Windows 98 vs Windows Me

hankhoser · May 6th, 2001

i am the proud

owner of the glorious windows me os...

i decided to introduce this poll to kick off a debate on which os of the two is better and why as i am strongly considering downgrading.

Anyway, time to cast my vote!

May 6th, 2001

They both suck.

**LanGaidin** · May 6th, 2001

First of all, you have 3 OS's listed there, not 2. 98SE added quite a bit of bloat to 98. Also, CD is right... Once you try Win2k, there is definitely no going back!

hankhoser · May 6th, 2001

what are the main 'bloaty' differences between 98 and 98se - just curious, really.

hankhoser · May 6th, 2001

the reason i chose these os's is i am a frequent DOS mose user

and i preffered win98 version 1 when i could restart the system and boot into real mode (yes, i did have it once). then my motherboard died and along with a complete tower upgrade on my old pc i got window me preinstalled on my new hard drive...

**Betamax** · May 6th, 2001

Curiousity. What are you using in dos that you can't do from a prompt window running at running fullscreen :confused: ? BTW I agree with LanGaidin. Win 2k all the way!

bobotns · May 6th, 2001

Win Me sucks! I mean, there isn't enough drivers, the DOS mode is limited and it's heavier than Win 98.
=> I stay by Win 98 SE (also when Win XP comes!)

hankhoser · May 6th, 2001

WinMe has some kind of crappy 'dos emulation' for running dos real mode progs in windows but it doesnt work on all programs (games mostly)

i've heard they will do something similar for running them in xp.

May 6th, 2001

WinMe has NO form of DOS emulation, DOS is just 'hidden'
Now, Win2K and XP, those have DOS emulation.

There's a real-mode DOS patch for it...try http://www.the-ctrl-alt-del.com

hankhoser · May 6th, 2001

u r right about the dos patch CD, but it tends to create file config errors and problems (mainly with autoexec.bat and config.sys) and old legacy dos mode drivers - the cd-rom and sound card - were being loaded in windows instead of the 32-bit ones.

as a result of this, my cd-rom has a yellow errror over it in Device Manager and i've had to disable my onboard sound in favour of my yamaha ds-xg card.

after i applied the patch, it would not boot up into windows at the 'boot to dos or windows' menu - just a flahing cursor at the top-left corner of the screen...

maybe its because i have a non-american copy of ME?:confused:

Rargh · May 6th, 2001

Honestly....I prefer win98 than SE....

There are less protections......

cluthu · May 6th, 2001

>Once you try Win2k, there is definitely no going back!
I completely agree. The problem being that quite a few companies seem to be of the belief that since you're using a 'business class' OS you don't deserve to have drivers for their products. I've seen a great many products that could very easlily provide support for Win2k but don't (game controllers and printers, but they're not the only culprits).

With DirectX having a Win98 controller driver should mean you automatically have one for 2000. That's one of DirectX's goals, to create a framework where devices could be put in any sort of DirectX supporting machine and work correctly. Of course, I have an unused Gravis gamepad that won't let me reconfigure its buttons since the company that created it seems to feel they know more about my choice in OS than I do.

My theroy this this: companies just want to get away with sloppy programming and generally don't care about their customers. If they were at all concerned about them they'd submit their drivers to Microsoft for testing and become part of the WHQL. I'm not about to say that M$ is a good company, but I can't ever think of a time when a certified driver has given me any sort of problem. Hell, even drivers that are being *considered* for certification tend to work better.

It just seems to me that given that XP is based on NT technology alot of said companies are going to have some problems when their once happy customers call and demand that some new device they purchaced work with their previously "unsupported, business" OS (yes, I know that XP is supposed to have a compatablity layer, but I'm sure we all know that XP will probably only work best with 'native' (read: NT) drivers)

Hehe, sorry about my little rant, but after a morning of looking for Win2k support by default (that is, not added as an afterthought) I'm a bit upset with hardware vendors on the whole.

May 6th, 2001

I completely agree.

Companies who refuse to support NT/2000 right now are going to the be ****ed when XP hits, no matter how crappy of an OS it is.

Badaro · May 7th, 2001

Quote:

Originally posted by cluthu
>It just seems to me that given that XP is based on NT technology alot of said companies are going to have some problems when their once happy customers call and demand that some new device they purchaced work with their previously "unsupported, business" OS (yes, I know that XP is supposed to have a compatablity layer, but I'm sure we all know that XP will probably only work best with 'native' (read: NT) drivers)

The WinXP compatibility mode is only for applications, not drivers.

Poorly written drivers are one of the main reasons the Win9x series is so unstable.

[]s Badaro

SatanC · May 7th, 2001

I'm running on a Xp beta right now (beta 2) and its more stable than win Me/98se/98. It only crashed once (in three weeks) and its fully compatible with every program/hardware i tried. In its final version, it'll kick some major @$$ !!

hankhoser · May 7th, 2001

i've seen some pretty high minimum specs for running the beta2 of xp. will they be any lower in the final version or any different at all? i won't want to run a slow operating system, no matter how stable it is.

cluthu · May 7th, 2001

>Poorly written drivers are one of the main reasons the Win9x
>series is so unstable.
And poorly written drivers are the reason companies continue to write for Win9x while eschewing Win2k. Since they're not willing to make an effort at efficient code that fits MS' specs, they simply don't bother with it.

>i've seen some pretty high minimum specs for running the beta2
>of xp
Everything I've read has stated that the specs of an XP system are going to be quite high and it's actually Microsoft's plan not to offer alot of Win9x->XP upgrades, but to get people to buy all new computers to run it.

If you're not aware, there's also quite a bit of controversy regarding some privacy and "fair use" issues with XP. Namely, to register you have to provide MS with your key by phone before it becomes usable (there's a delay, I've heard, where it'll work. But after that time is up, it'll fail to boot) and they've limited their MP3 encoder to support only low bit rates, favoring instead to support WMA fully, seeing as how MS is quite willing to bend over for the RIAA (WMA supports digital use management, which is just another word for Big Brother-ware, so far as I'm concerned). Of interest to PSX emu writers is the fact that I've heard direct reads via the CD-Rom driver will no longer be supported, since direct reads are used by audio rippers to convert CDs into MP3s. Please note that the above is just what I've been told by some fairly reputable sources, but, as with anything you see on the Internet, please take it with a grain of salt.

SatanC · May 7th, 2001

i'm running xp on a P3 558, with 256 megs of ram. It fast enough. Haven't noticed any difference in speed if i compare with other os. Maybe a bit faster.
And for the privacy thing, it easy to get by, there are some cracks that can remove those things...

JeremyAnderson · May 7th, 2001

After windows I am thinking about going back to DOS...

**Ryos** · May 7th, 2001

>But after that time is up, it'll fail to boot) and they've limited their
>MP3 encoder to support only low bit rates, favoring instead to
>support WMA fully, seeing as how MS is quite willing to bend over
>for the RIAA (WMA supports digital use management, which is
>just another word for Big Brother-ware, so far as I'm concerned).

But they're really doing it because WMA is better than MP3 quality! Heh, you know, like Pintos are better than Mustangs.

View Poll Results: Which is the better OS?
Windows 98/98SE	11	68.75%
Windows Me	5	31.25%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

May 6th, 2001	#1 (permalink)
hankhoser The Wingman Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Southampton, UK Posts: 115	Windows 98 vs Windows Me i am the proud owner of the glorious windows me os... i decided to introduce this poll to kick off a debate on which os of the two is better and why as i am strongly considering downgrading. Anyway, time to cast my vote!

May 6th, 2001	#3 (permalink)
LanGaidin Emulation Freak Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Indiana (US) Posts: 198	First of all, you have 3 OS's listed there, not 2. 98SE added quite a bit of bloat to 98. Also, CD is right... Once you try Win2k, there is definitely no going back! __________________ al'Lan Mandragoran

May 6th, 2001	#6 (permalink)
Betamax Resident Movie Critic Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland Posts: 9,480	Curiousity. What are you using in dos that you can't do from a prompt window running at running fullscreen :confused: ? BTW I agree with LanGaidin. Win 2k all the way! __________________ Superior marketing of an inferior product will always win over inferior marketing of a superior product.

May 6th, 2001	#12 (permalink)
cluthu Registered User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 513	>Once you try Win2k, there is definitely no going back! I completely agree. The problem being that quite a few companies seem to be of the belief that since you're using a 'business class' OS you don't deserve to have drivers for their products. I've seen a great many products that could very easlily provide support for Win2k but don't (game controllers and printers, but they're not the only culprits). With DirectX having a Win98 controller driver should mean you automatically have one for 2000. That's one of DirectX's goals, to create a framework where devices could be put in any sort of DirectX supporting machine and work correctly. Of course, I have an unused Gravis gamepad that won't let me reconfigure its buttons since the company that created it seems to feel they know more about my choice in OS than I do. My theroy this this: companies just want to get away with sloppy programming and generally don't care about their customers. If they were at all concerned about them they'd submit their drivers to Microsoft for testing and become part of the WHQL. I'm not about to say that M$ is a good company, but I can't ever think of a time when a certified driver has given me any sort of problem. Hell, even drivers that are being considered for certification tend to work better. It just seems to me that given that XP is based on NT technology alot of said companies are going to have some problems when their once happy customers call and demand that some new device they purchaced work with their previously "unsupported, business" OS (yes, I know that XP is supposed to have a compatablity layer, but I'm sure we all know that XP will probably only work best with 'native' (read: NT) drivers) Hehe, sorry about my little rant, but after a morning of looking for Win2k support by default (that is, not added as an afterthought) I'm a bit upset with hardware vendors on the whole. __________________ "...everything else is just theory."

May 6th, 2001	#2 (permalink)
CDBuRnOuT Guest Posts: n/a	They both suck.

May 6th, 2001	#4 (permalink)
hankhoser The Wingman Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Southampton, UK Posts: 115	what are the main 'bloaty' differences between 98 and 98se - just curious, really.

May 6th, 2001	#5 (permalink)
hankhoser The Wingman Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Southampton, UK Posts: 115	the reason i chose these os's is i am a frequent DOS mose user and i preffered win98 version 1 when i could restart the system and boot into real mode (yes, i did have it once). then my motherboard died and along with a complete tower upgrade on my old pc i got window me preinstalled on my new hard drive...

May 6th, 2001	#7 (permalink)
bobotns Registered User Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Europe Posts: 181	Win Me sucks! I mean, there isn't enough drivers, the DOS mode is limited and it's heavier than Win 98. => I stay by Win 98 SE (also when Win XP comes!)

May 6th, 2001	#8 (permalink)
hankhoser The Wingman Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Southampton, UK Posts: 115	WinMe has some kind of crappy 'dos emulation' for running dos real mode progs in windows but it doesnt work on all programs (games mostly) i've heard they will do something similar for running them in xp.

May 6th, 2001	#9 (permalink)
CDBuRnOuT Guest Posts: n/a	WinMe has NO form of DOS emulation, DOS is just 'hidden' Now, Win2K and XP, those have DOS emulation. There's a real-mode DOS patch for it...try http://www.the-ctrl-alt-del.com

May 6th, 2001	#10 (permalink)
hankhoser The Wingman Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Southampton, UK Posts: 115	u r right about the dos patch CD, but it tends to create file config errors and problems (mainly with autoexec.bat and config.sys) and old legacy dos mode drivers - the cd-rom and sound card - were being loaded in windows instead of the 32-bit ones. as a result of this, my cd-rom has a yellow errror over it in Device Manager and i've had to disable my onboard sound in favour of my yamaha ds-xg card. after i applied the patch, it would not boot up into windows at the 'boot to dos or windows' menu - just a flahing cursor at the top-left corner of the screen... maybe its because i have a non-american copy of ME?:confused:

May 6th, 2001	#11 (permalink)
Rargh Registered User Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: France Posts: 1,238	Honestly....I prefer win98 than SE.... There are less protections......

May 6th, 2001	#13 (permalink)
CDBuRnOuT Guest Posts: n/a	I completely agree. Companies who refuse to support NT/2000 right now are going to the be ****ed when XP hits, no matter how crappy of an OS it is.

May 7th, 2001	#15 (permalink)
SatanC Registered User Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 13	I'm running on a Xp beta right now (beta 2) and its more stable than win Me/98se/98. It only crashed once (in three weeks) and its fully compatible with every program/hardware i tried. In its final version, it'll kick some major @$$ !!

May 7th, 2001	#16 (permalink)
hankhoser The Wingman Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Southampton, UK Posts: 115	i've seen some pretty high minimum specs for running the beta2 of xp. will they be any lower in the final version or any different at all? i won't want to run a slow operating system, no matter how stable it is.

May 7th, 2001	#17 (permalink)
cluthu Registered User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 513	>Poorly written drivers are one of the main reasons the Win9x >series is so unstable. And poorly written drivers are the reason companies continue to write for Win9x while eschewing Win2k. Since they're not willing to make an effort at efficient code that fits MS' specs, they simply don't bother with it. >i've seen some pretty high minimum specs for running the beta2 >of xp Everything I've read has stated that the specs of an XP system are going to be quite high and it's actually Microsoft's plan not to offer alot of Win9x->XP upgrades, but to get people to buy all new computers to run it. If you're not aware, there's also quite a bit of controversy regarding some privacy and "fair use" issues with XP. Namely, to register you have to provide MS with your key by phone before it becomes usable (there's a delay, I've heard, where it'll work. But after that time is up, it'll fail to boot) and they've limited their MP3 encoder to support only low bit rates, favoring instead to support WMA fully, seeing as how MS is quite willing to bend over for the RIAA (WMA supports digital use management, which is just another word for Big Brother-ware, so far as I'm concerned). Of interest to PSX emu writers is the fact that I've heard direct reads via the CD-Rom driver will no longer be supported, since direct reads are used by audio rippers to convert CDs into MP3s. Please note that the above is just what I've been told by some fairly reputable sources, but, as with anything you see on the Internet, please take it with a grain of salt. __________________ "...everything else is just theory."

May 7th, 2001	#18 (permalink)
SatanC Registered User Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 13	i'm running xp on a P3 558, with 256 megs of ram. It fast enough. Haven't noticed any difference in speed if i compare with other os. Maybe a bit faster. And for the privacy thing, it easy to get by, there are some cracks that can remove those things...

May 7th, 2001	#19 (permalink)
JeremyAnderson Registered User Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Terra Posts: 55	After windows I am thinking about going back to DOS... __________________ I want net-play kupo!

May 7th, 2001	#20 (permalink)
Ryos Revenger of Vengeance Join Date: May 2001 Location: Nowhere Posts: 11,250	>But after that time is up, it'll fail to boot) and they've limited their >MP3 encoder to support only low bit rates, favoring instead to >support WMA fully, seeing as how MS is quite willing to bend over >for the RIAA (WMA supports digital use management, which is >just another word for Big Brother-ware, so far as I'm concerned). But they're really doing it because WMA is better than MP3 quality! Heh, you know, like Pintos are better than Mustangs.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode