BleepingComputer.com: Windows 98 is much better than Windows XP in various ways ... Do You Agree?

I was one of those people that hate XP when it came out but I have come to love it. Though most of the time now I'm on Mac OS X and OpenSuSE I do occasionally use XP on my older P4 Dell. I would not say that 98 is better than XP but I would say that for those people who first used DOS then Windows 9x that 98 will seem more natural and easier to use. Personally I think Windows 2000 Pro was the best MS OS ever, and still use it on a couple computers that meet the requirement for XP and even Vista's/7's minimum specs. I just like the fact that it is compatible with most software but doesn't have the bloat of the eye candy that XP and up has. I do have Windows 7 on my MBP and I don't see why people complain about it, I have loved and have never had a problem using it at all.

Edit: Oh as for MS Office. '97 was the first MS Office I used and I loved it, but I really like Office 2003 for Windows, was easy to use and no Ribbon bar. Plus in 2007/2010 you can save in '97 format if you want backwards compatibility.

This post has been edited by need TOS: 28 December 2011 - 07:29 PM

AluminumHaste said:

Thats impressive!!!!

I only have 56.8Megs and it shows especially when im doing ALOT AT ONCE!!

His computer must have had a MASSIVE SIZE SWAP FILE with only less then 1 Meg of ram available!

Networking Feature is best in XP than in Win 98.

Windows NT 5.0 and Windows 2000 always trumped Win95 and Win98. They won stabilization
awards and the Banking community used those OpSys until the wheels fell off!

Having been a system admin and technician for over 500 workstations, 50 servers, and
1000+ users, Win95 and Win98 consistently showed their incompatibility with software,
peripherals (modems, printers, monitors) and I remember having a diskette handy which
was full of drivers downloaded from BBS bulletin board services for the equipment in
the office. If one did not maintain Win95 and Win98 and
rogue users would download THEIR OWN freeware without security controls, your life as a technician
supporting Win95 and Win98 was a NIGHTMARE. Full system reloads were COMMON and
ArcServe, Veritas backup & recovery was the NORM. Win95 and Win98 lacked security, stability,
scalability and surely a future. [ In April 1998, Win98 CRASHED upon its Comdex debut
with Bill Gates looking on ]

If you have a good working PC with good memory and a stable HD, and did not run
critical apps, it would appear that Win95 and Win98, (Win3.1 for that matter)
were easy to use. Folks (users) that were used to seeing "file manager", certain apps,
and the menus seen by Win95 and Win98 will surely reject change. Having worked with
application developers, vendors and users for many decades, it was a HAPPY DAY to first
work with the likes of WinXP!

Saying that people miss Win95 and Win98 is purely sentimentalism. The Pontiac GTO
(beautiful car) was mecanically one of the most un-reliable muscle cars (as they
were driven daily) in the 1970s, yet it commands TOP Dollar at retro-auction junkets.
Why? Sentimentalism. SURE I miss AM RADIO and B&W TVs...but I don't miss the signal-fade,
pops and static!!

Welcome, with open arms, (good and sound) new ideas in computing! ... and freakin' MOVE ON.

no

Welcme to the site!

What are you referring to when you say NO? (You disagree with the post right above yuors or what??)

You Cannot run office 2007 in Win'98... Your system will hang....

Linda.Christ, on 18 January 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

Why would you want to Linda there is nothing wrong with Office 2000\2003?

Office 2000 and 2003 are no longer receiving support.

So that doesnt mean anything really buddy.. (Im sure its BETTER than office 2007 as stuff often GETS WORSE with every so called "update")

This post has been edited by 4dude: 29 January 2012 - 11:51 PM

Actually it does mean a lot, because as technology progresses so does the technology world. And as such training programs for new applications will also be adjusted. In my school office 2010 is the required office suite and as such Windows 7 is the required Operating System.

This has been a delightful walk down memory lane... as one who has been working with Microsoft products since DOS 3.0. But I remember supporting 98 vs 98se. The original 98 was stable. 98se had shutdown problems related to networking. Windows ME would have been a great operating system had they not removed the "sys" switch on formatting. XP was just Windows 2000 wearing Windows ME clothes. Of course, implementing full raw TCP/IP sockets in XP proved to be it's greatest flaw. Spammers loved it of course. Vista was intentionally bad. It was Microsoft's "New Coke".

But the main thing I get out of this thread is that those folks who still think the DOS versions of Windows were superior were (IMHO) never properly trained in Windows NT. If you fully understood Windows NT 4.0 (released in 1996), everything released since then makes sense. Windows 2000 was NT 5.0 underneath (and Microsoft's great theft of Novell NDS that no one noticed). XP was NT 5.1. Vista was NT 6.0. Windows 7 is actually NT 6.1. Yes, I still have a Windows 98se machine I keep for sentimental reasons. But I wouldn't dream of browsing the web with it today.

Welcome to the site!!


I think Win98se looks the nicest of all of them...

I started with Win95 in the windows series and although it was good I THINK WIN98/98SE is much better! (And is not locked down at all (Privacy,etc (That started with Win2000 SP4)))

This post has been edited by 4dude: 05 March 2012 - 11:20 AM

Office 2007 is a serious time saver when compared with Office 2003 and before. Things are more accessible and more intuitive in the 2007/2010 versions.
Yes, I did mumble and swear when I had to make the change, mostly due to backwards incompatability in office 2007, but once you have made the move you can just do things so much more quickly in office 2007 than in office 2003. They've also added quite a list of functions that were simply not available in the previous versions.
Besides office 2003 is riddled with known and won't be fixed"-bugs that used to drive me mad.

There're are good reasons to move on to the newer office versions.

myrti, on 06 March 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Sorry I disagree with that statement. There is nothing wrong with menus to choose what you want to do not bleeding tabs with pictures for everything, everything was on the menu bar with 2003. Then they change doc to dox so you have to use a convertor.

myrti, on 06 March 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Yes to make Microsoft even more money.