Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which is better? 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 5:42:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I am a budget gamer on an athlon xp 2800 oced slightly and 512 mb of ram
and a geforce 4 mx440 64mb oced to 312/579 and a SB Live! LS 5.1. I'm
running Windows 98 and I'm pretty sure my graphics card is the
bottleneck for UT2004, Sims 2, etc. I am interested in Doom 3. So,
like I said which card is better, 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?? The
fx5700 is about $30 cheaper give or take a few... Thx!
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 5:47:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

the 5700 has a beaming fast 128bit memory interface(sic), while the 5900 has
256bit...you do tha math!
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 11:47:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

5900 baby.


"John Dawg" <jmoorman22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10rk2fm5mj95eb9@corp.supernews.com...
>I am a budget gamer on an athlon xp 2800 oced slightly and 512 mb of ram
>and a geforce 4 mx440 64mb oced to 312/579 and a SB Live! LS 5.1. I'm
>running Windows 98 and I'm pretty sure my graphics card is the bottleneck
>for UT2004, Sims 2, etc. I am interested in Doom 3. So, like I said which
>card is better, 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?? The fx5700 is about $30
>cheaper give or take a few... Thx!
Related resources
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 11:47:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

So then what advantage is more ram on the card? I may sound dumb but I'm
just curious... if I got a 256mb 5900 what advantage would I see over
the 128mb 5900?
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 11:47:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"John Dawg" <jmoorman22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10rk3tnd9ghkk18@corp.supernews.com...
> So then what advantage is more ram on the card? I may sound dumb but I'm
> just curious... if I got a 256mb 5900 what advantage would I see over the
> 128mb 5900?


Simple answer -
You simply have more data for storage if need.

CapFusion,...
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 12:04:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"John Dawg" <jmoorman22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10rk2fm5mj95eb9@corp.supernews.com...

" So, like I said which card is better, 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?? "


The 5900 is well worth the extra $20.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_c...
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 12:04:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Okay just checked prices again at newegg, they seem to have the best
prices... (Surprisingly, the other low price leader is Amazon!! Who
would think?!?) Now another dilemma... the fx5900 128mb is a refurb at
$147.60 with no extras, the fx5700 256mb is $86.39 new oem, and includes
WinDVD 6 channel, WinDVD Creator, and WinPlay if I'm reading the text on
the jpg accurately.. I think I just might go for the fx5700 since this
computer is gonna be for sale in 6 months anyways.. :)  if anyone thinks
I'm making a mistake I would appreciate the info.
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 12:04:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Okay just checked prices again at newegg, they seem to have the best
prices... (Surprisingly, the other low price leader is Amazon!! Who
would think?!?) Now another dilemma... the fx5900 128mb is a refurb at
$147.60 with no extras, the fx5700 256mb is $86.39 new oem, and includes
WinDVD 6 channel, WinDVD Creator, and WinPlay if I'm reading the text on
the jpg accurately.. Is a refurb significantly less reliable? I think I
just might go for the fx5700 since this
computer is gonna be for sale in 6 months anyways.. :)  if anyone thinks
I'm making a mistake I would appreciate the info.
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 12:04:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Hmm, been a long time since I've used a newsgroup... Thunderbird has an
edit button, which I now know makes a new post. Sorry guys.
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 12:58:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"John Dawg" <jmoorman22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10rk3tnd9ghkk18@corp.supernews.com...
> So then what advantage is more ram on the card? I may sound dumb but I'm
> just curious... if I got a 256mb 5900 what advantage would I see over the
> 128mb 5900?

Mostly no advantage on current games in fact they often use slower memory so
that the 256meg cards are slower.
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 12:58:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Thx for all the great info!! I really appreciate!! And researching
further, more vram just increases your maximum possible
resolution/depth...which right now 128 mb is getting high enough for
anything smaller than a 4 foot monitor. ;)  Mine's only 17", don't know
why I would ever want 2048x1536 @ 32bpp anyway. :) 
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 12:58:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Now looking at the specs on the cards it seems as though the 128 mb
supports the same resolution... is video memory used for something
different nowadays than what is in the website I'm reading? If i'm
getting too far OT please warn me, I'm new to this ng. Thanks!
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 12:58:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

John Dawg wrote:

> Now looking at the specs on the cards it seems as though the 128 mb
> supports the same resolution... is video memory used for something
> different nowadays than what is in the website I'm reading? If i'm
> getting too far OT please warn me, I'm new to this ng. Thanks!

I wouldn't think asking about the abilities of an nVidia video card would be
OT in here, but we DO enjoy 2 or 3 page long posts about one's prowess at
Quake. An inability to form complete sentences wouldn't hurt, either.

dvus
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 1:31:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"John Dawg" <jmoorman22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10rk3tnd9ghkk18@corp.supernews.com...

" So then what advantage is more ram on the card? I may sound dumb but I'm
just curious... if I got a 256mb 5900 what advantage would I see over the
128mb 5900? "


For games that don't utilise 128MB RAM, you'll actually get no benefit from
having the 256MB version. Cards with 256MB usually use slower RAM than
their equal 128MB counterparts anyway.

Retailers seem to be charging a hell of a lot for the 256MB 5900. For the
cost of a 256MB 5900, you'd do better off looking at the 6600GT, 6800LE or
6800.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/over2k4/index.html
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 2:41:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

John Dawg wrote:
> Now looking at the specs on the cards it seems as though the 128 mb
> supports the same resolution... is video memory used for something
> different nowadays than what is in the website I'm reading? If i'm
> getting too far OT please warn me, I'm new to this ng. Thanks!

In the old days, the vid mem was indeed a factor to take into account
when calculating which resolution could be output to a screen. I
remember buying a Matrox Millenium 4MB, which coulnd't output 1600x1200
at 32bit color, not enough mem on the card.

Anything beyond 16 MB will be able to output just about any resolution
at any bitdepth you may need. The video memory on these cards is for
buffering texture information mainly. So the more memory onboard, the
better it will perform in games that use a lot of (high quality)
textures. Almost all games don't need more than 128MB for now, although
the latest (Far Cry, Doom3, Half Life 2) may run a tad smoother or allow
higher quality settings with more memory. When running these games at a
high setting using the 5900, you may get some lag now and then when the
game swaps textures, but the framerate will be considerable higher
compared to the 5700 with 258MB.

Safe to say you're probably better off with the 5900.
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 2:41:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Wow, lots of great info!!! Much better than anything I've seen on most
web forums!!! Now, as dvus suggested, here's my post about ut2004
skills. ;) 

d00dz!! Yew shud haf sin me last nite!!11 I was total like as tho
blowing EVERYBODY!! I pwned 500 frags and never tuk like once hp fo
damga.! So 133t!!! Roxxors!!!!111oneone It was gibs everywhere!
Grizards hot and chwey flying in teh err!!!!!one Sry my enkless is sew
pour, I'm form the nother kntrey. (How I learned to write this way is
unimaginable. Only in the US would I get by in school without any
communication skills. However, I still claim it's because I'm from
Kajmhenistan.)
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 4:27:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

John Dawg wrote:
> Okay just checked prices again at newegg, they seem to have the best
> prices... (Surprisingly, the other low price leader is Amazon!! Who
> would think?!?) Now another dilemma... the fx5900 128mb is a refurb
> at $147.60 with no extras, the fx5700 256mb is $86.39 new oem, and
> includes WinDVD 6 channel, WinDVD Creator, and WinPlay if I'm reading
> the text on the jpg accurately.. Is a refurb significantly less
> reliable? I think I just might go for the fx5700 since this
> computer is gonna be for sale in 6 months anyways.. :)  if anyone
> thinks I'm making a mistake I would appreciate the info.

I got a MSI FX5900 about 3 months ago, very happy with it, but the e-tailer
had an impressive bundle listed with it, when the card arrived, no bundle.
A quick call to customer services confirmed that the cards no longer shipped
to them with bundles, but he'd check in the ware house for me and see what
they had, 3 days later an ASUS bundle landed on my door mat :-)

So don't necessarily think you'll get the bundle with older generation
cards.

Cheers

Hamish

--
Go Strugglers

"I never comment on referees, and I'm not going to break the habit of a
lifetime for that prat"
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 6:04:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"dvus" <dven1invalid@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:31um8qF3f0qquU1@individual.net...
> John Dawg wrote:
>
> > Now looking at the specs on the cards it seems as though the 128 mb
> > supports the same resolution... is video memory used for something
> > different nowadays than what is in the website I'm reading? If i'm
> > getting too far OT please warn me, I'm new to this ng. Thanks!
>
> I wouldn't think asking about the abilities of an nVidia video card would
be
> OT in here, but we DO enjoy 2 or 3 page long posts about one's prowess at
> Quake. An inability to form complete sentences wouldn't hurt, either.





Quaek r0x0rz! ur moma 2....

(insert 3 pages of obligatory Quakeholioness...)

I, me, me, mine, my Nvid yer cod r0x0rz ur moma in Quaek ATI suxx0rz u r
dribbel bandit u think ur droolkacher ATI POS catch me YOU'RE ALL BIG MOUSE!

;-)

It sure beats politics...

The 5900 has much better shadowing capabilities. This means it'll sneak up
on you real quiet-like and step on your shadow when u.r. not looking and
make vodoun pain where it ste...
Basically, the 5900 allows for faster, more accurate shadow generation. I
think this is done thru z-culling non-inclusive areas (outside of
light-source bounds)---the most seemingly likely and most efficient fashion
I'd imagine--- Suffice it to say, it works, and the 5900 provides for faster
shadow calcs, especially using multiple and moving light-sources. This means
realistic shadows can be used without much speed penalty---i.e. no more
typical blobs that move at some seemingly random tangent to the actor
depending on which way it's facing. Shadows that look more like the real
thing, and can grow and shrink relative to light source position. That
r0x0rs! ESPECIALLY IN QUAEK1 WHICH USES ALL_SHADOWS_EVERYWHERE !!! (&
rEALLYrEALLY IN DOOM3)

>
> dvus
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 6:04:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I got \cg_madSkillz 1

:-)

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"Nerdillius Maximus" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:mttud.219179$HA.53669@attbi_s01...
> Quaek r0x0rz! ur moma 2....
>
> (insert 3 pages of obligatory Quakeholioness...)
>
> I, me, me, mine, my Nvid yer cod r0x0rz ur moma in Quaek ATI suxx0rz u r
> dribbel bandit u think ur droolkacher ATI POS catch me YOU'RE ALL BIG
MOUSE!
>
> ;-)
>
> It sure beats politics...
>
> The 5900 has much better shadowing capabilities. This means it'll sneak up
> on you real quiet-like and step on your shadow when u.r. not looking and
> make vodoun pain where it ste...
> Basically, the 5900 allows for faster, more accurate shadow generation. I
> think this is done thru z-culling non-inclusive areas (outside of
> light-source bounds)---the most seemingly likely and most efficient
fashion
> I'd imagine--- Suffice it to say, it works, and the 5900 provides for
faster
> shadow calcs, especially using multiple and moving light-sources. This
means
> realistic shadows can be used without much speed penalty---i.e. no more
> typical blobs that move at some seemingly random tangent to the actor
> depending on which way it's facing. Shadows that look more like the real
> thing, and can grow and shrink relative to light source position. That
> r0x0rs! ESPECIALLY IN QUAEK1 WHICH USES ALL_SHADOWS_EVERYWHERE !!! (&
> rEALLYrEALLY IN DOOM3)
>
> >
> > dvus
>
>
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 2:31:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

John Dawg:

> Now another dilemma... the fx5900 128mb is a refurb
> at $147.60 with no extras, the fx5700 256mb is $86.39 new oem

Hold up... you're about to make a mistake. The $86.39 card is not a 5700,
it is a 5700LE. Big difference in performance! Although the 5700LE will
still be faster than your MX440, you will have to overclock it greatly to
get a significant performance improvement from it. The 5700LE cards have
been very hit or miss on overclocking, some websites have been able to
clock them up to 600Mhz, but several people posted here that they could
only go a little over 400Mhz.

A 5700 will be plenty fast for UT2004 and probably the Sims, but it's a
little low end for Doom3 although it should run fine. I wouldn't waste the
extra money on a 256Mb card, get a 128Mb card.

Lastly, I hate to say it, but the Radeon 9600XT is a better value right
now than either the 5700 or 5900XT.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/index...
--
Mac Cool
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 3:22:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

defintely the 5900XT but at last check, Doom3 only plays on 2000/xp. Not
Win98/SE.

John Dawg wrote:
> I am a budget gamer on an athlon xp 2800 oced slightly and 512 mb of ram
> and a geforce 4 mx440 64mb oced to 312/579 and a SB Live! LS 5.1. I'm
> running Windows 98 and I'm pretty sure my graphics card is the
> bottleneck for UT2004, Sims 2, etc. I am interested in Doom 3. So,
> like I said which card is better, 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?? The
> fx5700 is about $30 cheaper give or take a few... Thx!
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 11:34:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CuqdnThiEPkUlybcRVn-ow@rogers.com...
> I got \cg_madSkillz 1
>

*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00
t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w
00t!*w00t!*w00t!*

l33tness!

> :-)
>
> --
> "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
> It can therefore be said that politics is war without
> bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
>
>
> "Nerdillius Maximus" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:mttud.219179$HA.53669@attbi_s01...
> > Quaek r0x0rz! ur moma 2....
> >
snippage...
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 12:20:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Mac Cool" <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95BC426F49FA7MacCool@24.25.9.42...
> John Dawg:
>
> > Now another dilemma... the fx5900 128mb is a refurb
> > at $147.60 with no extras, the fx5700 256mb is $86.39 new oem
>
> Hold up... you're about to make a mistake. The $86.39 card is not a 5700,
> it is a 5700LE. Big difference in performance! Although the 5700LE will
> still be faster than your MX440, you will have to overclock it greatly to
> get a significant performance improvement from it. The 5700LE cards have
> been very hit or miss on overclocking, some websites have been able to
> clock them up to 600Mhz, but several people posted here that they could
> only go a little over 400Mhz.
>
> A 5700 will be plenty fast for UT2004 and probably the Sims, but it's a
> little low end for Doom3 although it should run fine. I wouldn't waste the
> extra money on a 256Mb card, get a 128Mb card.

Me myself, I'd wait until the 6600 GT AGP drop$ a bit, although I just don't
see how someone suffered with the MX4 for that long, and it's just begging
for a dirt-nap...

> Lastly, I hate to say it, but the Radeon 9600XT is a better value right
> now than either the 5700 or 5900XT.

No! He's hopped the fence! Ack! He has demenATIa! Get the o'derlies, sedate
that boah! What will we tell his folks?

Well this may be true, and especially since ATI's OpenGL can only get better
to nip at the decent DirectX performance, but then again, there's ATI's
wonderful new direction in control panel fluffage. Still, since you can pick
up a new 9600XT for the price of the refurb 5900, it's pretty much a
no-brainer. Doom 3 will run on it ok, and UT '04 will fly with all the
eye-candy!

BTW you have to hex-edit the Doom 3 executable in order to get it to work in
98SE or ME, and it no work with patch, only the original .exe, and textures
are not as good, and she a little slower. Better to run it at least under
Win2k, and especially if it's XP Pro, I'd throw in the obligatory half more
gig RAM without hesitation. A gig is pretty much the minimum these days for
serious work 'n' play.
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 4:17:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Doom3 only on xp?!?!? Eeeeeeeek!! Am I the last gamer out there using
Win 98 in a belief that it gives more memory and cpu to my games/winamp
visualizers/lame ?!?!? Surely there's an army of people just like me
who are scared of XP! Anyway, if that's the case, I'll just stick with
Sims 2 and UT2004 and UT2003... and the fact that the 5900 is a refurb,
is that a fairly moot point?

Sim wrote:
> defintely the 5900XT but at last check, Doom3 only plays on 2000/xp. Not
> Win98/SE.
>
> John Dawg wrote:
>
>> I am a budget gamer on an athlon xp 2800 oced slightly and 512 mb of
>> ram and a geforce 4 mx440 64mb oced to 312/579 and a SB Live! LS 5.1.
>> I'm running Windows 98 and I'm pretty sure my graphics card is the
>> bottleneck for UT2004, Sims 2, etc. I am interested in Doom 3. So,
>> like I said which card is better, 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?? The
>> fx5700 is about $30 cheaper give or take a few... Thx!
>
>
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 4:31:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

UPDATE - I waited too late... now the cheapest AGP 5900 at newegg is
$162 ... I can get a refurb 128mb 5700le for $75, or the new 256mb
5700le for $86, that basically seals the deal, since this is my next For
Sale machine in 6 months.

Sim wrote:
> defintely the 5900XT but at last check, Doom3 only plays on 2000/xp. Not
> Win98/SE.
>
> John Dawg wrote:
>
>> I am a budget gamer on an athlon xp 2800 oced slightly and 512 mb of
>> ram and a geforce 4 mx440 64mb oced to 312/579 and a SB Live! LS 5.1.
>> I'm running Windows 98 and I'm pretty sure my graphics card is the
>> bottleneck for UT2004, Sims 2, etc. I am interested in Doom 3. So,
>> like I said which card is better, 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?? The
>> fx5700 is about $30 cheaper give or take a few... Thx!
>
>
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 8:44:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"John Dawg" <jmoorman22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10rns2as8l2hbe@corp.supernews.com...
> Doom3 only on xp?!?!? Eeeeeeeek!! Am I the last gamer out there using
> Win 98 in a belief that it gives more memory and cpu to my games/winamp
> visualizers/lame ?!?!?

I multiboot for this sort of thing. I use W2k as my work environment,
because this install is as bomb-proof as it gets.

Surely there's an army of people just like me
> who are scared of XP!

Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf? (yeah there's an army, and we prolly are
tending toward back pain, arthritis, and bifocals...or at least the
beginnings of hair loss...) What's there to be afraid of? A little more
elbow grease flogging it into shape, and a bit more necessary "getting on
the ball" when it comes to security?


Anyway, if that's the case, I'll just stick with
> Sims 2 and UT2004 and UT2003... and the fact that the 5900 is a refurb,
> is that a fairly moot point?

Only if it woiks properly...

>
> Sim wrote:
> > defintely the 5900XT but at last check, Doom3 only plays on 2000/xp. Not
> > Win98/SE.


Wanna bet? I take PayPal, credit/debit, postal money orders, travelers'
checks, preferably CASH! Hundred bucks! Wait, make it a thousand, that way I
can buy MYSELF a nice Xmas present...

Nah, I'll bet you know better than to bet with me (betcha on this too! How
'bout for beer?)!

I believe I covered this in another post...it does indeed work but it's not
as pretty or as smooth as running it where it was meant to be...

Would anyone like a complete description of how to get Doom 3 to work on
98SE/ME? Naturally, it works better on W2k/XP, but it'll run where it's not
s'poto...


> >
> > John Dawg wrote:
> >
> >> I am a budget gamer on an athlon xp 2800 oced slightly and 512 mb of
> >> ram and a geforce 4 mx440 64mb oced to 312/579 and a SB Live! LS 5.1.
> >> I'm running Windows 98 and I'm pretty sure my graphics card is the
> >> bottleneck for UT2004, Sims 2, etc. I am interested in Doom 3. So,
> >> like I said which card is better, 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?? The
> >> fx5700 is about $30 cheaper give or take a few... Thx!
> >
> >
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 8:58:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> Doom3 only on xp?!?!? Eeeeeeeek!! Am I the last gamer out there using
> Win 98 in a belief that it gives more memory and cpu to my
> games/winamp visualizers/lame ?!?!? Surely there's an army of people
Yes. :) 

The stability of 2000/XP is worth any insignificant performance hit that
might be incurred.
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 9:32:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"tq96" <tq96@tq96.tq96> wrote in message
news:Xns95BD83FD879DAtq96@127.0.0.1...
> > Doom3 only on xp?!?!? Eeeeeeeek!! Am I the last gamer out there using
> > Win 98 in a belief that it gives more memory and cpu to my
> > games/winamp visualizers/lame ?!?!? Surely there's an army of people
> Yes. :) 
>
> The stability of 2000/XP is worth any insignificant performance hit that
> might be incurred.

Really isn't much of one, it's just that W2k and especially XP have a bigger
footprint, requiring more RAM and a little faster processor than is required
for 98SE. But 98SE, like W2k and XP, can be made very stable, so this is not
an issue here at all. I have one particular 98SE install that's been thru
more boxes than...a sailor on shore leave...all the way from the Socket 7
days, and it's still kicking, and stability is not an issue. In fact, aside
from IE in general, which is just a problem waiting to happen, and IE6 which
should never be installed on 9x because it causes issues, 98SE can be 24-7
functional for about as much uptime as you'd like, it's lack of
fault-tolerance notwithstanding...

Many computer problems can be summed up with one acronym: PEBCAK.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 2:03:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> than is required for 98SE. But 98SE, like W2k and XP, can be made very
> stable, so this is not an issue here at all. I have one particular

The main fault with 98 is the fact that all the main system DLL's are
shared by all processes. So a bug in one program can overwrite part of
kernel32.dll and take out the whole system. It is possible to have a
stable 98 system and things are much better now that all software
developers can write and debug their programs on 2000/XP. Remember back
when 2000 came out and many games would crash with "access violation"
errors? That was poorly written programs trying to write to/read from a
place they had no business accessing. Those bugs, while causing the games
to crash on 2000, would just add the eventual collapse of the 98 system.
!