General discussion


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.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

for clarity

by apotheon In reply to Of couse not reply

I was speaking of software in general, including productivity applications, networking services, the operating system, and so on. The problem I was trying to illustrate is that of treating what is essentially a service (software development) with manufacture of a product (software packages). If software development were treated as an industry service, rather than the compiled code that results being treated as a manufactured product, the industry would probably be a lot healthier, for the reasons I tried to convey in my earlier post on the subject.

Keep in mind, as you contemplate what I've said, that growth that is running out of control is as much a sickness of the industry as lack of growth is. Pride goeth before the fall, as they say: in a corporate culture, productized software's successes will be measured not by its effectiveness, usefulness, and implementation. It will instead be measured by market saturation and brand loyalty. When you make success about the label on the package instead of the quality of what you're buying, quality will suffer, and so too will those who produce quality work.

Collapse -

Got it.........But....

by dafe2 In reply to for clarity

My only issue with your view is the OS being thrown in. I see it as infrastructure.

From an operational point of view (Your customers & mine) - I see Excel, Word, Powerpoint and others as nothing more than nebulous & "insignificant". Not CORE to business. Maybe that exacerbates the problem.

Ok, I better clarify that comment for those of you that just said WTF and have your fingers at poised over caps lock and the GFY keys:

What I mean by that is this: In an enterprise network, the infrastructure has become the one gives a rats behind what application software (TO A DEGREE) is being used. It's become a commodity. That's not to say nobody uses standard tools.

In a nutshell things have moved so fast and these things work so....

So yes, you have a point there.


I just read your last post..........still laughing............But my systems are set to auto-reboot every 15 days & to E-mail any issues to a BlackBerry. Thankfully, it's a rare occasion my attention is drawn to fighting fires. is I who has been trained by the Servers....not the other way arround. At any rate, I don't like surprises or un-scheduled downtime....still happens on occasion and still too often for my liking.

Good one though........damn near makes me want to learn more about Penguins I laughed so hard.

Focus on the words Damn Near.......It wasn't THAT funny.

Collapse -

I'm here all week. Feel free to leave a tip.

by apotheon In reply to Got it.........But....

Assuming your laughter was about my comment in another branching of the discussion, wherein I semi-joked about rebooting issues, I'm glad it was amusing.

Note: Speaking of applications, all the best network monitoring, auditing, and defense software runs on Unix systems. Isn't that spashul?

Hmm. I find it so difficult to resist the obligatory advocacy. Ahem.

Collapse -


by dafe2 In reply to for clarity

UNIX! - Alas, now that WOULD explain the sharp mind, penmanship and quick see Apotheon, Linux alone could not have done that.



When in Canada......Do NOT eat the yellow snow.

Collapse -

Actually . . .

by apotheon In reply to Tip

Linux is a Unix. I was speaking in the generic because the tools don't ONLY work on Linux: they also work on FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, SCO UNIX, any SysV, IRIX, AIX, HP-UX, and so on. Typically, they are more tailored for Linux than the others, but they also work on the others.

There aren't really any major functional differences between Linux and other Unices. I refer most often to Linux because A) it's open source (as are the BSDs), B) it enjoys faster development support than the others, and C) it has very strong community support. There's also that nifty penguin logo thing.

Collapse -

Power to the people?

by dafe2 In reply to "Classic view" and "Class ...

I wonder if that's because the install base of the OS's are in the hands (generally) of home users?? A vocal bunch :-)

Anyway, in my opinion, the only (real) reason to move to WIN2K or XP is the desire for FILE security, provided by NTFS and/or EFS. If these aren't desired or needed Windows 98SE is an adequate platform for many PC users

Anyway, good move on going right to XP. I used WINT2K up until DEC, 02..........I found when I migrated to XP, Microsoft moved and/or renamed everything. Major pain in the A.........

Very happy now but.....

Had I known how much BS I'd have to deal with I would have stuck with 2K.

Change for the sake of change is not good. If you don't mind an off topic suggestion: Look into Office's a very smooth fit for XP.

Collapse -

Pros and cons

by trockii In reply to Windows XP versus 98 SE

With everything there are pros and cons. Such as cars. Example...You have a 1965 Pontiac GTO, now being produced is the 2005 Pontiac GTO. Your '65 still runs right now, but for how long? The '65 parts are hard to find, the '05 GTO is under warranty with parts readily available. What to do? Same idea with computers. If you are happy with what you are using that's fine, however whether you think so or not, it will break and you will be forced to go with the new and improved. The new products coming out have more innovations to help you and make tasks easier. I believe you will be happy once again when you make the transition to the new. Life's about change. You can move with the future or let it pass you by. It's your choice.

Collapse -

Advice - Re: NT based OS

by house In reply to Windows XP versus 98 SE

I can do without a dos based OS. I had a lot of fun with it in the past, but I shake my head when I walk up to a 9x machine nowadays. It's still fun though, but troubleshooting the OS can be a pain.

If you want to learn XP, then I suggest running 2000 for a bit. The OS has a much more logical structure regarding the layout and location of the various administrative utitilties. I ran 2k for quite a while, without devoting too much time to XP when it was released. The thing that initially threw me off was the "tossed around" GUI that was apparently designed to promote the end user and confuse the **** out of IT Professionals. Rather than structured tabbed properties, you will have to put up with brief topic descriptions and links for some of the common functions that were so much more efficient in the 2k layout.

I do find though, that XP is generally faster than 2k.

My advice - go 2k for a while - then hit XP.

PS - don't worry about time. Longhorn's not due until the next ice-age.

Collapse -

XP vs. 2K

by apotheon In reply to Advice - Re: NT based OS

I used Win2k Pro for a while. Then I used WinXP Pro for a while. Then I went back to Win2k.

In the end, I find that (aside from Linux, which trumps all Windows OSes) Win2k is the only Windows OS that has any hope of holding my attention. The others are all confused messes of problems.

The Win9x OSes, based on the Chicago architecture, are essentially orgies of marketing hoopla without much functional structure (and the WinME debacle was essentially the same thing taken to an absurd, unusable extreme). WinNT 4.0 had its strengths, of course, being more Win32-based, but it still suffered from pollution by the plague of problems that came with the Chicago OS architecture, as the boys in charge of making the Final Decisions in Redmond decided to throw "user-friendly" marketability in a pot with "useful" and stir.

Win2k backed off from the Chicago problem areas somewhat, restructured, incorporated more of the Win32 architecture strengths, and generally stabilized. In essence, everything that came before it was a beta test version leading up to the relatively successful production of Win2k (WinME notwithstanding, of course, as it was pretty much just the Wrong Idea Entirely).

WinXP, unfortunately, has tossed out a lot of the successes of Win2k, and reincorporated a lot of the design philosophy of the Chicago OS architecture with the Whistler (aka NT 5.1) architecture. Ironically, a lot of the superficial "feature additions" in Whistler over previous architectures were undone by SP2, which reset a lot of configurations and rewrote a lot of core code to Win2k (aka NT 5.0) standards. In other words, the much-vaunted security "enhancements" of Windows XP SP2 achieved greater security by going back to Windows 2000 standards, when things were done right. Being a back-port, however, it tends to suffer some minor problems in implementation. C'est la vie.

For those who are interested:

Win32 = NT 32-bit architecture

Chicago = Windows 95 32-bit architecture, built on DOS, and subsequently serving as the code-base for Windows 98 and Windows ME

Neptune = Initially, this was meant to be the "next" OS after the 9x series. It got scaled back, mangled, and mixed with Chicago, until the two were essentially indistinguishable. In the end, 98 and ME ended up with the same Chicago code base, with a few extensions piled on top. The Neptune enhancements weren't ever successfully incorporated to any notable degree outside of Windows 98 OSR2 "Second Edition".

Cairo = NT 4.0 architecture project, largely abandoned when Microsoft got right down to it: it took them long enough to get around to a proper implementation of some of the more important Win32 characteristics

Whistler = Also known as NT 5.1, the supposed successor to Windows 2000 (NT 5.0): it's the "merging" of Chicago and Win32 based architectures. This merging was, apparently, accomplished by smacking the two together repeatedly, and with great force, until the resultant gravel appeared to be reasonably homogenous.

Longhorn = The new Cairo: just as good an idea at first, just as rapidly being abandoned piecemeal and replaced, feature by feature, with ideas more suited to the marketing department than software engineering. Microsoft may still call it Longhorn, and consider it a successful deployment, when they're done, but that won't change the fact that it will bear zero notable resemblance to the original collection of great ideas to which the Longhorn name originally applied.

So: Armed with this knowledge, perhaps any of you that bothered to read this will realize some of the reasons I prefer Win2k over all other Windows versions.

Collapse -


by dafe2 In reply to XP vs. 2K

Very accurate..........I allmost stopped reading after you mentioned Linux though (laugh)....

Windows 2000 is the most "Elegant" OS Microsoft ever produced, both technically and aesthetically. You make it a little difficult to argue, but, with some effort the jump to XP in some cases is worth it.

XP (or Whistler) is a much tighter OS and with the right hardware does run faster. The problem is, it requires a lot of effort to get rid of the front end (that is) setup by default.

I prefer my OS clean and lean...

I guess my caveat to someone considering running XP would be: If you're NOT prepared to spend endless hours getting rid of the default installation....then XP is not for you. Go with Windows 2000 if you need file security (EFS) or Windows 98 SE for gamers or whatever....

Personally I spent a *&^load of MY time tearing down XP and the finding out that common desktop, menu items and tools had been renamed and moved to essentially end up with......if I look real close - is essentially XP - that was, apparently, accomplished by smacking the two together repeatedly, and with great force, until the resultant gravel appeared to be reasonably homogenous.

Sorry for the cut & paste...couldn't resist it.

Related Discussions

Related Forums