Does Anyone Else Like Windows 98se?

[paulcs]

I admit it. I like Windows 98. Nine times out of ten, when Windows 98 crashes on me, it's because I did something dumb.

I also find it to be fairly intuitive. This is probably because I've been using it for so long.

Windows 2000 is a fine OS. Very stable. Very nice default desktop color. Big learning curve.

I hate WinMe. I don't understand the point of WinMe. It seems less stable, less compatible, less intuitive, less flexible, etc. It impressed me as an exercise in masochism.

Funny. I liked Windows 3.1. I didn't like Windows 95 much. And I hate WinMe. When Windows 98 is long gone, I think I'll miss it. I'm just wondering if I'm the only person on the planet that feels this way.

Paul
paulcs@speakeasy.net

[The PIT]

Yep I like it. Me is the only Microshaft os I haven't upgraded to. I've seen ME at work watched it spit out old isa cards set random dates. It's a a load of crap and needs sending to the recyle bin asap.

[Pace]

Nope, I'm a Win98 1998 man

Install the most basic of OSes possible, then add what I want

If I can do with Win95 (no USB/AGP/FAT32) then I'll use that, if I need them it's Win98.

Of course, Win2K is actually my main OS on every system

P.

[Nuno]

That´s the beauty about win2k. You may do something dumb, and it doesn´t crash

[Rags]

Definitely the Heiarchy of OS's (MS OS's) are as follows (IMO):

#1 Win2K: Scales very well with demanding apps, is the most tweakable OS MS has ever put out, the most stable OS I've used period, and it's compatible with almost all win9x compatible programs with only a minor few exceptions. Yes the learning curve is steep, but the curve decreases exponentially with a little use and play

#2 Win98: Was stable for me when first released, somewhat easily tweaked, runs just about everything, very fast when tweaked, and the hardware support is the best of all OS's.

#3 WinMe: Well, it's better than Win95, but not faster

#4 Win95: No comment.

Rags

[The Rock]

I do find WIn98SE to be a nice stable OS, but not on the level that Win2k is on. WinME is just plain bad. But since I run a dual CPU box, 98SE don't do much for me.

Bart

[rylan]

Of the non NT-based ones, I think 98SE is the best one. I haven't had too many problems with it (besides the normal M$ crap). 98 first edition had some issues, and ME.. well.. that is just god-awful. I'd rather have 95a than ME.

[Gurm]

Win9x is poo.

There, I said it.

If it has DOS underneath, it is inherently icky.

Now, that said, if you absolutely MUST have DOS underneath... and you can actually come up with a good excuse not to run Win2k... then Win98SE is obviously "best-of-breed".

Of course, there are Chihuahuas that win "best-of-breed" at dog shows. Says nothing about the worthiness of the breed itself. Hehe.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Joel]

Well I have to disagree with all of you that say that WinME is a piece of crap. I have been running it on the three PCs in my house since it came out and I have yet to have any problems that can be traced back to the OS. With Win98 I had to make sure that none of my cards shared an IRQ or there would be serious problems. With WinME I have not had to worry about that. In fact I have had sharing of up to three devices on the same IRQ without any problems. Performance wise I have noticed no difference between Win98 and WinME.

Joel

BTW, all of my installs were fresh. I have heard of alot of problems when doing an upgrade.

[SCompRacer]

I can't complain about Win98SE, as long as you have all the updates in it.

If your hardware will support it, Win2000 is a step up. But some are happier or better off with a mutt instead of an AKC registered dog.

[Gurm]

Alessandro:

That's the DUMBEST reason I've ever heard not to upgrade. The colors are, of course, customizable.

As for you Joel, if WinME works on a system it seems to work well. However, on 90% of systems it is utter poo. You seem to have gotten lucky, or else you are, to quote Beavis and Butthead, "very clever".

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Paddy]

He must have got lucky then!

[The PIT]

My favorities go as follows.

Win2k never crashes I love it.
Win98 SE fairly stable quicker than win2k but less secure.
Win95 good for under powered pc's
Win Me complete waste of time offers no real benifit over 98. Even more so if you're running win2k as well. Also it's more picky over drivers than either win2k or win98se.
Certainly belongs in it's own recycle bin.

[alessandro]

Gurm,

Not to upgrade????I've got win2k in dual-boot since it was out.But i still use Win98SE over win2k ALL the time (more things work in Win98SE).I use win2k only for Maya 3.
And judging from this topic http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/Forum3/HTML/003507.html there is a lot of DUMB people like me that don't know how to change the blurry icons and blue-ish effect of win2k

[ChenSoft]

I have 2 <u>disagree</u> with most of U.
I'm supporting more than 50 computers here, & i had terable stability problems with Win98 both FE & SE.
I found WinME 2 B by far more stable & i'm willing 2 sacrefy 5%-10% of preformance 4 this stability.

All the computers i've upgraded 2 WinME shown impruvment, even the 1s that were "uttep poo".

But after all Win9x & ME is Dos++, or Dos in disguise, or nice Dos shell...

_________
Chen