Win 98 SE vrs. ME vrs. XP

[Guest]

After searching through the past 10 pages of posts I didn't see this topic so wanted to see if I could get some help with this:

My current system is a AMD Athlon 950MHz, Geforce4 Ti 4600, Soundblaster Live Platnium 5.1 with Windows 98 SE and a decent ADSL conncection.
99% of this computers use is for 3D online and offline gaming.
I have a copy of Windows ME sitting on my desk that I used when I had a dial up AOL account and because of connection problems I went back to the 98 SE OS. I'm thinking of going with the Win ME now that I have ADSL but I have heard about half my friends say stay w/ 98 SE and other half say that I could benifit from the Win ME since I already have it.

Anyone got any advice on this that could help me out?

Also anyone w/ the experience suggest I scrap the WinME and go for the XP upgrade?

 

[OldBear]

My personal experience, stay with 98se. It's was a lot more stable than ME.


<font color=blue><b>You get what you pay for...all advice here is free.</b></font color=blue>

 

[orbz]

I'd say stay with Win98se too unless you want some of the newer features of WinMe like system restore and some video stuff.

<i>It is not illegal until you get caught! </i>

 

[HonestJhon]

yeah, but the compromises you will have to make for stability with windows me makes you HAVE to have the system restore...i know i did.
if you want the system restore, stability, and video editing stuff, then get xp.
other than that, i would stay with 98se...because it really didnt give me too much guff...and is pretty good with broadband.

-DAvid

-Live, Learn, then build your own computer!-

 

[CALV]

Personally I'd throw the ME cd in the bin.

If they squeeze olives to get olive oil, how do they get baby oil?

 

[Smilin]

for the love of god man, go with XP. The fact that you are even asking tells me you've never had any experience with Windows NT/2000. It's a completely different beast.

People's computers crash a few times a week (or day) and they think this is normal...it's not. Jump to XP and expect to go months without a crash. (and yes, linux will go for a year without crashing but it's about as useful as a macintosh or OS/2 for running popular software)

I think the big fear for everyone is "Will my games run on 2000/XP". Yes they will, and just as fast.

 

[HonestJhon]

hehe...and then put some flammable liquid in there, and toss a match in there...that will rid the world of one more virus!

-DAvid

-Live, Learn, then build your own computer!-

 

[Pog]

I u'md and r'd for months then upgraded to XP..

The games run just as well (as far as I can tell) and my 3dmark went up by 500.. Everything seems faster.. I play unreal, Q3, Serious sam 1/2, medal of honor, civ and a few other bits..

Before the upgrade I hated XP now I love it... not sure how it will run on a 950 though

I have got a ti500 (oc 255 / 560) an XP (oc 145 x 10.5) and 256Mb DDR with 7200RPM HD

Burn ME its evil

 

[HonestJhon]

you mean how XP will run?
i am running it on a 900mhz athlon as i type.
runs great.
stable....and seems faster than 98se, but i think that is because of the different ways xp accesses files.

-DAvid

-Live, Learn, then build your own computer!-

 

[Guest]

Thanks for all the help guys.

>>>The fact that you are even asking tells me you've never had any experience with Windows NT/2000. It's a completely different beast<<<

I'm a little confused by this statment. I thought Windows NT/2000 was more for office stuff and Windows 98,ME and XP was for home and gaming use.

One thing I noticed when I did have Windows ME on my system is my sound sounded alot better then it did on 98SE. Also my bro has WinME with some funky sound card on it and it just seems to sound better then my SoundBlaster live Platinum w/ digital output.

Anyone know if WinME DOES have better sound quality or am I trippin?

Thanks in advance.

 

[HonestJhon]

NT was...
2000 wasnt.
2000 used to suck for games and some other programs...
but then they released 2000 SP2 (service pack) and now it runs all games as far as i know.
and it is much more stable than 98se.
as far as the sound sounding better..it might be better written drivers..but i dont know!
with winme, my sound sounded the same, (if not worse due to the constant crashing).
with 98se, it wouldnt crash as much, and with xp, it doesnt crash.
well..i cant say that exactly...
because i never put me on THIS computer..i put it on my old computer, but then it killed me, and i had to start from scratch!
dang buggy OS. :frown:
but 2000 is fine for games and such.
but i think that xp is a bit more user friendly...because of easier networking setup, and a few other things that make it more of a home os.

-DAvid

-Live, Learn, then build your own computer!-

 

[flamethrower205]

Hehe, that's the difference between a techie and a regular user- techies don't notice anything that's not as user freindly cause they learn it mad fast anyway. I know I do. XP sucks for 3d graphics work though. I mean it just blows.

Sig of the week.

 

[HonestJhon]

oh..i know...but for the general user, like you said...
thank god i dont do any 3d graphics.
and what exactly happens...it just craps the bed? crashes?
i havent done any yet..so i dont know.

-DAvid

-Live, Learn, then build your own computer!-

 

[flamethrower205]

In win9x, 3d s max would just crash, as in it couldn't handle teh polygons or something after a certain complexity. In win2k, I was in a dreamworld- everything was fast and stable, and it never crashed, regardless of complexity...I was able to create a bracelet (for global project) w/ teh most intricate designs that was God knows how many polygons, and then combine that w/ a super complex scene! Rendering was also very fast. Then I switched to XP, and now when I drag the windows around, they kinda lag. Also, rendering time is like 5x what it was on win2k.

Sig of the week.

 

[HonestJhon]

weird.....
were you running pro, or home?

-DAvid

-Live, Learn, then build your own computer!-

 

[Zlash]

NT and 2000 are pretty different OS's, 2k has evolved thier NT kernel a lot. Plug N Play for example =).

<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>

 

[Zlash]

Actually I don't think i want to use the word kernel above there hehe.

<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>

 

[jiffy]

You use your computer for 99% for gaming.

DO NOT TOUCH A THING!!!

You have a nice set up, just shy of hardcore.

 

[AMD_Man]

How much RAM do you have?

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

 

[Smilin]

In truth, Microsoft has wanted to get rid of the Windows 95 line ever since NT 4.0 came out. Windows 2000 was supposed to be the unification of the two operating system branches but it wasn't done in time. Microsoft had to put something out in the 9x line to buy some time until XP could come out so they built ME in a hurry...and it's probably the worst OS they've ever made..sure it has some extra features but like 5 times the normal release bugs.

I'll let you answer your questions for yourself:
People who have used 2k/xp AND 9x operating systems always chose 2k/xp. You'll only find arguments against this from people who have ONLY used 9x. Look into this a bit and you'll find it's true.

 

[jiffy]

<font color=red>People who have used 2k/xp AND 9x operating systems always chose 2k/xp. You'll only find arguments against this from people who have ONLY used 9x. Look into this a bit and you'll find it's true.</font color=red>

Not true, I have Win2000, and I chose Win98se over it. Win2000 and XP have a better memory management, and may stay up longer, but that's it. I'm a gamer, and if I believed XP was the Bomb I would get it in a second. A lot of people will say XP is perfect, next to God, but I don't buy it. I don't think there telling the hole story either. I think XP needs a little time, before it will be hands down, that's if they don't come out with another OS first. Then it will be time to throw some more hardware and software away.

I will agree, a lot of people think that way, but there are still some die hard Win98se fans that feel different. I remember when XP first came out, they had shown where WinMe was faster then XP, can you show other wise? If you want to talk about stability, not everybody's Win98se systems crashes.

 

[ejsmith2]

There's a *whole* slew of games that run wonderfully under NT. If it runs under NT, at least in the little experience I have, it runs faster/more stable than under Win9x (read:MS-DOS). Unreal Tournament, Quake3, Maximum Payne, Icewind Dale, Commandos, Red Faction, Tomb Raider 2, Red Alert 2, Metal Gear Solid, Mechwarrior 3, Mechwarrior 4 (before I microwaved the cdrom). The only one I would expect to work (and does not) is Final Fantasy 7. You can get to the Chocobo races, and it shuts down. A dual boot machine absolutely rulez when you're a gamer.

I've never had a stable Win9x machine. I can get about 48hours of stability under NT before programs start crashing on loadup or the right mouse button stop responding, and a reboot fixes everything. Granted, I've not had that much experience with Mandrake, but I've yet to have it stop detecting the mouse or 'bluescreen' on me...

 

[jiffy]

<font color=red> There's a *whole* slew of games that run wonderfully under NT</font color=red> True

<font color=red> it runs faster/more stable than under Win9x</font color=red> This has been disputed since XP came out. There is a thin line between opinion and fact, where everybody has their own. <A HREF="http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2808643,00.html" target="_new">http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2808643,00.html</A>
Show's Win Me as faster for games, show me other wise.

<font color=red>I've never had a stable Win9x machine. </font color=red> I have, where I work has, where I did my taxes must, or they wouldn't be using it. Other's here have, so it has to be you, not the OS.

 

[HonestJhon]

yeah, i have had a pretty stable win98 machine.
as for games that work with nt, i dunno...didnt use nt long enough to play games on it.
i know that the only game i played when i had it was delta force 1, and that worked fine.


-DAvid

-Live, Learn, then build your own computer!-

 

[btvillarin]

I'd have to go against you as well (nothing personal). When I built my new computer, and I only had Windows 98SE to use, it ran great! No crashes or anything. But, every once in awhile, I'd have to reboot to regain the resources. Other than that, there were no problems.

That's the only reason why I went to Win2K & WinXP. If Windows 98 didn't have that problem, I'd go back to it because I could customize the install to be more compact. I think that's a fairly valid comment, because I know that people would like Windows to use less space than it's current release of Windows XP. I mean, 1GB off a fresh install is pretty ridiculous, and I don't care if you have 40GB of space. You'd still want to have some, just in case. It helps a little to be clean. Right?

Anyway, I agree with Windows ME being brutal. I just didn't like the things I heard. But, I know that some might disagree, since driver installation and user error can contribute to it. But, I don't think it's worth the cash to get an upgrade that you could probably download for Windows 98 (except System Restore).

I've just been using Windows XP, but I'm gonna dual-boot Windows 2000 & Windows XP and see which one I use more. So far, I've gotten Win2K in and just feeling how it used to be. I kinda like Win2K, and there wasn't much of a reason to upgrade, since all I care for is stability.

My two cents...
Bryan

<font color=red><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/btvillarin" target="_new">My Windows XP-based Website</A></font color=red>