Does Anyone Else Like Windows 98se?

[alessandro]

What's with this stability issue????
I never had..i repeat I never had a stability problem with Win98SE .I had problems that was related with software bugs(assembly demos anyone).I see "screens of death" every 4 months or so and it always my fault..Maybe my quality hardware is the answer to my stable system

[This message has been edited by alessandro (edited 24 March 2001).]

[Nuno]

Cool. Then try to open like 15+ IE windows and watch those beautiful black icons and crashes. Oooops, system resources low. You have 256 Mb of Ram, but that doesn´t matter.

If you have so few crashes, good for you. It should be mostly because you don´t have too many installed programs/try different demos/shareware. I have a friend with a p166 and it almost never crashes. He only has win95 and office 97 installed and only uses word and excel.

I have roughly the same number of crashes in win2k and win9x. That´s because most of them are cause by improperly written code in most installed software, not the OS itself. The major differnce between win9x and win2k is that while in 9x it will BSOD/hang/render the system unusable and you have to reboot, win2k limits to inform you, the app is shut down, and you go along with your work. Oh the goodnesses of protected memory.

[Topha]

i have win me, it runs perfectly well on my computer. usually it only crashes when i overclock something too high (my components all dont overclock well so i stopped it ).
once i got rid of the auto-restore features and some other stuff it ran as fast or faster than 98.
i guess i was lucky with my system. the other pc i run it on is a web server, and i can let it run for days without a crash. when 98 was still on it, it crashed about once a day.
and of course i like the default background color and the desktop menues in ME better

PS: my dad just bought a new system including win2k, so ill install that, run the two simultaniously and see the difference myself.

PPS: i dont open 15 browser windows that often, but when i do (for example opening interesting threads from this forum in multiple windows) it usually works, just tried it and i could open 32 ie windows before it gave me a resource warning( a real nice one, no crash ), i got winamp, outlook and the creative start center running. 128megs ram.
i admit, i tweaked the system a little (www.tweak3d.net) and it runs way better compared to when i first installed it, but i never experienced most of the things win9x customers always complain about since i got rid of 95 whic sucked.

[This message has been edited by Topha (edited 24 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Topha (edited 24 March 2001).]

[alessandro]

Well ,

Right now i have 150 apps installed and i'm always checking for other people comments(like in download.cnet) before using a shareware program .
I also opened 38 IEs before i had a "low resources" warning.But again what's the point of opening 15+ IE?????
And as I pointed earlier when I use serious apps i go the win2k way

------------------
Athlon Thunderbird 1.1Ghz@1.2~1.3+GHz Socket A 256Kb,Asus A7V dipswitches,GlobalWin FOP32-1 heatsink,GlobalWin 802 Advance ATX Case, 17" Sony Multiscan 200PST,384MB Crucial PC133 CAS=2,ATI Radeon 32Mb DDR,(Matrox Millenium G400 MAX 32MB 5ns SGRAM),IBM Deskstar 75GXP 15Gb UltraATA/100, Quantum Firebal EL 10.2Gb,Hewlett Packard DeskJet 970Cxi,Sound blaster Live!,Cambridge Soundworks 5.1,Creative PC-DVD 5X,CDR-RW Ricoh MP7040S@MP7060S(Tweaked from 4x--->6x with no problem),Adaptec SCSI 2920C,Diamond SupraExpress 56e PRO,Iomega Zip Drive.

[Rags]

I am hardly easy on my computers, and I think I have a fairly good idea on how to keep my stuff configured.

In 98, I never have crashes, and I have tons of stuff running all the time, it just doesn't handle all the different stuff going on as well as Win2K does IMO.

In 2K, the only crashes I have had were from the ATI drivers on my system (Radeon). I can open up as many windows as I feel like, and it will handle what I throw at it. My Matrox win2k system absolutely never borks, even when using some shady beta drivers

WinMe broke a lot of compatibility for me with some apps I have grown accustom to, but since I rarely leave win2k, I don't care anymore.

Rags

[Liquid Snake]

Hehe, I can get up to 56 IE windows open in Win2K with 256MB of RAM. The 57th one locked up though

[Admiral]

Still with Win 98, not that I tryed anything else

I play too much games to think about Win2k. I see it as a working OS where you need stability and I'm not ready to give up fps (ya, flame me ) for stability yet.
Let's say that there are more and more games that I have to play in 800x600x32 or even 800x600x16 under Win98, Win2K would just make them slower.

WinMe is not worth the price here. 250$ for the retail version, hell I'd rather buy a 64mb ATI Radeon or a GeForce 2 with that money.
Could aim for an OEM version at 100$, but I have to buy a new system, mobo or CPU to get the deal.

Nah, I'm happy with 98, suits my needs, isn't that the most important thing ?

[ChenSoft]

Folks,
if u use so many IE windows @ the same time,
Whay don't U use <font size=5>NetCaptor</font>?
I use it almost all the time & it makes my desktop less complicated.
It's very stable now & unless U surf in2 highly complicated JavaScript sites it won't give U any truble.
________
Chen

[Topha]

hey admiral, why dont you get the update? or go to a small computer shop, they sold me the oem version

what is netcaptor, never heard of it?

[DentyCracker]

Win2k. Gotta love the colour scheme. There are few things I hate more than the default colours of win95/98 ICK.
WinMe has those unmovable clusters and I can't have that fragmenting me f*cking swap file. System Restore yeesh. (Stupid Norton Protected Recycle bin analogue)
Hopefully WinXP will be as stable as Win2k and faster than Win9x.

[Gurm]

Alessandro:

I'm failing to see the "blurriness" you refer to. Sorry. Looks fine to me, even in the thread you posted.

Others:

If you are running WinME well, GREAT! But you are in the minority. I can make it run well too. But... I choose not to.

And, what programs exactly run on Win98 that don't run on Win2k? I haven't found any yet with the exception of a few games.

- Gurm

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

[SCompRacer]

I only have problems with two devices in Win2000, Gurm. UMAX Vistascan for my 2400S scanner and the Kodak software for my DC265 digital.

The Kodak software thinks Win2000 is NT, so it doesn't load any USB drivers. Both my serial ports are taken up by modem and UPS, so that option is out. But I found Win2000 can access the digital through the USB ports.

With my UMAX 2400S scanner, I just tried some early NT 4.0 drivers and got it to work. Win98 drivers won't work at all for it in Win2000.

The part I don't get is how it shows up in device manager with a yellow exclamation point, but works fine. Is this just some .inf thing missing in Win2000 cause UMAX doesn't support it?

[alessandro]

I don't really like Win2k's blury wash-out colors of the desktop.

[The PIT]

SCompRacer you may find the scanner is looking for the drivers in the wrong place. Thats what happened with my Umax 2100 scanner
so I just copied the file to where it expected it to find it and it worked.

[ChenSoft]

Topah, NetCaptor is a small shell running on IE librerys.
While surfing with it, the windows U open apears like TABs in NetCaptor, so U don't have like 10,000 bottons on your SysTray, only the NetCaptor 1.
Also it has PopUpCaptor wich eliminate popups & other nice shit in it.

It's small so U should all try it.

_________
Chen