Out of these which is better and why?
Win98 Win98SE WinME final Also what exactly makes Win98SE better than Win98? Celeron 300a@464 on a Abit BH6 Rev 1. 01, 192 Pc100, Matrox G400 32 SH, SBlive Value, Supra Express 56i ISA, all running on Win2k pro with other odds and ends.
Win98
Win98SE
WinME final
Also what exactly makes Win98SE better than Win98?
------------------
Celeron 300a@464 on a Abit BH6 Rev 1.01, 192 Pc100, Matrox G400 32 SH,
SBlive Value, Supra Express 56i ISA, all running on Win2k pro with other
odds and ends
Win98SE
WinME final
Also what exactly makes Win98SE better than Win98?
------------------
Celeron 300a@464 on a Abit BH6 Rev 1.01, 192 Pc100, Matrox G400 32 SH,
SBlive Value, Supra Express 56i ISA, all running on Win2k pro with other
odds and ends
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Win98SE for me.
Win98 wasn't stable enough (but I don't know if stable is the appropriate word)...
WinME is the worse....Win95 was better I think, blue screens comin and going like madness!
With Win98SE I had a stable machine, and tonight I'm going to reinstall...
Win2k is far better, but I have only 64 Mb and a 233 MMX.....
Win98 wasn't stable enough (but I don't know if stable is the appropriate word)...
WinME is the worse....Win95 was better I think, blue screens comin and going like madness!
With Win98SE I had a stable machine, and tonight I'm going to reinstall...
Win2k is far better, but I have only 64 Mb and a 233 MMX.....
I dissagree I think if you are going to subject yourself to any flavot of win9.x it might as well be Me. Why simply because it is the most feature rich and most stable version yet.
------------------
My System
Dell Demension XPS T500
Triple Boot Windows 2000 Pro 2195 (allways reliable) / Windows Whistler Pro 2250 (cool but buggy) / Windows Millennium Final (waste of disk space)
PIII @ 500 Mhz (with after market heatsink and dual fan)
128 Megs Ram
TNT2 Ultra Graphics Card (with the core and memory overclocked by 20 Mhz and dual voodoo coolers)
Matrox Millennium PCI (for second monitor)
3Com 10/100 Ethernet Card
3Com 56k Modem
12.6 Gig IBM HD
40X CD Rom Drive
100 Mb Zip Drive
[This message has been edited by Four and Twenty (edited 14 September 2000).]
------------------
My System
Dell Demension XPS T500
Triple Boot Windows 2000 Pro 2195 (allways reliable) / Windows Whistler Pro 2250 (cool but buggy) / Windows Millennium Final (waste of disk space)
PIII @ 500 Mhz (with after market heatsink and dual fan)
128 Megs Ram
TNT2 Ultra Graphics Card (with the core and memory overclocked by 20 Mhz and dual voodoo coolers)
Matrox Millennium PCI (for second monitor)
3Com 10/100 Ethernet Card
3Com 56k Modem
12.6 Gig IBM HD
40X CD Rom Drive
100 Mb Zip Drive
[This message has been edited by Four and Twenty (edited 14 September 2000).]
Is this forum devoted to NT/W2K and their children or not?
Is this the right place to discuss the respective merits of those sh**ty W9x oses?
Admins, with more and more topics like that everyday, this forum is in danger of losing its focus and value. It would be bad.
Is this the right place to discuss the respective merits of those sh**ty W9x oses?
Admins, with more and more topics like that everyday, this forum is in danger of losing its focus and value. It would be bad.
Well isn't it obvious?
Lets ask the question in the following way:
Which is better of these OS's.
WinNT 4 Service Pack 1
WinNT 4 Service Pack 3
WinNT 4 Service Pack 6a?
I would have to say that WinNT 4 Service Pack 6a is the one to go for.
It's the latest revision of the original OS, it contains the largest amount of bug fixes and it is the last of the WinNT 4 releases.
Same applies to the original question.
WinME is the latest revision of the original OS and will be the last of the Win95 releases.
Oh, and I fully agree with the last post.
This is supposed to be NT Compatible not 'small boys Windows Compatible'
------------------
PIII 700E, Intel D815EEA, 512MB PC100 RAM (Hyundai), Matrox G400MAX, SB Live! Value, Intel 10/100 NIC, Adaptec 2940UW, IBM 7200 ATA100 30GB HD, IBM 7200 ATA66 20GB HD, Pioneer 32x/6x SCSI DVD, Yamaha 4416 SCSI CD-RW, Iomega Zip 100 SCSI Internal, Iiyama Vision Master Pro 410.
Windows 2000 Only
Lets ask the question in the following way:
Which is better of these OS's.
WinNT 4 Service Pack 1
WinNT 4 Service Pack 3
WinNT 4 Service Pack 6a?
I would have to say that WinNT 4 Service Pack 6a is the one to go for.
It's the latest revision of the original OS, it contains the largest amount of bug fixes and it is the last of the WinNT 4 releases.
Same applies to the original question.
WinME is the latest revision of the original OS and will be the last of the Win95 releases.
Oh, and I fully agree with the last post.
This is supposed to be NT Compatible not 'small boys Windows Compatible'
------------------
PIII 700E, Intel D815EEA, 512MB PC100 RAM (Hyundai), Matrox G400MAX, SB Live! Value, Intel 10/100 NIC, Adaptec 2940UW, IBM 7200 ATA100 30GB HD, IBM 7200 ATA66 20GB HD, Pioneer 32x/6x SCSI DVD, Yamaha 4416 SCSI CD-RW, Iomega Zip 100 SCSI Internal, Iiyama Vision Master Pro 410.
Windows 2000 Only
Ok, started running Win98, it ran good..few crashes....Started running Win98se, had even more crashes! but i did like ICS, now if I run a 9x OS, i go with WinME (3000.2), becuase i've only had it crash once and i love the system restore, if i were you, i would just hold off until the release of Whistler Personal.(BTW all installs of Windows are clean installs)
Well I would love to put Win2k on my laptop (i have it on my desktop) but my laptop only has a 1.93 gig HD and that is way to small for Win2k. Anyone have any extra Laptop HDs? LOL
------------------
Celeron 300a@464 on a Abit BH6 Rev 1.01, 192 Pc100, Matrox G400 32 SH,
SBlive Value, Supra Express 56i ISA, all running on Win2k pro with other
odds and ends
------------------
Celeron 300a@464 on a Abit BH6 Rev 1.01, 192 Pc100, Matrox G400 32 SH,
SBlive Value, Supra Express 56i ISA, all running on Win2k pro with other
odds and ends
Quote:Originally posted by pr-man:
Well I would love to put Win2k on my laptop (i have it on my desktop) but my laptop only has a 1.93 gig HD and that is way to small for Win2k. Anyone have any extra Laptop HDs? LOL
Well, if you don't need USB or DVD movie support, and won't be using it for software that just won't run on NT, you might want to consider NT 4 SP6a. It can be installed in a relatively small footprint, and I'd much rather use it that any of the DOS-based environments. You wouldn't have much in the way of Power Management goodies for portable computing, but that stuff hangs most of the Win9X portables I've seen anyway.
Only thing is, on that small a hard drive, you'd probably want to do the FAT format since you're not going to be able to set up an alternate partition for accessing your primary should something happen to an NTFS partition.
Regards,
Jim
Well I would love to put Win2k on my laptop (i have it on my desktop) but my laptop only has a 1.93 gig HD and that is way to small for Win2k. Anyone have any extra Laptop HDs? LOL
Well, if you don't need USB or DVD movie support, and won't be using it for software that just won't run on NT, you might want to consider NT 4 SP6a. It can be installed in a relatively small footprint, and I'd much rather use it that any of the DOS-based environments. You wouldn't have much in the way of Power Management goodies for portable computing, but that stuff hangs most of the Win9X portables I've seen anyway.
Only thing is, on that small a hard drive, you'd probably want to do the FAT format since you're not going to be able to set up an alternate partition for accessing your primary should something happen to an NTFS partition.
Regards,
Jim
