Is XP really better?

[Rellik]

Originally posted by whiteflip
Is there a 64 bit Windows 98SE?

uh, no.

[griffinn]

Originally posted by Rellik

uh, no.

What are you talking about? My Windows 98 SE Professional Corporate Edition Advanced 64-bit Datacenter Server is running along just fine. Uptime: 25 years 156 days 6h39m2s

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

Geez, Griffinn. That's oldsk00l. Get with the times, man.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by k_rock923
back to the original topic of this thread, i have a copy of 98 lying around and a new rig that just needs an OS. is it worth waiting to get XP or is 98 sufficient?

Get XP. 98 crashes because it's a POS. XP is much less of a POS, and is more likely to work with new crap. There's your answer.

[whiteflip]

XP is too much of a resource hog. 98 is more sleek and streamlined and all that and most new hardware still works with it.

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

XP is too much of a resource hog.

Not if you know what you're doing and have at least a 'decent' computer.

[ryan]

And have unused services turned off.

[deeder7001]

Is there any way to speed up the system without buying RAM or disabling services in XP?

[ryan]

Put it in your car, and drive down the road really fast.

[deeder7001]

I would do that if I had a car to drive. Sounds fun

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by deeder7001
Is there any way to speed up the system without buying RAM or disabling services in XP?

Sure, turning off the fancy interface. Why wouldn't you want to turn off unused services in XP?

[deeder7001]

I have turned the fancy interface off. It's still slow as usual. I already disabled unused services.

[xzxzzx]

How much RAM do you have?

[deeder7001]

256. I know I need to get more but I don't have any money.

[mark]

I have 256 and XP is INCREDIBLY slow on it. you NEED more ram. It will make an infinite amout of difference.

and if you have onboard graphics (crap stuff, not geforce), beleive it or not, a cheap agp card would speed up your regular windows performance a treat.

[xzxzzx]

Hmm. 256? That should work fairly well. But what do I know? I'm running a gig of RAM.

[AegenemmnoN]

Originally posted by Nobby Nobbs
I have 256 and XP is INCREDIBLY slow on it. you NEED more ram. It will make an infinite amout of difference.

and if you have onboard graphics (crap stuff, not geforce), beleive it or not, a cheap agp card would speed up your regular windows performance a treat.

to true. i had a shitty card and little RAM. now ive upgraded. it has made an amazing difference.

[deeder7001]

I have disabled a few more services in XP and its helped to speed up the system. What services are actually needed for XP to run properly?

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by deeder7001
I have disabled a few more services in XP and its helped to speed up the system. What services are actually needed for XP to run properly?

See http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

[whiteflip]

im running 128mb of ram right now :P
does anyone have a list of unused services? or services that are safe to disable? what services do you guys remove/disable?

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by whiteflip
im running 128mb of ram right now :P
does anyone have a list of unused services? or services that are safe to disable? what services do you guys remove/disable?

http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

[sgtfuzzbubble011]

It's a bit of reading, but that's a great link. Thanks xz.

[Raas]

...actually black viper has made registry patches for XP so you don't have to go thru every service,just download,doubleclick and you're done.
Wish he had done it for Win2k too!

[msimplay]

i have windows xp on amd athlon xp 1.7 with 256 ram and i have absolutely no problems with it
my motherboard is a gigabyte GA-7VA

which was good for its time

[deeder7001]

i know this is an old thread but i want to update everybody on stuff a little bit. this is a page i made, http://deeder.info/system.html it has my system specs on the page. i now have XP Pro w/sp2(installed it yesterday) and it runs just fine. faster than i thought it would actually. boot time has been shortened to about 1 minute.

[whiteflip]

Is there a way to optimize Windows XP too boot up in like 8 seconds with the basic number of services and the like and no explorer. Can you boot XP without booting explorer?

[deeder7001]

why would you want to do that?

[Omega X]

Yes both you and sarge are right. AMD does have the better lower end chips. And Intel has better high end number crunching chips. But it still boils down to preference.

Though give me AMD anyday.

[deeder7001]

i found out yesterday that my grandma's AMD k6-2 only has 64k of L2 cache. my P2 has 512k of L2 cache. no wonder i'm able to run XP Pro so smoothly.

[PulseDriver]

The difference on AMD and Intel however is that AMDs models produce more heat, and need bigger/more fans. If the clock ratio would have been the same, the processors would have been pretty much the same.

When it comes to XP, I have discovered several disadvantages, and very few advantages compared to windows 98 se. Reason to this, is I like to be able to play my old games (dos/win98) type of games, and the ammount of RAM which XP needs, nerf much of the computers speed, as it have to use the Virtual Memory alot and therefore use a lot of discactivity.

I think I will run one computer with 98 and one computer with XP for now it's really slowing games that ran smoothly on 98.

[kingo'mountain]

you people are running around the bush\tree\pool (heh, little joys of life)

all OSes are good, if run on hardware thats MADE to work with them, running an old OS on a newer machine will:

1.) work, but not with full potential
2.) not work at all (incompatibility)

vice versa thus:

1.)work, but verrrrry sluggish (depends on your hardware's density and capabilities)

now, run along, old people

[deeder7001]

on my HP(400mhz celeron), 98se wasn't exactly the best choice for an OS because not all the drivers were available on the 98se CD. when i installed win2k pro, i didn't have to download any drivers for the hardware like i did with 98se. i still had to find a driver for the sound card/modem(combo card) but that doesn't count as it's not on the motherboard, which is more important than the combo card.

[Phyltre]

XP is great for home networks, it makes setting them up much easier.

XP also has better driver support, basically like deeder said (about win2kpro).

It may use more resources, but better things usually do--unless your definition of "better" IS using less resources.

[CRS]

meh, i like XP i have it on my own computer and i notice the diffrence from he windows ME family computer, i only have 256mb or ram, i should upgrade to 1GB but till then id just set high virtual memory since i have the hardrive space to do that.

[deeder7001]

since i installed XP, my computer is much faster than it was with win2k pro or 98se. my computer used to have a boot time(from when i first turned it on),into a usable windows, of about 2 minutes and 20 seconds. now the time to boot into a usable windows is about 1 minute.

[xzxzzx]

Because I'm too lazy to even read the last post on this thread, I'm going to answer (once again), the question that is the title of this thread:

Yes.

[Phyltre]

Yeah, despite using more resources they somehow manage to shorten load time. Not sure how, but I'm glad enough they think it's important...

[deeder7001]

xp doesn't use much more than win2k. about 30mb of RAM usage is about all the difference is. but then i have firefox open too which takes about 40mb of RAM.

[whiteflip]

Originally posted by deeder7001
why would you want to do that?

Custom Car Audio System