Main Menu

Which operating system is the best?

Started by dew7, March 05, 2004, 03:08:28 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jeysie

Actually, you can buy Windows 98 commerically, and quite easily. In fact, it still hasn't gone down much in price. :P

And I disagree that WinXP is a great OS. It's the most irritating OS I ever had the displeasure of trying to use.

And just running DOS programs alone is useless. I have a fair number of Windows games (and likely programs) that won't run in XP. What do I do for those? I'd rather not dual boot... aside from the fact that I'm not saavy enough to set that up, I'd rather just be able to play my games without a lot of fuss.

And how can you "borrow" a WinXP CD? Every time you installed or re-install XP, you have to register it with M$, don't you? Seeing as how I re-install Windows about once a year, that would get pretty irritating as well.

Peace & Luv, Liz

InvertedSilence

QuoteUSE DOSBOX!

I do.  :)

QuoteAlso, KQ9 uses a new modern game engine, which will actually run better on an up-to-date XP system, than windows 98.

Awesome, I love you guys.

Jeysie

Will it still run useably in Windows 98? I need a new computer regardless, so that doesn't bother me too much, but installing an OS I don't need or want just for one game is another thing entirely. :P

Peace & Luv, Liz

GunHoMac

Win98 was good, but it's basically become obsolete because of security holes, crash triggers, and emulators on XP can accomplish the work of 98 in a more efficient manner (mainly because people NOT from MS made them)

you just have to deal with the RAM issue with XP, everything else you can customize...break out google and learn how to whip your XP into submission

the point of XP was to make a system not reliant on legacy material, hence many old games don't behave under XP (but a lot more do than on 2000, ME, OSX, etc...)...so instead of making XP capatible with everything before it and bringing in all the problems of those systems, just streamline a new system and let 3rd-parties emulate the system settings they need

of course I'll just wait for Longhorn to come and spank XP properly
It's peanut butter jelly time!

Jeysie

Sure, I could uninstall all the things in WinXP that M$ thinks I need but don't, deactivate all the interface "features" that M$ thinks make life easier but do the opposite, install and run several different 3rd-party programs and emulators because M$ thinks people don't need to run old programs when I do, apply several different patches to fix problems and create new ones, etc., etc., and get... not much benefit in the process.

Or I could just run Windows 98 and get on with my life. ;)

When M$ creates an OS that has streamlined code, doesn't suck up hard drive space and resources, comes bundled with non-OS-crucial programs that are optional installs instead of built-in requirements, is customizable, has a compatibility mode for old programs that actually works, provides quick updates for any discovered security holes or bugs , and has an interface that doesn't look like it was made for a kindergardener and doesn't look cramped on a 1024x768 screen, then I'll upgrade.

Since I suspect that will happen slightly before Hell freezes over, about all I can do is hope that by time Win98 becomes completely non-viable, Linux will have evolved into something other than a geek toy. :P

Peace & Luv, Liz

dew7

Anyone like Windows ME or think it has anything to offer over 98SE or Windows XP Home/Professional?
Carpe Diem  Trying to help all of us including myself understand the merry-go-round of life.

Storm

Quote from: Jeysie on June 11, 2004, 06:14:30 AMAnd how can you "borrow" a WinXP CD? Every time you installed or re-install XP, you have to register it with M$, don't you?

So? can you only register once for each WinXP CD? if so, it must be a miracle (or a crack) which makes the XP I'm using right now work :S

Jeysie -
I really don't see what you have against WinXP... you are using Win98, aren't you? and except for the backwards compatibility issues, I really don't see much of a difference between XP and 98 (at least not in favour of 98) in any of the things I use it for :S
"Never argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Grundy

First of all, GunHo made it clear why 98 is obsolete. Crashes, Security ( Lack of ), based on dos. etc...

As for registering XP, MS got told off for doing that and for just over a year now, regestering XP became OPTIONAL.

I have being using XP for a long time now, and havn't given MS ANY information about myself or computer EVER!  No regestering at all.


But! I do completely agree on a few points you made, and persoanlly, I would use Linux if only 3D Studio Max ran on it.
( The windows Emulators are too weak to run such a powerful program. So that's not an option. )

Also, if you're using a 1024res, it's probably showing how old your system is.   :P
I run on Dual 19" LCD's at 2560x1024 ( 1280x1024 x 2 )

As for buying 98, Microsoft no longer Supports the product, nor do they produce it. If you can find a copy to buy, go for it, but it would be a big waste of money. ;)

Also, if you hate MS so much, why do you defend 98 with such a passion?   ;D


XP!   :suffer:

InvertedSilence

I use a 1024 res and im running a 2.5 Ghz pentium 4 with a 19" lcd.

Grundy

Max R3 is too old. It also ran on 98...

As for the new versions, they wont run on anything less than 2000,2003 or XP.

If you can get a screenshot of Max 6 working WELL in Linux... I will move to Linux right now!  :)

As for 1024 on a 19"LCD....
The Native resolution on 19" LCD's is atleast 1280x1024. Even 17" LCD's use 1280x1024 as the default res, except for a cheap few.

Inverted, my point, 1280x1024 is much nicer to use than 1024, and you wont "look cramped" as Jeysie put it.  ;)
Your computer should be able to handle it too. If unfortunately, your 19"LCD is older technology and doesn't support above 1024, time to get a new monitor.   XB
( Then KQ9 will absolutely blow your mind! )

dew7

I have found ME seems to lack some of the backwards compatibility of 98SE.  You must use a floppy disk to access MS-DOS.
Carpe Diem  Trying to help all of us including myself understand the merry-go-round of life.

Johnmichael

I dont know whats the best but i do know i have a newish comp and it has XP and i must say i hate it, pain in the ass to run dos programs, all i wanted to do was play day of the tentacle and it took like two hours just to get it to work.
Now everything is clear
I erase the fear
I can disappear
(please) I don't ever want to make it stop

dew7

#252
Another possibility is having a dual-boot computer with 98SE and XP.  Since 98SE, is 9x code it tends to run MS-DOS games much better than the NT code (XP).  The only problems with 98SE is that it will not run some of the latest hardware and is fast reaching the maximum capabilities of running current hardware on this operating system.  For example, 137 gigabyte hard drive is the maximum size unless you use a controller card to overcome this limitation.
Carpe Diem  Trying to help all of us including myself understand the merry-go-round of life.

GunHoMac

XP seems to dislike driver loading because it's an angry beast with undisciplined programming staff...but all you really need to do is go to the device in the control panel (system|devices) and load the driver manually since there're almost always updated versions online that address such issues...then you just download the update and "update driver"

of course this may be too much effort in the sense you're referring, and I agree that MS programmers aren't all that intellegent in the usability department (as long as it works somehow it's good enough for us)...but you can always load everything manually instead of the "wizards" and it won't matter if you're using XP or 95
It's peanut butter jelly time!

Jeysie

Yeah, the taskbar menu thing was irritating, since I often have a lot of windows open that I need to easily switch back and forth between.

Hmm. I only network to Harrison's computer, and we don't worry about security since neither or us does any mucking or file transferring without permission, so I don't need anything fancy there.

Windows 98 doesn't crash or BSOD on me very often, and seeing as how it's usually my *programs* being stupid that does it, and I'd still need those programs on XP, I'm not sure how a new OS would help. Plus, does XP still do that thing where it automatically reboots instead of giving a BSOD? On 98, I can usually recover without rebooting, or at least take the time to properly save and close my programs before doing so.

I do sometimes have problems with resources, but only when I have 70+ Notepad windows open, plus Opera, Firefox, and IE6, plus the Find Files window, plus several folders, plus CoolPlayer, plus Sound Recorder, plus Irfanview or iPhoto Express... :suffer:

And, can you get XP's interface to "function" like Windows 98, as in, *one* menu for program shortcuts directly available, settings that are a few clicks away, and easy direct access to folders and files with no menus or pop-ups? I actually don't even have my Programs Menu set up in the usual "company" groups, I have it set up in groups like "Internet" and "Word Processing". How does XP handle setting up new file type options? I use the right-click menus pretty heavily.

The games thing is still a problem. :P

And... are the system requirements really that high? I do a lot of stuff with video and audio files, not to mention having a lot of stuff open at a time, so if I buy a lot of RAM and disk space, I'd rather have my programs and files using it, not my OS. :-\

Peace & Luv, Liz

Storm

I don't know much about Unix... my encounters with it usually ended up in frustration on my part and error messages on its part. I don't know that much about Windows either - I only use it.

The major pro for Windows is that more people use it. Therefore, most software is written for it (or is it the other way around? :S)

Quote from: Louisiana Night on June 12, 2004, 08:59:42 PMLinux is less common, but Linux users know more about their OS(so you can get help easier).

Does that really mean you can get help easier? you make it sound like Windows doesn't have tech support :-\


"Never argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Storm

#256
Quote from: Jeysie on June 13, 2004, 09:07:08 AMWindows 98 doesn't crash or BSOD on me very often, and seeing as how it's usually my *programs* being stupid that does it, and I'd still need those programs on XP, I'm not sure how a new OS would help.

The good thing about XP is that when a program crashes it usually doesn't send the rest of the system crashing down with it, something that happens to me quite often on Win98 :-\

Quote from: Jeysie on June 13, 2004, 09:07:08 AMI do sometimes have problems with resources, but only when I have 70+ Notepad windows open, plus Opera, Firefox, and IE6, plus the Find Files window, plus several folders, plus CoolPlayer, plus Sound Recorder, plus Irfanview or iPhoto Express... :suffer:

Are you serious? I can't have more than 20 windows opened without it starting to complain about lack of memory :o

Quote from: Jeysie on June 13, 2004, 09:07:08 AMAnd, can you get XP's interface to "function" like Windows 98, as in, *one* menu for program shortcuts directly available, settings that are a few clicks away, and easy direct access to folders and files with no menus or pop-ups?

Yes ;)
You just right-click on the taskbar->properties->start menu and choose "Classic Start Menu" 8)

Quote from: Jeysie on June 13, 2004, 09:07:08 AMI actually don't even have my Programs Menu set up in the usual "company" groups, I have it set up in groups like "Internet" and "Word Processing".

Heh, I do that too... having them organized by compay name is illogical and confusing ::)

Quote from: Jeysie on June 13, 2004, 09:07:08 AMHow does XP handle setting up new file type options? I use the right-click menus pretty heavily.

Fine, I think... didn't try it, but the setup screen looks just like 98's.
"Never argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Jeysie

Thanks for the LiveCD thought. :) As for getting Linux, I'd likely have to shell out the money for disks, just because I'd probably die of old age before I could download it. ;)

Peace & Luv, Liz

Yonkey

Quote from: Jeysie on June 13, 2004, 01:16:11 PM
I tile windows a lot, but I actually hardly ever use ALT-TAB. I find it quicker to click between taskbar buttons than I do tabbing through the switcher menu (or sifting through cascaded windows, for that matter).
I actually don't use Alt-Tab much either when I have too many things open.  Usually the taskbar is enough, but some people prefer switching using that.  8)

Quote from: Jeysie on June 13, 2004, 01:16:11 PM
I usually don't bother letting ScanDisk finish when that happens, I just run ScanDisk once a week while I'm asleep, and let any goofs get picked up that way.
Heh, I did that too, but sometimes programs and/or the O/S would keep crashing and crashing because of some lost cluster-related problems from an incomplete scandisk.  It usually doesn't take longer than a minute or two on my hard drive, but it's still an annoyance. :P


Quote from: Jeysie on June 13, 2004, 01:16:11 PM
Also, I'm a little puzzled on the file system when it comes to dual-booting with 98 (which I would have to figure out how to do if I ever used XP). Don't you then have to be careful what files you put in which partition? I'd end up having to put most of my files and programs in the FAT partition anyway so 98 could read it, which would negate that benefit. :-\
Well, an XP NTFS system can see any kind of partition below.  It's the reverse that isn't true.  So, I usually wouldn't install the same programs in both places, and I usually keep my data on one drive (the one I'd use more often).  If you kept everything on your Win98 partition, I don't see the problem.  You'd still be able to access them when you wish to use WinXP.  

Quote from: Jeysie on June 13, 2004, 01:16:11 PM
Well, I was more saying that I don't run into resource problems unless I try running an amount of stuff that would send any middle-to-low-end computer wheezing regardless. :suffer: Wouldn't a high-end computer solve much of the issue just on better specs alone?
Hehe, well what I was trying to say, was even if you have GB's of memory, Win9x will eventually use it all up and crash on you.  It has memory leaks and doesn't always release the ram it uses for certain programs.  I think dew mentioned the max amount of ram Win98 supports too, so there's actually a limit to how high-end you can go with that O/S.

Programs crashing and freezing are caused by memory-related errors.  Either a program tries to access a part of memory that it doesn't have access to, or some other program overwrites another one's space, or it just keeps writing and writing without cleaning up the crap when it's done.  And yes, every O/S crashes and freezes, but reliability is based on how often it crashes.  I find the NT architecture to be more reliable than the 9x.

Quote from: Jeysie on June 13, 2004, 01:16:11 PM
I have right-click menus attached to almost every major file type, just because I often have two or three different things I might do to a file (and two or three different programs to do it).
The right-click, Open With... context menu with alternate programs existed since Win2k and it's definitely in Win9x as well.  I believe I had to use TweakUI or some third-party program to accomplish this in Win95 and 98.

Quote from: Jeysie on June 13, 2004, 01:16:11 PM
As for the systems requirements thing, I knew about the whole swap file thing. :) I'd want to use my new computer to make DVD stuff, plus I already make AVIs regularly for snapshot and transcript purposes, not to mention extracting WAVs.
I've never tried making DVD's before, but extracting WAV's worked fine for me on any O/S.  That was more dependant on your CPU.  DVD and AVI creation is dependant on CPU speed, memory usage, video card and the capturing software.  I don't think you can say one Windows O/S is better than another, but I know that Macs are way better at these kinds of things than PC's.  ;P

Quote from: Jeysie on June 13, 2004, 01:16:11 PM
And you mentioned Win2000 a while back. I like 2000 for business purposes, and if I had an all-business PC, I'd likely use 2000 over 98. But I find it less desireable as an all-purpose OS, with a big chunk of that being poor gaming support. IIRC, something about the different way NT handles system calls and hardware resources and whatnot makes it more stable for the purposes of business software and networking, but makes it worse for the access requirements of gaming. I think WinXP is based on NT, isn't it?, which is why it's lousier for games than 98.
Correct, I think WinNT couldn't even run DOOM when it came out, because of driver issues or something.  It is still possible to play games in Win2k and XP, but I've always heard that Win98 is like the benchmark to which other games are compared against in terms of Windows gaming.

Quote from: Jeysie on June 13, 2004, 01:16:11 PM
At least, that's if I interpreted all the techie stuff properly. :P
Nice job!  XD
"A wish changes nothing. A decision changes everything."

dew7

Can we put Apple into this debate too or must it go into another thread?  BTW, 98SE remains my favorite and I like MS-DOS so I might like Linux okay but I have not tried it.  The Live CD sounds interesting.  How do I get one and does it cost money?
Carpe Diem  Trying to help all of us including myself understand the merry-go-round of life.