

I miss win98...

ken_shoti
04-07-2006, 12:41 PM
wow, i think i cannot stand to wait the loadings!

netroact
04-16-2006, 06:40 AM
I still prefer win98 on any computer. There are a few blue screens, but I enjoy the versatility.

It is my understanding that longhorn/vista will be phasing out the file management system. That won't work.

I have been thinking about these windows operating sytem upgrades. I don't think they are upgrades at all. An upgrade would make better use of resources. It would require less memory and processor speed. If the os platform requires so much, imagine what the software that runs on it will require.

What really disturbs me about this outfit, is that they don't provide a low end solution for people who don't need a super computer.

I tried installing redhat linux about 3 years ago, and it was very nice. It was a resource hog, though. I haven't tried linux since, but I will probably end up using it some day, as the software makers are phasing out win98.

Spookster
04-16-2006, 08:49 AM
I tried installing redhat linux about 3 years ago, and it was very nice. It was a resource hog, though. I haven't tried linux since, but I will probably end up using it some day, as the software makers are phasing out win98.

Actually linux itself is not a resource hog. Generally it is the third party desktop environment that uses up the most resources of which you have most commonly Gnome and KDE. Comparitively speaking however Linux plus the desktop environment and all the basic services use up far less resources than MS Windows could ever hope for. A basic install of Fedora 5 with Gnome running on my machine uses up around 85Mb's of memory. My wifes XP machine with nothing open but this one IE window is using up 300+ Mb's of memory. Also the latest Gnome desktop 2.14 that just released with Redhat Fedora 5.0 is drastically faster now.

ubik
04-16-2006, 09:42 AM
I use 98, just because of the fact that XP does not support some of my favorite hardware and some of my favorite software as well.. and also it requires much less resources than XP.. I'm sure it wouldn't be good for the internet but the way im planning to have it soon is:

windows 98 for all my apps with network drivers disabled and then use Linux for the internet and webdesign, since it also has konqueror so I'd have a few different browsers to test on plus I just installed lampp so thats cool too.

I installed LILO directly into the linux partition and then I use GAG which is ok as a bootloader to boot into either linux or win98

goughy000
04-18-2006, 12:22 PM
you'd be mad to go online without them nowadays.

:o ah well, i never have any trouble. Lets say i used to erm "do things i shouldnt" to computers, as long as your carefull online your pretty safe.

felgall
04-19-2006, 12:06 AM
I suggest that if you want to install a version of windows that you select the one nearest the top of the following list that is usable on your system.

Windows XP
Windows 2000
Windows NT4
Windows 98SE
Windows 98

If none of those will run then Linux is a much better option than any other windows version (ME is a significant downgrade from the above and was only created by Microsoft to try to drive people across to 2000). Some people would argue that a Linux distro would be a better choice than any of the above Windows versions as well (it is almost certain to be more secure).

What will run on a given computer depends not only on the minimum requirements for the OS but you need to allow space for your applications to run as well.

JamieR
04-19-2006, 01:22 AM
Windows ME is crap, was crap..always has been crap and always will be crap..Sorry, but at the end of the day, I find that there's no point using something which (well I personally anyway) have always found to be insecure, unreliable and unstable. As I've already said, any computers say under about 600mhz where RAM is fairly limited (say under 256Mb RAM) I tend to install Win 2k on rather than XP because it uses less resources etc.

ken_shoti
04-19-2006, 05:37 AM
By the way, what's the difference between KDE and GNOME?

felgall
04-19-2006, 07:34 AM
With Linux the Graphical Interface comes as two separate processing layers instead of being all integrated the way it is with Windows. Also you get a choice of different programs that you can install to handle things for both layers. KDE and Gnome are two completely different programs that perform the tasks for one of the two layers and are the most popular of the programs available to perform that part of the graphical processing.

Spookster
04-19-2006, 04:49 PM
By the way, what's the difference between KDE and GNOME?


They are two different desktop environments. Just like what you are used to working in on M$ Windows. There are actually several desktop environments available for linux but GNOME and KDE are the two most popular. I prefer GNOME myself. And with the default install of each comes many basic programs designed to go with GNOME or KDE. As for which one is best it's really just a matter of preference. I would suggest installing both and try out each one for a little while and decide for yourself. I've switched back and forth a few times over the years but now I've settled on GNOME.



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum