General discussion

Locked

Windows XP versus 98 SE

By jardinier ·
I have a computer installed with XP Pro, and have Office 2000 installed.

However I am reluctant to make the effort to learn XP because I am quite happy with 98 SE running Office 97.

Can anyone give me some convincing arguments as to why I should make the effort to learn XP?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

35 total posts (Page 1 of 4)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

98 vs XP

by Fat Chink In reply to Windows XP versus 98 SE

98 has no more support/patches/fixes
XP is more buggy than 98

98 is not affected by many of the newer virus/worms
XP has more security holes than swiss cheese

98 boots and runs faster since it doesn't have as many features as XP
XP boots and runs slower on older PCs, requires faster CPUs and more RAM and HDD space than 98

Generally, unless there is a specific need to upgrade, I usually tell most people 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

Collapse -

XP vs 98 comparison

by Igor948 In reply to Windows XP versus 98 SE

Let me start by saying that I don't buy into any Microsoft rhetoric right away...therefore..I test and test an OS on a test box before I'm willing to install it on MY OWN boxes.

98SE has minimal support and is at the end of its life cycle.
XP is being updated and patched regularly

XP can run the more secure (and efficient) NTFS file system
98 cannot.

XP has "Plug and Play" hardware detection that works most of the time with little or no user intervention.
98 has "Plug and Pray" that sometimes works.

XPdoesn't have to be rebooted everytime you make a change to the network settings.
98 has to be rebooted for every change, thus stealing precious years off of your life waiting for reboots.

Many new games and software are being written for a 32-bit OS and/or the NTFS file system.
98 is not a "true" 32-bit OS, and as mentioned, can't use the NTFS file system.

XP can be networked wired or wirelessly with minimal effort.
98 often becomes a project when you are using servers other than MS servers.


I set XP to the "Classic View" theme with the "Classic Start Menu" and remove all of the useless eye-candy that slows down the box.

Hope that helps!!

Collapse -

on the other hand

by apotheon In reply to XP vs 98 comparison

No amount of added convenience with XP is, to me, worth the legal restrictions of the updated EULA under which XP is sold.

NTFS has some data management features that are definitely an advantage in some uses, but it has some problems as well: The NTFS specification changes from one Windows version to the next, so transferring a data drive to a new computer with a new Windows OS can be problematic. NTFS requires more of the partition to be devoted to disk management (which, with today's huge drives, is admittedly not much of a problem). The increased "security" of NTFS is increasingly based on the fact that data is being locked into a given OS license ? if your computer takes a dump, you may not be able to recover your data from the NTFS data drive later (depending on which version of NTFS it is, and settings on your system), which can be solved by keeping non-system-specific backups though backups effectively negate some of that supposed security of NTFS.

While XP certainly handles plug and play far better than 98, it is a complete pain in the arse when dealing with hardware that isn't properly detected. It's easier to do the easy stuff, and more difficult to do the difficult stuff, with XP.

There are other options that cover the sorts of benefits you get with XP, without actually having to use XP, but they don't involve using Microsoft products. If that's not an option of which you can take advantage, you unfortunately have to deal with the quirks of the Windows platform.

By the way: As far as I'm concerned, Windows 2000 Professional was the best desktop OS that Microsoft has ever offered. XP is a step down.

Collapse -

"Classic view" and "Classic Start Menu."

by jardinier In reply to XP vs 98 comparison

Thank you for that suggestion. That should allow me to adjust gradually.

Incidentally I am surprised at the number of IT people I encounter who seem unaware that MS have extended support for 98, 98 SE and ME until June, 2006.

Here is part of the item (which I lifted off my own website):

Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition support was scheduled to end on January 16, 2004. The continual evaluation of the Support Lifecycle policy revealed, however, that customers in the smaller and the emerging markets needed additional time to upgrade their product. Therefore, Microsoft will continue to support Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me through June 30, 2006. Critical security updates will be provided on the Windows Update site through June 30, 2006.

Collapse -

not I

by apotheon In reply to "Classic view" and "Class ...

I'm not so surprised that not many are aware of it. Many aren't accustomed to the idea of a company that announces an End Of Life for a product frivolously, and as such they might not notice the fact that Microsoft has backpedaled.

Aside from that, I've got to wonder what asinine line of thought led MS executives to decide they should continue support for ME (the worst debacle in Microsoft OS history) while cutting back support on Win2k (the best OS that Microsoft has ever produced and, it seems, perhaps the best it will ever produce).

Collapse -

"Bob" was worse

by dafe2 In reply to not I

I still wonder if they backpedaled because those products are in the hands of a very vocal market: the home users.

They never backed off of their plans with NT4.0. Those of us with aging systems projects are now forced to deal with some critical path issues....

I still think "Bob" was worse than ME, but the guys that made this decision should be forced to revise there CV's using these products.

Hope your wrong about the next OS rev...........we still have to eat :-)

Collapse -

Bob WAS worse, and Clippy's no good either

by apotheon In reply to "Bob" was worse

They've backed off on the Chicago-architecture OS EOLs (I'd bet money) because of the fact that the home-OS products got all the press. Microsoft isn't in the business of making good software. It's in the business of keeping customers chained to its products.

Home desktop end users are less capable of managing an upgrade, so the marketing department (and attached entities) at Microsoft influences policy to ensure that home desktop end users are coddled and "eased" into new OS adoption. Because businesses tend to have a more thorough perceived financial stake in resisting changing platforms (away from Microsoft products), they'll take more forced product upgrade abuse. As such, the IT industry gets "forced" by EOLs to upgrade with more of a protection-racket attitude than home desktop end users.

Collapse -

Bad day with Linux or what?

by dafe2 In reply to Bob WAS worse, and Clippy ...

You do have a thing for Microsoft doncha? & I for Linux mmmm

Microsoft does make good products with the exeption of the two features and one OS we referred to earlier....The chains are testaments to loyalty.

Home desktops.....Kid Gloves....absolutely..mmm...thinner wallets too.

From a business point of view:

I'm not happy about EOL's either....HOWEVER....I do want them (Microsoft) to be in business ......at least till retirement:-) It's a good business decision.

Can you really expect ANY vendor or business for that matter to support a product of any sort forever?

Collapse -

of course not

by apotheon In reply to Bad day with Linux or wha ...

I don't expect anyone to support products indefinitely without compensation. Microsoft, however, has changed the software market from a service industry (software development) into a product industry (software sales). This has had a number of negative effects on the industry, despite the fact that it has helped Microsoft reach a position of market dominance and, in the short run, has ensured that Microsoft isn't hurting for cash.

In a service-based software industry, issuing an EOL for something that a lot of customers still use and still want to use would be absurd. Revenue would come primarily from support contracts, and other software businesses would be prompted to continue to ensure that their products would be compatible with what people were still using. Software upgrades would be more driven by what the software users wanted as additional features and software design advances, rather than by what marketing directors would be able to leverage to maintain market dominance. (Note I said "more driven", not "solely driven".) Also, software patents would not be a revenue stream all by themselves the way they're getting to be now, stifling innovation.

Software development service requires local workers. Offshoring of software development only saves money when done in large numbers: you need a "bulk discount", effectively, over an extended period, to be able to save more money through offshoring of software development. That many people for that long a time only becomes commonly necessary when one company is providing all the development support for popular productized software. When software is treated as a service, it is more effective and useful for a given company that needs such services to keep a small number of programmers at work locally, or to hire local programmers on an as-needed basis, and since small teams are ideal for software development efficiency rather than large numbers of "assembly-line" programmers the total effectiveness of software development in the industry would increase. Add to this the fact that, without huge stables of supporting programmers under lock and key by a single company for a given product, many companies that currently don't need programmers on-staff because they can get by with the generic "good enough" software available in shrink-wrap would now need programmers on-staff to ensure they've got the software support they need, and the net aggregate of software developers employed would increase.

Productivity for the companies that hired programmers as service-based labor would increase, as well: more economic wealth would be generated, because corporate entities would not be able to make money by using "good enough" software. They'd have to pay more for software development, but they'd get more from it as well. The net difference would be faster positive (as opposed to marketing) software evolution and more programmers employed domestically.

Also, as I started this to explain, no software that was still in any demand would reach an End Of Life due to a centralized vendor deciding, of its own accord, to simply cease supporting it because they can make more money by forcing an upgrade. So: No, I don't expect a vendor to support a software product indefinitely. I would, however, expect a software service provider to sell the services that are in demand.

I guess I have "a thing" for Microsoft because Microsoft has done a great deal of damage to my potential livelihood, and for no reason other than creating an industry environment that is optimized for Microsoft's market dominance rather than for industry advancement.

Collapse -

Of couse not reply

by dafe2 In reply to not I

I understand your concept......

The Model you describe is used by SAP, PeopleSoft, SQL and the like.........and as you say it is VERY effective.

I just wonder if, in this case, Microsoft had NOT commoditized it's products we'd have seen a SLOWER addoption of the technology we enjoy a good living from today.

By product, I reffer to MS Office and the like. I still maintain that in the case of the OS, it was a wise Business Decision. However painful, it is driving revenues.

I may have misread your post, or even missed your point, but I didn't see a line drawn between the OS and SOFTWARE PRODUCT. (Might just be too early for me)

As to Offshoring of software development, this activity trully bogles the mind. I'm sure in the short term, "canned" application software has had an effect, but IMO this is a symptom of a maturing industry (We're still only about 15 years old).

Don't get me wrong, I (too) know many unemployed programmers. Offshoring does nobody but bankers any good.

Back to Windows Forum
35 total posts (Page 1 of 4)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums