PDA

View Full Version : Windows 98 is much better than Windows XP in various ways ... Do You Agree?



azhgtdmhh
07-06-2015,
What do you think of both? Is win 98 better than win XP? I m of the view that win 98 is much better than win XP in different ways, as it is speedy, works more faster and gives optimum results, whereas, win XP slow down your system and if crashes, it takes lots of time to repair and install, whereas win 98 is way more easier and less time-consuming to install.

azpiprnfjz
07-06-2015,
Windows 98 lacks the security that Windows 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 have in-cooperated into the operating system. This lack of security makes Windows 98 obsolete in todays ever changing IT Environment and homes with many family members. In the paste when I had Windows 98, I had to setup accounts for all my family members, but each account had the rights to install anything they wanted. This infuriated me, because my sister would install such things as Bonzi Buddy, and I couldn't stop that. However, when I got Windows 2000, my sister couldn't install anything like that on my computer.

Windows 9x and Windws Me also lacked the ability to handle huge files past 4Gigabytes in size, and Windows 98 lacks multi-thread and multi-processor support as well as RAM/Memory Limits.

So in my opinion the above things make Windows 98 obsolete and makes Windows 2000 and later far superior for todays computing needs.

azhigpvlc
07-06-2015,
Well to me its horses for courses. Win98 maybe 12 years old but its still a good system. Its getting harder to find software that works as they as designed for WinXP and above. The beauty is you still have true DOS which WinNT systems don't. Why do you need true DOS you may say? Well if Win9x/ME won't startup even in Safe Mode you can always startup in DOS and copy or use the old DOS WinZip to copy the files or folders to a floppy then you can't get Windows fixed you just format and do a fresh install. With WinXP it could all the lost because there is no true DOS.

The other problem with WinXP is it has that much running in the background which you can't see and each app is using system resources (memory) which aren't always necessary. If your thinking of upgrading or changing from Win98 to WinXP don't go by the minimum spec needed which is something like 233Mhz processor and 128kb of memory. I may run but it will be that slow you can make a cup of tea and drink it while it tries to run things.

The thing is if it isn't broke then don't mend it. http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

Azrydtergy
07-07-2015,
On a system that has enough resources to run XP, it is actually far superior to 98. The problem is it takes a lot more resources than than most machines that came with 98 had. On a capable machine, XP is also far less prone to crashes and as cryptodan pointed out is far more secure. The key though, as keithuk pointed out, Xp does not run well on minimum specs, but with a capable system it is a very good OS.

azszyigley
07-08-2015,
IMO. Besides what has already been stated.

If your PC has the hardware to run XP then it is the better OS. For a multitude of reasons.

Have run it on very minimal hardware and after some tweaking it actually ran quit well\snappy. An old IBM Thinkpad lap top with a 333 Pentium and 64MB (minimum per MS, 128MB recommended) of RAM.

Keep in mind that it was not on a PC used for Internet browsing. There were no security programs other then the native firewall installed. It served only as a printer\VoIP server on my home network.