|
Re: Win98 versus 2000, XP, Longhorn, etc.
de meow2222 06/21/2006 11:50
Sparkle wrote:
> Amazes me that people are willing to be specimens under the MS
> microscope. And every few years, when MS says it's time, they pay again
> to keep themselves there.
Quite. MS are good at one thing: getting people to pay again and again
for windows.
I also think it depends what you want. 2k and 98se are the only windows
contenders imho, xp isnt worth touching, and 95 isnt either on modern
hardware.
2k gives a big stability improvement over the tottery 98, but the flip
side is more time setting it up and learning its ins and outs, so
whether its worth the cross-grade is a matter of question.
You can keep running that P3 on 98 and have it continue to do
everything, or you can keep buying new os and new hardware and achieve
not a whole lot more.
Re software, 98se is the version of win that will run the most apps.
Although the latest software is often nt only, there is always
something that does the same on 98. 98 has the benefit of being able to
run close to eveything written for the PC from 1981 to recently, 2k and
xp arent 100% compatible and dont have the same range of stuff
available.
2k has a terrible case of spyware. Put your ntfs drive onto 98 and
watch those enormous spy files gobble up space, MS seems weirdly keen
on spying on its customers.
If 98 works for you, whats the point spending money time and hassle to
get the same end result with 2k? If it doesnt, 2k will give you more
stability.
98's apps can all be replaced with better 3rd party ones, eg coral
taskmanager, win32pad, opera, dazycalc and so on.
NT