[Budgie]

Ctn- 98se is windows. XP is based on NT as is 2K. NT is the only good OS microsoft ever came up with. There is a reason they abandoned windows- it sucked in every incarnation they could come up with. With XP microsoft has finally come up with a OS that has reasonable features and rarely has problems, unlike windows, which rarely had features and usually had problems.

 

[Ctn]

Quote:

Originally posted by Budgie Ctn- 98se is windows.

Well yeah, who said it wasnt ....

But I see where you are comming from...9x, NT, 2k, XP are all windows btw. What you want to say is that 98se is based on the 9x kernel where as 2k/xp is based on the NT kernel. So you would want to bag the 9x kernel

98se had features btw, thats why MS released 2k to compete with it then XP but XP is even more buggy than 98se in certain regards and MS still havent released an OS that is faster than 98se....

MS tried to make XP a more game friendly OS ala faster and support more games while retaining NT stability. Did they succeed? Well my comp runs games about 10% faster than a similarly spec XP comp. Sure its loads more stable than 98se but its one resource hogging POS in my opnion. The gui alone kills alot of speed.

NT was good, 2k is almost as good. XP is no where nearly as good....

98se is still the fastest and not that stable without loads of patches.

Btw you are prob talking to someone that knows alot more about this than you

 

[CaptBubba]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ctn Btw you are prob talking to someone that knows alot more about this than you

Sorry, little pet peeve of mine. How do you know what his experience is? It is one thing to be confident in your own abilities, it is another entirely to belittle someone else's.

As for Win 98se being fastest, I really do doubt that. I tweaked my desktop computer to hell and back. Unofficial drivers, IRQ rearangements, anything to get that last .1% of of the system. When I installed Win XP I saw a 5-10% jump in just about every benchmark I ran. You can't upgrade 98se to XP, or else XP will be slower than 98, but a fresh install of XP, using the NTFS file system (which I credit for most of the gains) is, in my experience, faster than a tweaked 98se.

Of course this could just have been the combination of hardware on my computer that caused this. I'm not saying that XP is always faster, or that 98se is always faster, because neither can be true. There will allways be a few cases where one is faster than the other.

My desktop computer is the following:

Athlon XP 1600+ (maybe that could be why XP runs faster...)
1GB of pc-133 crucial ram (cas-2 4way interleave)
MSI KT7 Turbo Limited Edition
Maxtor ATA-66 20GB HD (7,200RPM)
Elsa Gladiac (GF2 GTS 32MB)
Turtle Beach Montego II
Netgear 10/100-T NIC
Teac 12x10x32x CD-RW
All in an Antec case w/ 300W PS

 

[andrzejpw]

Personally, WinXP has proven to be faster for me than Win98SE. Also, its worlds more stable. I'm the type of person that tweaks his computer . . . I love being able to restart explorer if it crashes, not the computer. With win98, I got used to pressing that damn reset button.

 

[taoster]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ctn 98se had features btw, thats why MS released 2k to compete with it then XP but XP is even more buggy than 98se in certain regards and MS still havent released an OS that is faster than 98se....

98se and 2k was never in competition. 98se was designed for home use and 2k for professionals and servers. They were targeted at different consumers and provide VASTLY different services.

To say 98se is faster then its NT brother is wrong, it does not provide multi-processing, NTFS, security, extended server services, support multiple processes and has far more boundaries and more holes then a well-aged cheese.

and faster doing what? running a web server? moving data? hell, my C64 could boot up in seconds.. try beating that in a souped up 98se.

 

[SumB]

Quote:

I find it much more compatible than Win2k, and I noticed a speed INCREASE over 2k.

Not plausible, unless your Win2k was a broken mess, you purchased a higher spec PC with XP pre-installed, or your hardware manufacturers Win2k drivers weren't up to snuff.

 

[ai0tron]

Yeah, win 2k is always faster than win XP, the only time win XP gets close is on multi processor systems.

 

[jlo mein]

maybe you should try using DDR ram instead of that SD stuff? I thought Athlon XP's and XP Pro were optimized for DDR ram......i dunno, i dont know a great deal about computers...

i REALLY need to upgrade more than you do Flasken though. I like to play America's Army (good game), but its framerate is hell on my system:

MSI K7T266 Pro2
Athlon XP 1600+
256 DDR RAM
40 gig Maxtor ( i think 7200rpm?)
geforce 2 mx400 64mb (big weak link for games)
Hercules Fortissimo II soundcard (kinda weak support in XP)
Windows XP home

pretty sad...

 

[Ctn]

Sigh...so much I could educate you guys on.

If you really do want to know I can tell you, but its gonna be long. I didnt since most of you guys prob wont bother reading it.

Bottom line is 98se is the fastest MS OS.
Win XP is MS's attempt for a 98se/NT crossbreed. i.e. best of both worlds.
Win NT is the most stable MS OS.
Win 2K was 90% NT 10% 98se so to speak. (MS's 1st attempt at XP given the time slot they had to put something on the market asap)

and CaptBubba, it was what he said that made me think this. What ticked me off was when he said 98se isnt windows but nt/2k/xp is....???

I know my ****

when it comes to computers.

 

[Flasken]

I really need more ram.

 

[taoster]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ctn Sigh...so much I could educate you guys on. blah blah blah.. I know my **** when it comes to computers.

go on, tell us your credentials. i dare ya.

 

[kerelybonto]

Anyone want to give me some tips on how to optimize my system? First, my specs:

MicronPC TransPort GX (notebook)
PIII@~851Mhz
256MB RAM
WinXP Home (build 2600)

I don't ask much of my computer. I have the worst graphics card known to man, so I don't play many games. I basically do things that shouldn't require much at all, except some time running Photoshop, CoolEdit, or something else. But it's still pretty slow sometimes.

I just checked and my processor's running at 701Mhz. That's not good, since it's plugged in. (Maybe it wasn't earlier -- I wouldn't think it could change clock speed without restarting.)

How should I set up my virtual memory?

What's QoS? How do I disable it?

How do I disable the indexing service?

Thanks.

kerelybonto

 

[Ctn]

Quote:

Originally posted by taoster go on, tell us your credentials. i dare ya.

What do you want to know, pm me.

In short....well Im Ctn

 

[grinch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ctn I know my **** when it comes to computers.

wow, i love watching consumers rally back and forth about things they have no clue about. "xp is the bestest! my computer's faster than your computer so HA!"

gimme a break. but i agree with ctn, a quick scan over this thread tell me that he seems to know what he's talking about at least..

can't you people take it to anandtech or something?

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by grinch wow, i love watching consumers rally back and forth about things they have no clue about.

Yeah, I feel the same way when PC users start talking about Macs

(sorry, grinch, you had to see that coming

)

But seriously, you never know when the person you're talking to online really *does* have a clue -- or maybe even had a hand in actually writing the software or designing the hardware in question