rec.autos.simulators

by **Jenera** » Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:30:10

You are right on most accounts. However, there are few advantages to Win98
per se:

- Win98 is compiled to take advantage of PII's and faster while OSR2 is
optimized for Pentiums.

- Win98 has better memory management; fewer programs "forget" to release RAM
when closing.

- Win98 has true USB support. OSR 2.1 had basic USB support but many
manufacturers refuse to write drivers for 95b.

If you're interested, I can tell you how to optimize a Win98SE machine to
run as fast if not faster than OSR2. Here are a few tips:

- Enable DMA on Hard Disk (Even stupid Win98SE doesn't do this by
default!!!)
- Create a permanent fixed-size swapfile of an amount similar to the RAM or
a little smaller (I have 256MB and my swapfile is 192MB)
- Enable the "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" option in the SYSTEM.INI. It
forces Win98 to use your system RAM BEFORE it uses the swapfile. Makes sense
but Win98 defaults to using your swapfile BEFORE system RAM.
- Use MSCONFIG to disable "TASKMON" and any other little programs you don't
need.

I use Win98 only because Windows 2000 doesn't support some devices I have
otherwise I wouldn't even bother with the Win9x series. However, with a
little tuning, Win98SE can be a pretty nice OS.

Michael M

by **The Enigmatic O** » Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:52:10

Actually, 95 doesn't handle some of the faster processor speeds that
well. Though for me with my 233mmx, 95 is more than enough.

-Tim

by **Jim** » Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:14:12

Hello I just purchased a Dell 8100 P4 with a 1.5 processor with 128mgs of
Ram. It runs on windows millenium and seems very slow booting up. I would
interested in tweaking this system to gain maxium results. Thanks

> You are right on most accounts. However, there are few advantages to Win98
> per se:

> - Win98 is compiled to take advantage of PII's and faster while OSR2 is
> optimized for Pentiums.

> - Win98 has better memory management; fewer programs "forget" to release
RAM
> when closing.

> - Win98 has true USB support. OSR 2.1 had basic USB support but many
> manufacturers refuse to write drivers for 95b.

> If you're interested, I can tell you how to optimize a Win98SE machine to
> run as fast if not faster than OSR2. Here are a few tips:

> - Enable DMA on Hard Disk (Even stupid Win98SE doesn't do this by
> default!!!)
> - Create a permanent fixed-size swapfile of an amount similar to the RAM
or
> a little smaller (I have 256MB and my swapfile is 192MB)
> - Enable the "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" option in the SYSTEM.INI. It
> forces Win98 to use your system RAM BEFORE it uses the swapfile. Makes
sense
> but Win98 defaults to using your swapfile BEFORE system RAM.
> - Use MSCONFIG to disable "TASKMON" and any other little programs you
don't
> need.

> I use Win98 only because Windows 2000 doesn't support some devices I have
> otherwise I wouldn't even bother with the Win9x series. However, with a
> little tuning, Win98SE can be a pretty nice OS.

> Michael M

> > Personally, I'm not upgrading from Win95b until I have to (in other
> > words, until a game requires a newer version.) I know how to make
> > Win95b lean and mean, and I haven't found anything in Win98 or WinME
> > that would make me want to upgrade. If I did install 98 or ME, I would
> > just have to turn all the extra stuff off, and I'd be pretty much back
> > where I started with 95b.

> > -Dan Bateman

by **Dan Batem** » Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:30:23

Hmm, I'm running a 1.1 GHz now. Maybe I should consider upgrading
after all. I've filed your post for future reference. :)

-Dan Bateman

>You are right on most accounts. However, there are few advantages to
>Win98 per se:

>- Win98 is compiled to take advantage of PII's and faster while OSR2
>is optimized for Pentiums.

>- Win98 has better memory management; fewer programs "forget" to
>release RAM when closing.

>- Win98 has true USB support. OSR 2.1 had basic USB support but many
>manufacturers refuse to write drivers for 95b.

>If you're interested, I can tell you how to optimize a Win98SE
>machine to run as fast if not faster than OSR2. Here are a few tips:

>- Enable DMA on Hard Disk (Even stupid Win98SE doesn't do this by
>default!!!)
>- Create a permanent fixed-size swapfile of an amount similar to the
>RAM or a little smaller (I have 256MB and my swapfile is 192MB)
>- Enable the "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" option in the SYSTEM.INI.
>It forces Win98 to use your system RAM BEFORE it uses the swapfile.
>Makes sense but Win98 defaults to using your swapfile BEFORE system
>RAM. - Use MSCONFIG to disable "TASKMON" and any other little
>programs you don't need.

>I use Win98 only because Windows 2000 doesn't support some devices I
>have otherwise I wouldn't even bother with the Win9x series.
>However, with a little tuning, Win98SE can be a pretty nice OS.

by SB » Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:45:26

I have upgraded to ME but when I get time I'm doing a full reformat and
going back to 98. ME seems to be slower even though I have a PII with 128mb
ram and it is, IMO, less reliable. I never had shut down problems or lock
ups until I installed ME. Maybe it will be better once Microsoft releases a
update to it, but until then I will be back with 98.

by **Some Call Me Ti** » Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:09:14

Use Norton Ghost and ghost your working version of 98 and then wipe it off
and put on win2k.
If you don't like it you can go put 98 back exactly as it was in about 10
minutes.

--
Some Call Me Tim

by **Ray** » Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:53:46

Where in the .ini do you put this sentence?

by **Jenera** » Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:16:01

You create that line anywhere under the [386Enh] section of the SYSTEM.INI
file.

Michael M

rec.autos.simulators

Windows M.E. Testomonials...

Windows M.E. Testomonials...

Windows M.E. Testomonials...

Windows M.E. Testomonials...

Windows M.E. Testomonials...

Windows M.E. Testomonials...

Windows M.E. Testomonials...

Windows M.E. Testomonials...

Windows M.E. Testomonials...