PDA

View Full Version : Dumping XP going back to 98SE



longbrim
17-11-2002, 01:06 PM
Can I just format my hard drive and reload 98SE?
I am worried that returning to fat32 from ntsc or whatever this hippo uses isn't going to be as easy as all that.

Babe Ruth
17-11-2002, 01:12 PM
Longbrim, Yes. However also see some of the FAQ's on this site which might also be useful. See near top-right this forum.

Cheers, Babe.

the highlander
17-11-2002, 06:32 PM
XP ... Hippo ??? Reverting to 98 ... Why ???

Clueless
17-11-2002, 07:02 PM
>XP ... Hippo ??? Reverting to 98 ... Why ???

i run a 450 meg slug... i wouldn't consider using XP either. The lighter the better with both software and OS if i want this thing to run, rather than "walk"

.Clueless

Lohsing
17-11-2002, 09:36 PM
I'm running a P4 1.8 and XP just doesn't do it for me.

Too bloated for my liking, and some 3rd party programs have compatibility issues with XP. Not a bad downgrade considering a left the format as FAT32. Went to dos, performed a little "surgery" and a few days later, retained all my mp3s on a new install of 98SE.

A disk defrag later, and I was as happy as larry... :)

Lo.

BIFF
17-11-2002, 10:18 PM
heh heh, some people are just complete luddites.

Kahawai_Chaser
17-11-2002, 10:31 PM
Hi...

Seriously thinking of upgrading to XP because it looks so flashy...but compatability problems with 3rd party programs ?...In that respect maybe better to hang on with my Win98SE...

Lohsing
17-11-2002, 11:09 PM
Biff - a 1st generation OS from Microsoft is hardly going to be bug free... that being the case, why should anyone have to instantly upgrade to it? If being a luddite involves refusing to use a buggy, "candy-flossed" operating system, then I am guilty as accused. I don't buy into something which requires a service pack of approximately 134mb... and is STILL buggy.

Kawhai Chaser - I'm of the old school, particularly of OS's that if 98SE is working, then why stress yourself with an upgrade, and having to learn the workings of another OS when you are familiar with 98SE.

I use a lot of mp3/audio programs, as well as DVD2SVCD to create SVCD's. In XP, I am forever having problems using "Cinema Craft Encoder" for the creation of SVCD's and issues using Acid Pro 3.0. While this may only affect 2% of the population, it's 2% too many IMO.

I have meddled around with both long enough to know that XP just isn't my cup of tea. I would suggest you save yourself a couple hundred $$ and look at spending that money on other more beneficial items other than an OS... eg., upgrade of memory, CPU, motherboard, hard drive, graphics card, cd writer, dvd rom, etc.

Much more satisfying than a new OS.

Lo.

gibler
18-11-2002, 10:35 AM
I can't believe people would ever want to use windows 98.

Cons of Windows 98

1) No one really supports it anymore.
2) The filesytem a.k.a. fat32 is awful.
3) Poor kernel and memory handling.
4) No true multi-user support.

Pros

1) Cheap
2) Doesn't use as much memory.

XP works perfectly fine. You just need to prune it though:
- turn off the eye candy
- turn off unwanted services (there are quite a few)
- install some new drivers (and have hardware that is properly supported)

Lohsing
18-11-2002, 10:44 AM
Well firstly to say that "no one ever supports it" is a farce. You must be thinking of 95?? :O ... 98 is still widely supported.

Secondly, FAT32 is not exactly a dog, as it is still allows access to your hard drives under DOS... something which the other version isn't... meaning if your OS suddenly dies, don't expect to be able to get back to access it through DOS.

Lo.

Chilling_Silence
18-11-2002, 10:56 AM
I dont like XP, but making 2K look like XP is more than enough. The suggestion of saving the $$$ and putting it into an upgrade was a very good idea. XP being around $250, that'd get you a new motherboard and CPU that runs at 1.3GHZ, so i dunno what you're already running there.

I like 2K, its fast and yet stable, although toying with the .NET Server, its Faster than ANY of the others M$ OS's (But its a Server). XP seem's too candied up for noobies for my liking, 98 is too old and nearing the end of its life (But I checked stats for Day of Defeat the other day and about 63% of DoD gamers are running 98 with 256 MB RAM!). ME Is too unstable for my liking, I just never liked ME...

I think that if its a gaming m/c then 98 would be better coz it uses a whole lot less resources, otherwise, if XP runs fine, turn off the Multimedia Desktop stuff, and it'll run better.

Cheers



Chilling_Silence

rugila
18-11-2002, 11:16 AM
I gave XP a very fair go. Bluntly, it just didn't do the job, specifically it couldn't install (Microsoft) software that I make a lot odf use of. My machine specs can handle it very easily (Athlon 2000+, 512mbDDR, 100gb of HDD, etc.), but although XP still installed I now only ever use Win98.
XP won't take any alteration of its system files, but sometimes to get the Microsoft stuff to work as you want, rather than feeding you useless prepackaged pap, you HAVE to do something about about system files.
It was a waste of money.
Incidentally, regarding the BSOD's that were quite common with Win98 when I had a lower spec machine, I now haven't had a BSOD for in 2 months of fairly intensive use of reinstalled Win98. Of great pain however was the common message of XP when I was using it that "This program has had an unexpected problem and must close. You will lose all your data (tough sh**).

BIFF
18-11-2002, 02:50 PM
> Biff - a 1st generation OS from Microsoft is hardly
> going to be bug free... that being the case, why
> should anyone have to instantly upgrade to it? If
> being a luddite involves refusing to use a buggy,
> "candy-flossed" operating system, then I am guilty as
> accused. I don't buy into something which requires a
> service pack of approximately 134mb... and is STILL
> buggy.
>

As XP is the 5th generation of NT you'll find it is very bug free. I think using an OS constructed from a 32 bit hack of a 16 shell for an 8 Bit OS is way more buggy (Win 98se) .

May I suggest you try out Windows 95 as it has been out longer and therefore acording to your logic be even more stable than 98SE. :-) **

**That was a joke back there so please don't get upset.

Chilling_Silence
18-11-2002, 03:14 PM
From my current experience, I'm going to be holding back upgrading for a while. I had thought about forking out the extra few hundred bucks for XP, running then 98, 2K and XP on the one m/c, but after trialling out the .NET Server, That thing is WAY more faster than any of the other OS's, even with 2K tweaked right up to the max, with 256MB RAM on a celeron 933, most common tasks, such as opening My Computer up for viewing, boot times and other things that dont require the major speed of a CPU to win (Such as encoding an MP3), the 200Mhz with 128MB RAM that's being used as a test PC, bet the 933Mhz PC hands down on all things like that.

I'm waiting for Longhorn, coz if its anything like the .NET server, being built on the .NET Framework, I reakon it'll be the best yet.. yes, there may be and OS put out by MS that'll beat XP for all you fans!

My views on that at least anyways.. not to be taken as gospel, please!

Cheers


Chilling_Silence

Fishb8
19-11-2002, 02:38 AM
Well I run a slug "450" but with 512 ram and XP Pro works really well. My first install was NTFS. I re-installed with FAT32, which is suficient for my home use, and it runs much faster than 98. So well, in fact that I don't read this page as often as I did with 98. I've had no compatability problems with any programs but I did need to ditch my USB modem.
I've got a "Ghost" back-up for my 98 that I could re-load in 30 minutes but I'll never use it again.
~~~~~<*)))))><{~~~~~~~~~~<*)))))><{~~~~~~~~
~~~<*)))))><{~~~~~~~~~<*)))))><{~~~~~~~~<*)))))><{~~~~
Roy Price - May the Fish be with you

roofus
19-11-2002, 09:49 AM
Now boys, calm down, no use getting up set and try to convince each other that a certain OS is better than another.
Some people like to have things pretty and have everything feed to them (XP)
Some people like working as fast as they can even it does result in instability issues (win9x)
Some people like to experience something that isn't shoved in your face and explore outside the square. [also fast] (linux)

I say use the OS that gives you the most pleasure and stop trying to convince each other that ones better than the other. :-)

tweak\'e
19-11-2002, 10:02 AM
nicly put roofus. :)

i'll just add, Why spend money on a new OS if the old one still does the job?

the biggestest problem i usually see is people running incorrect drivers and incompatible software on newer OS's which causes a large amount of fun and games.

rugila
19-11-2002, 10:45 AM
Good stuff Roofus, but you might also include Mac OSX in your list.
That does have some good features none of the Windows stuff has. I don't know enough about linux to comment.
Also, I must put my piece that blaming Windows problems and deficiencies on "incompatibility", inadequate hardware etc. can be a bit of a cop-out. Should we really rest assured that the various Win** have no other problems?

crozier
19-11-2002, 11:31 AM
Amiga DOS and Workbench 3.1 are very stable - as long as you have the right hardware! ;) ;)

SKT174
19-11-2002, 12:07 PM
Just a friendly reminder :D

If you have an old system and sticking to 98SE or ME is fine but if u've just got a new system I wouldn't suggest it since the older OS doesn't utilise the new architecture in those new processors Eg. The coming Hyper Threading in P4 and some other minor things such as USB 2.0, there are no drivers for 98SE or even ME for it.

Chilling_Silence
19-11-2002, 12:17 PM
Hehe, Workbench was fun!

Clueless
19-11-2002, 01:31 PM
Fishb8

>Well I run a slug "450" but with 512 ram and XP Pro works really well

but you had/have twice the RAM that i do!

.Clueless

Fishb8
20-11-2002, 02:13 PM
For $65.00, you too can double your ram. Lots of it on TradeMe.
~~~~~<*)))))><{~~~~~~~~~~<*)))))><{~~~~~~~~
~~~<*)))))><{~~~~~~~~~<*)))))><{~~~~~~~~<*)))))><{~~~~
Roy Price - May the Fish be with you

Clueless
20-11-2002, 02:18 PM
For $65 plus the cost of XP, i think i'd rather spend the $$ on something more usefull like more HDD space, or a camera (unless i get one for Xmas)....
Still i'll keep that in mind for when i got $$$ to burn!

cheers

.Clueless

Chilling_Silence
20-11-2002, 02:21 PM
the UPGRADE for many people is simply not a viable option, being that XP costs up $600, and needs at least 256 BM RAM to be effiectient.
Sometimes its best to just be content with what you've got.

SKT174
20-11-2002, 04:03 PM
>the UPGRADE for many people is simply not a viable option, being that >XP costs up $600

There is a XP Professional Upgrade Academic version which is a lot cheaper :D

Chilling_Silence
20-11-2002, 04:10 PM
But not everybody ca nqualify for that, students maybe, but for others - No...

Fishb8
20-11-2002, 05:04 PM
Got my XP Pro Upgrade for $200.00(+$5.00 postage) from TradeMe - nowhere near $600.00. Pays to look around.
I use P'Shop quite a bit and even my "slug" goes ok.
The whole point is that XP runs quicker with so much less problems than 98.
My fish swim so much faster and I don't see the BSOD (blue shark of death) any more.
~~~~~<*)))))><{~~~~~~~~~~<*)))))><{~~~~~~~~
~~~<*)))))><{~~~~~~~~~<*)))))><{~~~~~~~~<*)))))><{~~~~
Roy Price - May the Fish be with you

Lohsing
20-11-2002, 05:05 PM
XP running faster than 98 on your "slug" ... i find that highly unlikely.

Lo.

Clueless
20-11-2002, 05:15 PM
Lohsing

Feel free to come round and do a trial install of XP on the slug if you like!

Till then, i'll save my bucks, and be happy with what i got

:D
.CLueless

Chilling_Silence
20-11-2002, 05:18 PM
I'm with loshing on this one.. Its known that 98 will run on a 486, while XP needs a minimum of a P200

Lohsing
20-11-2002, 05:19 PM
XP Pro SP1 sound good?? *cough cough* ... "Corporate" edition though... :8} ... Best we not mention this anymore ;)

Lo.

BIFF
20-11-2002, 11:47 PM
> Now boys, calm down, no use getting up set and try to
> convince each other that a certain OS is better than
> another.
> Some people like to have things pretty and have
> everything feed to them (XP)
> Some people like working as fast as they can even it
> does result in instability issues (win9x)
> Some people like to experience something that isn't
> shoved in your face and explore outside the square.
> [also fast] (linux)
>
> I say use the OS that gives you the most pleasure and
> stop trying to convince each other that ones better
> than the other. :-)
>


Gee and that statement was completely impartial wasn't it?

BIFF
20-11-2002, 11:47 PM
> XP running faster than 98 on your "slug" ... i find
> that highly unlikely.
>
> Lo.

You obviously haven't seen the NT kernel in action then.

Lohsing
20-11-2002, 11:51 PM
> You obviously haven't seen the NT kernel in action
> then.

Sorry dude, but I have... I have tested XP Pro SP1 on a Celeron 400 with 256 SD Ram, as well as a P2 300 laptop.

Both slugs, both slower with XP on it compared to 98SE.

Lo.

roofus
21-11-2002, 08:56 AM
Biff i think you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder because not everyone here thinks winXP is the thing, whereas you do. And it has now become your mission to try and convert everyone. I wonder if you belong to one of those religious groups that think they have to convert people to their religion to get into heaven.

My comments regarding the different types of OS's and their features was completely impartial.
I have used all 3 types of OS, and have also used the various NT and Novell solutions. So i feel i have a general idea about how each works and the + and - of each.
Of course this is merely my opinion that i convey, but i'm not trying to convince anyone am i!

FYI i use WinME, so it's not even 98SE that most people recommend here, nor is it linux the one i probably gave the most praise in my analysis.

Jester
21-11-2002, 10:26 AM
Why try to convince people that one system is better than another? If an OS works for you, then great! If it doesn't, change. It really shouldn't really concern anyone else unless of course you get paid for selling new OS'.

I have 4 PC's, one running XP Pro (P3 667 with 384 RAM) , two win98SE(AMD350 with 256 RAM and P133 with 64 RAM), and one with 95(P90 with 16 RAM).

I personally love XP on my main PC. It's not a mean machine by any standard these days, but it doesn't crash, and does all I want it to do. Sure it took a while to get it lean and mean, but that's the fun part, isn't it? I wouldn't push XP on anyone, but, hey, it works for me, so why not at least recommend it.

The other machines also run fine on their respective OS'. I guess it's using the right tool for the job.

Have fun with what you are happy with... there are millions of kids in Ethiopia without computers who would love Win 3.11 !!!

J
:D

Chilling_Silence
21-11-2002, 10:35 AM
> Biff i think you have a bit of a chip on your
> shoulder because not everyone here thinks winXP is
> the thing, whereas you do.

Having had experience in XP, and almost ALL other MS OS's (Including server editions etc), I can say that what works for one person wont be quite the same for another, I agree with roofus here!

> And it has now become your
> mission to try and convert everyone. I wonder if you
> belong to one of those religious groups that think
> they have to convert people to their religion to get
> into heaven.
>

I resemble that... Only not on an Operating System scale.

> My comments regarding the different types of OS's and
> their features was completely impartial.
> I have used all 3 types of OS, and have also used the
> various NT and Novell solutions. So i feel i have a
> general idea about how each works and the + and - of
> each.
> Of course this is merely my opinion that i convey,
> but i'm not trying to convince anyone am i!
>

Good on ya, Practise what you preach.

> FYI i use WinME, so it's not even 98SE that most
> people recommend here, nor is it linux the one i
> probably gave the most praise in my analysis.

Basically guys, If you find an OS that YOU like, Stick with it, and let other be for not using it themselves. My best mate uses XP, and only really uses it for the odd game, Downloading music, playing that music/burning it to audio CD's, and also using WORD for his homework.

He has no need for the interface of 2K where there's a lot more user management required by an administrator, as him and his family have no idea what a computer admin is!

And to do with Linux, I sat him down in front of Knoppix while he was last over so He could do some browsing on a PC of mine that I've just erased the OS and havent gotten around to re-installing it. He found it a breeze to use, having changed the backgrounds, screen saver and everything.
So what Im saying is that while some OS's are good for some people, they are all fairly similar in the end.

You like tomatoe's, i like tomato's. Same diff if you ask me...

BIFF
21-11-2002, 10:53 AM
> > Some people like to have things pretty and have
> > everything feed to them (XP)

'Feed to them' -negative

> > Some people like working as fast as they can even
> it
> > does result in instability issues (win9x)

'instability issues' - negative

> > Some people like to experience something that
> isn't
> > shoved in your face and explore outside the
> square.
> > [also fast] (linux)

'outside the square' 'also fast' 'isn't shoved in your face' -all positive statements.


Impartial???

BIFF
21-11-2002, 11:04 AM
Perhaps I do have a chip on my shoulder. After supporting a network of thousands of annoying Windows 9x/ME computers for many years I can safely say that all variations on that OS are piles of steaming horse crap.

Linux is OK, Windows 9x is not.
NT/2K/XP is fast and stable when configured properly.

Frame rates, Disk I/Os, Memory access speeds, are all measurably faster under XP than 9x/ME. Perhaps your celeron 486 struggled a bit but hey, it's a dog anyway.

Chilling_Silence
21-11-2002, 11:05 AM
Actually, the comment made to me by my friend (mentioned in previous post) was that he liked XP (Already on his New PC - His old one had 98SE) was that he like everything being right there for him, right under his nose.

Sounds like being roofus might have been right.

Look, I dont wanna start a flame war. Different Strokes for different folks, I think it should be left at that.

Lohsing
21-11-2002, 11:22 AM
> Frame rates, Disk I/Os, Memory access speeds, are all
> measurably faster under XP than 9x/ME. Perhaps your
> celeron 486 struggled a bit but hey, it's a dog
> anyway.

Was this a cheap shot at my slug? :O

Lo.

Clueless
21-11-2002, 11:22 AM
*** NO-ONE is impartial...

We've tried and found what we like.. and therefore recomend it

Oops that wasn't very impartial coming from a 98SE user now is it?

.Clueless

antmannz
21-11-2002, 11:55 AM
Who cares.

It's all just electrons floating around behind a piece of glass and magnetic particles rearranged on a platter.

SKT174
21-11-2002, 11:57 AM
>NT/2K/XP is fast and stable when configured properly.

I'm with you all the way :D

I hated when u need to restart the machine everytime u made a small change in 98 and always asks for the 98CD if u installed some new hardware unless you previously dumped those cab files into a folder.

Since 2K released before ME, so I skipped ME totally which I'm glad that I did. :^O

2K and XP works fine for me, I haven't restart my XP machine for a month now :D

Personally I don't think people with old machines using 95, 98 or ME should upgrade to XP as it will run slower than their previous OS.

Eventually people will be forced to use newer OS as the support for older OS is fading each day...

Chilling_Silence
21-11-2002, 12:03 PM
Yes, For newer Band Spanking new, or any 1Ghz Plus PC's coming out, I think it's perfectly fine to bundle them with XP, but to try and convince my granny running 98SE on a 486DX66 with only 24MB RAM that she needs XP is ludacris! She freaked out the first time she took out a CD from the drive, let alone installing a new OS :p

I agree that they can be fast, but then again, so can the others. The boot time of DOS 6 on a 286 that I've left in the hands of a friend would kick the @$$ out of any 3Ghz P4 no matter how much ram you chuck in it!

Sometimes simple can be good too...

roofus
21-11-2002, 12:17 PM
> > > Some people like to have things pretty and have
> > > everything feed to them (XP)
>
> 'Feed to them' -negative
>
> > > Some people like working as fast as they can
> even
> > it
> > > does result in instability issues (win9x)
>
> 'instability issues' - negative
>
> > > Some people like to experience something that
> > isn't
> > > shoved in your face and explore outside the
> > square.
> > > [also fast] (linux)
>
> 'outside the square' 'also fast' 'isn't shoved in
> your face' -all positive statements.

outside the square could be considered a positive or negative statement. Computer geeks were once regarded as outside the square and introverted!

>
> Impartial???

Biff you failed to notice that i use WinME and not linux, so why would i want to praise an OS that i have had but got rid of and reverted back to a proven but unstable system (according to my analysis) I went back to ME because as i say it is proven. I know how to use it and how to tweak it, it allows me to do the things i wanted to do. Having spent hundreds of dollars on Msoft software i wasn't keen to stay with linux and write off my software. Also linux didn't work with my winmodem. So there ya go a negative statement for linux

Also you say that my comment about how XP feeds everything to them is negative. As chilling silence notes, this is what people wanted, hence why it was produced that way, so how can that be a negative statement?

Once again i say as everyone else in this thread has stated bar you and another. each to there own

roofus
21-11-2002, 12:22 PM
> As XP is the 5th generation of NT you'll find it is
> very bug free. I think using an OS constructed from a
> 32 bit hack of a 16 shell for an 8 Bit OS is way more
> buggy (Win 98se) .

MACOS is designed for specific hardware and the OS is therefore very integrated between the software and hardware layers. That doesn't stop it from been as buggy as any Microsoft product. And MACOS has developed their OS 10 times now! So that would make it a 10th generation!

So your comments regarding that because software has a higher generation factor that it is more likely to be bug free is ludacris.

BIFF
21-11-2002, 04:32 PM
> > As XP is the 5th generation of NT you'll find it
> is
> > very bug free. I think using an OS constructed from
> a
> > 32 bit hack of a 16 shell for an 8 Bit OS is way
> more
> > buggy (Win 98se) .
>
> MACOS is designed for specific hardware and the OS is
> therefore very integrated between the software and
> hardware layers. That doesn't stop it from been as
> buggy as any Microsoft product. And MACOS has
> developed their OS 10 times now! So that would make
> it a 10th generation!
>
> So your comments regarding that because software has
> a higher generation factor that it is more likely to
> be bug free is ludacris.

WOOOOWOOOO!! The flame war train is rolling into town!! Yeeha!

People can choose whatever OS they want, the simple fact is that XP is faster and better than any 9x variant.

OSX isn't even based on previous versions of MAC OS!

Graham L
21-11-2002, 04:44 PM
OS flame wars are not productive. Any flame wars are not productive.

Nobody changes anyone else's opinion. So why bother?

kiwibeat
21-11-2002, 11:26 PM
I like XP pro it multi tasks better even though it needs heaps of ram a fast cpu and a big HDD .
98 is faster on older machines and runs older software better

Lohsing
22-11-2002, 04:06 AM
BIFF - May I ask what you use your PC for? As in, what is the majority of work you do on your PC? Just curious.

Lo.