Win98SE?

I see Sharky's (among others) is still recommending Windoes98 Second Edition for gaming PCs. Any comments re: this OS and various racing sims? BB

I know most people will disagree with me but WinME has been alot more stable for me than Win98SE. Also when I was using Dial-Up my connection quality was alot better as well. I do think a OS is like any other software title in the fact that as the version goes up so does the hardware requirements. I was running it on a 950 Athlon Classic with 512 meg and GF2 card and my BSOD were cut by well over 75%. You see a lot of people say to turn of system restore, but I never have and didn't have any problems with it. Again I think alot of that is coming from running on a lesser system. My girlfriend runs ME as well on a 750 Athlon classic with a TNT2 Ultra and 256 meg of ram. I can't remember when she has had a BSOD with it. Granted she doesn't do any hardcore gaming with it, but it did seem to run Black and White just fine. MadDAWG

Bart, I still use Win98SE for all gaming, but I've been 'testing' and I can get the same, sometimes better, performance out of Win2K in gaming with optimized drivers. If I were starting over, I'd probably go Win2K because of stability. Just my experience, but I wouldn't allow WinME in my house or near my PC. Scott PA-Scott "Bart Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I see Sharky's (among others) is still recommending Windoes98 Second > Edition for gaming PCs. Any comments re: this OS and various racing sims? > > BB

I here that, Scott. I tried ME, and it just seemed to me like Win98SE with an updated Media Player and IE5, with the added 'bonus' of programs running in the background which needed turning off! I'd consider W2K though on a new machine; but how about XP? "Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HhpR7.8572$[email hidden]... > Bart, > > I still use Win98SE for all gaming, but I've been 'testing' and I can get > the same, sometimes better, performance out of Win2K in gaming with > optimized drivers. If I were starting over, I'd probably go Win2Kbecause > of stability. Just my experience, but I wouldn't allow WinME in my houseor

Quoted text (10 lines)

> near my PC. > > Scott > PA-Scott > > > "Bart Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I see Sharky's (among others) is still recommending Windoes98 Second > > Edition for gaming PCs. Any comments re: this OS and various racing

sims? > > > > BB > >

Still running Win98se here and so far so good basically. Never had any problems with it. I've run every racing game you'd care to mention on this system, but for F1 2001 (my V3 is not supported) and Rally Championship Extreme (texturing and control issues with the demo). Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. "Bart Brown" wrote... > I see Sharky's (among others) is still recommending Windoes98 > Second Edition for gaming PCs. Any comments re: this OS and > various racing sims?

I can't speak for XP.. haven't tried it. When I "obtain" a copy of the Enterprise Edition, I'll give it a shot ;) Scott PA-Scott "Jonesy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:CYrR7.48052$[email hidden]... > I here that, Scott. I tried ME, and it just seemed to me like Win98SEwith > an updated Media Player and IE5, with the added 'bonus' of programsrunning

Quoted text (9 lines)

> in the background which needed turning off! > > I'd consider W2K though on a new machine; but how about XP? > > "Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:HhpR7.8572$[email hidden]... > > Bart, > > > > I still use Win98SE for all gaming, but I've been 'testing' and I can

get > > the same, sometimes better, performance out of Win2K in gaming with > > optimized drivers. If I were starting over, I'd probably go Win2K > because > > of stability. Just my experience, but I wouldn't allow WinME in myhouse

Quoted text (18 lines)

> or > > near my PC. > > > > Scott > > PA-Scott > > > > > > "Bart Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > I see Sharky's (among others) is still recommending Windoes98 Second > > > Edition for gaming PCs. Any comments re: this OS and various racing > sims? > > > > > > BB > > > > > >

Im running win me and i dont seem to have any probs with it i have original copies of win98 and win98se but i prefer to use winme, i do have all the updates though (cable comes in handy) i like the fact that winme reconises all my stuff on installation and recognises the 5 buttons on my mouse without installing drivers :) "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Still running Win98se here and so far so good basically. Never had any > problems with it. I've run every racing game you'd care to mention on this > system, but for F1 2001 (my V3 is not supported) and Rally Championship > Extreme (texturing and control issues with the demo). > > Jan. > =--- > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > "Bart Brown" wrote... > > I see Sharky's (among others) is still recommending Windoes98 > > Second Edition for gaming PCs. Any comments re: this OS and > > various racing sims? > >

My guess is because they figure most people will have a copy laying around somewhere by now; personally, I'd go XP on any box worth gaming on, and a lot lesser ones too. Milhouse "Bart Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I see Sharky's (among others) is still recommending Windoes98 Second > Edition for gaming PCs. Any comments re: this OS and various racing sims? > > BB

No, they actually advise *buying* Win98SE, and using that in place of any other version of Winblows, including XP. Considering Sharky's reputation, I assume it's not an idle fancy... BB Milhouse wrote: > > My guess is because they figure most people will have a copy laying around > somewhere by now...

Well, huh. Odd. Personally, I'll put XP on anything with at least 233MHz and 64MB of RAM...I like it that much, and it even runs pretty darn well on my brother's Thinkpad 380XD, Pentium 233MMX (that's right! -below- the minimum Pentiun II 233) and 96MB RAM... Milhouse "Bart Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> No, they actually advise *buying* Win98SE, and using that in place of > any other version of Winblows, including XP. Considering Sharky's > reputation, I assume it's not an idle fancy... > > BB > > Milhouse wrote: > > > > My guess is because they figure most people will have a copy laying

around > > somewhere by now...

Well, I'm a firm believer in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". My system is still running everything I want it to run, using Win98SE. If that's the case with your situation, as well, I'd say Stick with the Tried and True, and don't upgrade. I've got a lot of different stuff hanging off my rig, and all of it's working right now. Of course, if you're setting up a brand new PC from scratch, that's a different situation, to which I can't comment, as I have not tried ME or XP. . Bart Brown wrote: > I see Sharky's (among others) is still recommending Windoes98 Second > Edition for gaming PCs. Any comments re: this OS and various racing sims? > > BB -- Bert

From all that I have read, I would either stick with win98 se or completely updated win98, or make the jump to XP. For adventurous types , XP is a no brainer. For those that just want to run all their current games without any question/hassle, stick with win98 for a few more months. Just of course, mho. Don Burnette "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I know most people will disagree with me but WinME has been alot morestable > for me than Win98SE. Also when I was using Dial-Up my connection qualitywas > alot better as well. I do think a OS is like any other software title inthe > fact that as the version goes up so does the hardware requirements. I was > running it on a 950 Athlon Classic with 512 meg and GF2 card and my BSOD > were cut by well over 75%. You see a lot of people say to turn of system > restore, but I never have and didn't have any problems with it. Again I > think alot of that is coming from running on a lesser system. Mygirlfriend > runs ME as well on a 750 Athlon classic with a TNT2 Ultra and 256 meg of > ram. I can't remember when she has had a BSOD with it. Granted she doesn't > do any hardcore gaming with it, but it did seem to run Black and Whitejust > fine. > > MadDAWG > >

In article <ggyR7.52835$[email hidden]>, "Milhouse" <[email hidden]> writes: >Well, huh. Odd. Personally, I'll put XP on anything with at least 233MHz >and 64MB of RAM...I like it that much, and it even runs pretty darn well on >my brother's Thinkpad 380XD, Pentium 233MMX (that's right! -below- the >minimum Pentiun II 233) and 96MB RAM... How? Does XP run that much more efficiently than 98se? I tried to load 98 on my dad's 300(400?) mhz system with 96 MB ram. It ran DOG slow, and I ended up re-doing it with win95... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank - under construction... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"Bart Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > No, they actually advise *buying* Win98SE, and using that in place of > any other version of Winblows, including XP. Considering Sharky's > reputation, I assume it's not an idle fancy... And what is Sharky's basing that on? A few game benchamrks? Hardly what I would call conclusive.

To anyone buying a new machine WinME is currently the fastest, stablest, most compatible choice. (Though, admittedly, I unistalled PCHealth before I was totally convinced that it was better than 98SE) WinME is worth it purely for the 10-12sec bootup time. I'm getting extremely tired of journalists saying that WinXP boots faster than WinME - puh-leeeze!!! Also, the more software you install on WinXP, the longer it takes to shutdown - 30-40 seconds seems to be common...as opposed to 3-4 seconds for WinME. Oh, and that reminds me, Win98 is notorious for not shutting down properly...

> Well, huh. Odd. Personally, I'll put XP on anything with at least 233MHz > and 64MB of RAM...I like it that much, and it even runs pretty darn wellon > my brother's Thinkpad 380XD, Pentium 233MMX (that's right! -below- the > minimum Pentiun II 233) and 96MB RAM... I saw WinXP running on an Athlon 900 with 128MB. Counter-strike and Unreal Tournament were virtually unplayable due to hard-drive thrashing. A 233MHz Thinkpad can't run anything modern anyway - so I guess XP wouldn't hurt it too much..

I'm with you Maddawg, ME has been great for me. Heaps better than 98se. 2000 was good, very nice, but my wheel and pedals aren't supported, so I gave it the flick. Rafe Mc On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:35:00 -0500, "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>I know most people will disagree with me but WinME has been alot more stable >for me than Win98SE. Also when I was using Dial-Up my connection quality was >alot better as well. I do think a OS is like any other software title in the >fact that as the version goes up so does the hardware requirements. I was >running it on a 950 Athlon Classic with 512 meg and GF2 card and my BSOD >were cut by well over 75%. You see a lot of people say to turn of system >restore, but I never have and didn't have any problems with it. Again I >think alot of that is coming from running on a lesser system. My girlfriend >runs ME as well on a 750 Athlon classic with a TNT2 Ultra and 256 meg of >ram. I can't remember when she has had a BSOD with it. Granted she doesn't >do any hardcore gaming with it, but it did seem to run Black and White just >fine. > >MadDAWG >

Quite true, I'm the same. I keep using Windows till it dies (and you know it will) then consider the upgrade option. But not if it's running fine. Rafe Mc On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 09:45:14 -0000, "Richard S Beckett" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

>x-no-archive: yes > >I'm still on w98 FIRST edition. I've got SE, but I'm not installing it until FE crashes, and it's running so nicely ATM... I'm a firm believer in "If it aint broke...". > >Running F1 2001 like a dream :-) > >R. > >"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... >> Still running Win98se here and so far so good basically. Never had any >> problems with it. I've run every racing game you'd care to mention on this >> system, but for F1 2001 (my V3 is not supported) and Rally Championship >> Extreme (texturing and control issues with the demo). >> >> Jan. >> =--- >> "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. >> >> "Bart Brown" wrote... >> > I see Sharky's (among others) is still recommending Windoes98 >> > Second Edition for gaming PCs. Any comments re: this OS and >> > various racing sims? >> >>

Jan I thought one of the F1 2001 sites, the Italian one maybe? had figured out a work-around for V3 cards and 2001. Anyone with more info on this?? dave henrie "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Still running Win98se here and so far so good basically. Never had any > problems with it. I've run every racing game you'd care to mention on this > system, but for F1 2001 (my V3 is not supported) and Rally Championship > Extreme (texturing and control issues with the demo). > > Jan. > =--- > "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > > "Bart Brown" wrote... > > I see Sharky's (among others) is still recommending Windoes98 > > Second Edition for gaming PCs. Any comments re: this OS and > > various racing sims? > >

True that it can't, and 98 was going nuts with all sorts of weird problems...reinstalling 98 would've probably helped, but I at least wanted to see how XP would run. Milhouse "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9v7i1i$ddndd$[email hidden]... > > Well, huh. Odd. Personally, I'll put XP on anything with at least233MHz > > and 64MB of RAM...I like it that much, and it even runs pretty darn well > on > > my brother's Thinkpad 380XD, Pentium 233MMX (that's right! -below- the > > minimum Pentiun II 233) and 96MB RAM... > > I saw WinXP running on an Athlon 900 with 128MB. Counter-strike andUnreal > Tournament were virtually unplayable due to hard-drive thrashing. A233MHz > Thinkpad can't run anything modern anyway - so I guess XP wouldn't hurt it > too much.. > >

In all honestly, I've found that it does. If anything, I'd gladly take the reduced performance - which I haven't noticed at all, even on my mom's Pentium II 350, and on my box while it was a Celeron 300a at 300 for a while...though I think RAM makes the most difference, both the 350 and my 300a while it was at 300 had 320MB of RAM. Mine's now got 512MB of RAM and a Celeron 900, heh... The Thinkpad is really the only system where there's any truly noticeable delays in anything when you try to multitask; not bad for a box below minimum specs. What also helps some is turning down/off the visual niceties on slower systems; might I ask, what video card was in the 300/400/whatever box? The only ones I've heard of XP running like crap on have really really piss-poor video cards. (The Thinkpad gets away with it because it has 95% of the eye candy turned off. Really doesn't look much different.) Milhouse "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <ggyR7.52835$[email hidden]>, "Milhouse" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >Well, huh. Odd. Personally, I'll put XP on anything with at least233MHz > >and 64MB of RAM...I like it that much, and it even runs pretty darn wellon > >my brother's Thinkpad 380XD, Pentium 233MMX (that's right! -below- the > >minimum Pentiun II 233) and 96MB RAM... > > How? Does XP run that much more efficiently than 98se? I tried to load98 on > my dad's 300(400?) mhz system with 96 MB ram. It ran DOG slow, and Iended up

Quoted text (9 lines)

> re-doing it with win95... > > Eldred > -- > Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPLRank - under construction... > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats

you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Same here Win2000 was nice but it seemed every piece of software had some quirk with it. MadDAWG

In article <e1KR7.53631$[email hidden]>, "Milhouse" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>In all honestly, I've found that it does. If anything, I'd gladly take the >reduced performance - which I haven't noticed at all, even on my mom's >Pentium II 350, and on my box while it was a Celeron 300a at 300 for a >while...though I think RAM makes the most difference, both the 350 and my >300a while it was at 300 had 320MB of RAM. Mine's now got 512MB of RAM and >a Celeron 900, heh... > >The Thinkpad is really the only system where there's any truly noticeable >delays in anything when you try to multitask; not bad for a box below >minimum specs. > >What also helps some is turning down/off the visual niceties on slower >systems; might I ask, what video card was in the 300/400/whatever box? The >only ones I've heard of XP running like crap on have really really piss-poor >video cards. (The Thinkpad gets away with it because it has 95% of the eye >candy turned off. Really doesn't look much different.) >

Hehe... I wasn't even TALKING about running games on it. I just mean the desktop and the few programs he uses(word, excel, a bowling secretary program, and a couple others). It was absolutely HORRIBLE. I can't remember the video card. It's a Presario something...don't remember the model number. Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank - under construction... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Don Burnette wrote: > > From all that I have read, I would either stick with win98 se or completely > updated win98, or make the jump to XP. For adventurous types , XP is a no > brainer. For those that just want to run all their current games without any > question/hassle, stick with win98 for a few more months. > Just of course, mho. Couldn't have said it better myself Don :-) I made the switch a couple weeks back after I discovered XP drivers for my V5 card, I'm very happy so far, Return to Castle Wolfenstein runs like a dream, and that's the only game I play these days Just be aware of driver issues and incompatibility with *some* older games, but being able to run programs in "compatibility mode", both Win 95 and Win98, should make most games run though, and FWIW, my 3DMark2001 score is actually about 100 points higher in XP than it was in 98SE, but I did run with the last release drivers from 3Dfx in 98SE, so I'm not saying that XP is actually faster, only that it can't be too much of a resource hog either I certainly wouldn't *buy* 98SE now though, that seems like a waste of money to me As for ME, I wouldn't buy that either, too many problems with it, some people have no problems with it, others have tons of problems which goes away when installing 98SE, 2000 or XP, so there are issues with ME that hits certain hardware combinations it seems, and it seems more people have problems with ME than with any other MS OS Would I *buy* XP if I had a working 98SE on my PC, nope, but if I was buying a new PC and had to pay for the OS no matter what, then I'd at least consider XP as a viable option Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <e1KR7.53631$[email hidden]>, "Milhouse" > <[email hidden]> writes: > >What also helps some is turning down/off the visual niceties on slower > >systems; might I ask, what video card was in the 300/400/whatever box?The > >only ones I've heard of XP running like crap on have really reallypiss-poor > >video cards. (The Thinkpad gets away with it because it has 95% of theeye > >candy turned off. Really doesn't look much different.) > > > > Hehe... I wasn't even TALKING about running games on it. I just mean the > desktop and the few programs he uses(word, excel, a bowling secretaryprogram, > and a couple others). It was absolutely HORRIBLE. I can't remember thevideo > card. It's a Presario something...don't remember the model number. > Oh, I know. Still. One of my friends complains about XP running decidedly slow, and the only thing I can think of is the video card, everything else on his system is better than several boxes I've had it on. From what I've heard, XP uses a decent bit of acceleration just for the desktop - i.e. the shadowing and fades. Another thing, was it a clean install? I'm more or less addicted to it now, I've installed it on...lessee...my Celeron 928, my dad's Duron 927, my brother's P233MMX laptop, my mom's PII 350, an Athlon 1.4 box, and an AthlonXP 1700+ box. The only one that had any sort of issue was my mom's PII 350, and switching the no-name ISA soundboard in it for a newer PCI no-name soundboard in another comp (the only one I still have 98SE on, a K63/400 that has a mere 560MB HD) did the trick. (Not that it's an ISA thing or anything, my dad's box has a SBAWE64 ISA.) Milhouse

"Milhouse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%xRR7.54264$[email hidden]... > Oh, I know. Still. One of my friends complains about XP runningdecidedly > slow, and the only thing I can think of is the video card, everything else > on his system is better than several boxes I've had it on. From what I've > heard, XP uses a decent bit of acceleration just for the desktop - i.e.the > shadowing and fades. Did he try it in classic mode? That turns off all the eye candy with one click. My PC is more than capable of running XP with all the eye candy, but I still run it in classic mode with no animated windows etc. just because I prefer it that way.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> I'm more or less addicted to it now, I've installed it on...lessee...my > Celeron 928, my dad's Duron 927, my brother's P233MMX laptop, my mom's PII > 350, an Athlon 1.4 box, and an AthlonXP 1700+ box. The only one that had > any sort of issue was my mom's PII 350, and switching the no-name ISA > soundboard in it for a newer PCI no-name soundboard in another comp (the > only one I still have 98SE on, a K63/400 that has a mere 560MB HD) did the > trick. (Not that it's an ISA thing or anything, my dad's box has a SBAWE64 > ISA.) > > Milhouse

You did buy a copy for each machine, right? ;-)

In article <%xRR7.54264$[email hidden]>, "Milhouse" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Oh, I know. Still. One of my friends complains about XP running decidedly >slow, and the only thing I can think of is the video card, everything else >on his system is better than several boxes I've had it on. From what I've >heard, XP uses a decent bit of acceleration just for the desktop - i.e. the >shadowing and fades. > >Another thing, was it a clean install? >

Yes, it was. Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank - under construction... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"STP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rq2S7.24$[email hidden]... > > "Milhouse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:%xRR7.54264$[email hidden]... > > Oh, I know. Still. One of my friends complains about XP running > decidedly > > slow, and the only thing I can think of is the video card, everythingelse > > on his system is better than several boxes I've had it on. From whatI've > > heard, XP uses a decent bit of acceleration just for the desktop - i.e. > the > > shadowing and fades. > > Did he try it in classic mode? That turns off all the eye candy with one > click. My PC is more than capable of running XP with all the eye candy,but > I still run it in classic mode with no animated windows etc. just becauseI > prefer it that way. > > > > I'm more or less addicted to it now, I've installed it on...lessee...my > > Celeron 928, my dad's Duron 927, my brother's P233MMX laptop, my mom'sPII > > 350, an Athlon 1.4 box, and an AthlonXP 1700+ box. The only one thathad > > any sort of issue was my mom's PII 350, and switching the no-name ISA > > soundboard in it for a newer PCI no-name soundboard in another comp (the > > only one I still have 98SE on, a K63/400 that has a mere 560MB HD) didthe > > trick. (Not that it's an ISA thing or anything, my dad's box has aSBAWE64 > > ISA.) > > > > Milhouse > > You did buy a copy for each machine, right? ;-) > *cough* No comment... ;)

"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <%xRR7.54264$[email hidden]>, "Milhouse" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >Oh, I know. Still. One of my friends complains about XP runningdecidedly > >slow, and the only thing I can think of is the video card, everythingelse > >on his system is better than several boxes I've had it on. From whatI've > >heard, XP uses a decent bit of acceleration just for the desktop - i.e.the

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >shadowing and fades. > > > >Another thing, was it a clean install? > > > > Yes, it was. >

Well, huh, I'm out of ideas...maybe there's just some boxes out there that don't like XP. I've yet to find one. Well, one last stab in the dark. FAT32 or NTFS? I've gone NTFS on each and every install so far. Yeah, it's a reach... Milhouse

In article <_OuS7.59276$[email hidden]>, "Milhouse" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> >Another thing, was it a clean install? >> > >> >> Yes, it was. >> > >Well, huh, I'm out of ideas...maybe there's just some boxes out there that >don't like XP. I've yet to find one. > >Well, one last stab in the dark. FAT32 or NTFS? I've gone NTFS on each and >every install so far. Yeah, it's a reach... > >Milhouse

Hehe...you got off track somewhere. I'm not trying to load XP. I was lamenting that I couldn't even load win98se on my dad's system, so I'm fairly sure XP wouldn't have a CHANCE...<g> Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank - under construction... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.