Win98诞生10年了，且看98/XP/Vista同台竞技的结果
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2008/04/03/windows-98-turns-70-in-dog-years/That's 70 In Dog Years
This year marks the 10th anniversary of windows 98. Because of this and the fact that Vista is getting so much press, albeit negative, we decided to do an actual comparison using Windows 98, Windows XP, and Windows Vista, just to get a true idea of how far technology has progressed. The results might be surprising to some of you and were certainly an eye-opener for me.
To keep things as fair as possible, the hardware was exactly the same for all three operating systems. The system was somewhat of a compromise in order to satisfy all the requirements of operating systems separated by 10 years. I've listed the hardware below. Because memory suggestions always gets a lot of comment from those that think more is always better, and others that think anything over 256 MB is wasted, I used what I consider the minimum amount necessary for anything that resembles computing. I know there are some that question whether Windows 98 will function with that amount but although I've heard stories; I've never met anyone whose 98 system would not operate with 512 MB of memory.
None of the installs used firewalls, anti virus, or protection software of any sort. All update, and unnecessary background programs were disabled. This included the Vista UAC. All systems were run without themes, or clear type. All systems were run without updates and as the original install disk was shipped. All systems were set for maximum performance in the systems performance section. Drivers were supplied by the motherboard manufacturer or by the hardware manufacturer.
Test System
* Processor
* Board
* Memory
* Video
* Hard drive
* Intel Pentium 4 2.8 Gig.
* Intel 864 Perl
* 512 MB DDR 266 SD Ram
* Nvidia 6800 AGP (Nvidia Ti 4400)
* Western Digital ATA/ (Seagate ATA R.I.P.)
In order to accommodate Windows 98, the drives used were older ATA drives. I tried several suggestions to supply drivers for the newer SATA drives but stopped short of making a "slip streamed" copy of Windows. Without that, Windows 98 would not recognize the SATA drives for the OS installation. You will see that I later came to regret that decision.
Notice in the chart below that I've left the drive scores out of the mix. That is because a short time after testing Windows 98 using the PC Pitstop test, the drive failed. The disk test scores reflected a failing drive and were not a reflection of the operating system. I was able to transfer/clone the install to a newer drive with similar specifications to complete the testing.
The competition consisted of a combination of CPU, memory, and 2D scores from the PC Pitstop Test, along with3DMark 2003, and 3DMark 2001. The results were then totaled and shown on the far right. This is reminiscent of some of the past benchmark competitions we've held in the Custom PCs, Case Mods and Over Clocking section of the forum. This combination is a good representation of how a system will perform on a daily basis.
And the winner is!
OS Benchmark
Program
3D/01 3D/03PC Pitstop
Test Total
CPU
MEM 2/D
Group Total Win98 15,031 10247 1646 510
619
517
26924 WinXP16,206
10736 1501 543 638 320
28443 Vista11,307 9476
1295
542
585 168
22378
I think it's fair to say that most people would have expected or atleast hoped for the latest version of windows to dominate a competitionlike this. Even if there had been some time given to tweak the videosettings for the Pitstop test, Vista would not have been close toWindows 98 in performance. It lagged behind its older brothers in everyrace. Although I included the 2D section of the PC Pitstop test in thetotals, any of today's hardware should be able to complete that portionof the test with no problem.
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/images/winnerspecs.jpg
The competition between Windows 98 and XP was pretty tight. Not muchof a gap considering the length of time between their development. Notonly are the totals close, but also the scores are evenly matchedacross all tests.
The one thing that the benchmarks don't show is ease of installationand operation of tasks and programs. While 98 ran the benchmarks rightwith XP, getting the Operating System installed with working driverstook a good amount of time. When I bought my first computer it camewith Windows XP, so I was not prepared for the problems I ran intotrying to use Windows 98.
Just surfing the Internet seemed too much sometimes for Windows 98and it's accompanying IE 5. Finding a connection and opening programsare things I expect to happen instantly. This was not the case withWindows 98. It shouldn't have come as a surprise to a person whoconsiders himself an over clocker but it looks like speed is dependantcompletely on hardware. I just expected there to be a bigger differencebetween Windows 98 and Windows XP.
Vista, what can I say? It's pitiful. Blame it on the need formore memory. Blame it on the background apps. Blame it on whateversuits your fancy. It doesn't perform in benchmarks any better than itperforms in ease of use.
As for Windows 98, what the heck not bad for 10 year old technology, after all that's 70 in dog years.
Windows Vista Test Results Summary
Windows 98 Test Results Summary
Windows XP Test Results Summary
网友评论：
#Lisa Romanelli Says:April 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Vista has its problems for sure. I don't know how many more times I can see the warning "internet explorer has stopped working"
# Heather Freeman Says:
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Vista gives me migraines!!!
# Brenda M. Griffith Says:
April 4th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Please, puuuuuuuleeeeeeeeeeeeze, take this stinkin' Vista and give me my old computer with Windows 98. Vista–phooey.
# Jim Fogelman Says:
April 4th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Somebody should hit the dudes that came up with Vistas up beside the head with a boot!
# Johny boy Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
i'm running both vista and xp. vista is a disappointment. Microsoft has some things to work on with vista. It seems there to busy watching porn on there xp pc's. I believe vista will never be better than xp in performance or anything else EVER.
# missmoondog Says:
April 6th, 2008 at 5:49 am
it only took me 2 days to realise this WITHOUT doing any benchmark testing! wouldn't have thought 98 would come so close to xp, but one thing you CAN'T benchmark test is stability. 98 sucked there, and that the clincher with xp.
case closed
# hakr Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
He ran VISTA with 512kb of RAM?
It's a setup. Try running with a proper amount of RAM in the VISTA machine. And try a contemporary machine.
# PCPSLuvr Says:
April 8th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
sorry, and dont need this to turn into total flaming war, but how the hell 'hakr' would you expect the test to be fair in any way if you dont use the same amount of RAM for all 3 OS's? i clearly read that Win98 barely tolerated using 512 RAM.. so of course using more for Vista and less for 98 would 'possibly' put Vista on top. still love my XP.. and our Vista laptop blows.
# SoftwarePro Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Hey Hakr, Once upon a time Bill Gates said that 640KB (KB!, not MB) should be plenty for everyone. Now you are saying that 512 MB isn't enough? Get real! I used to work on IBM mainframes that had 4 MB of RAM, and they thought that was big. No problem handling 200 users either. The point is, with good engineering, both S/W and H/W don't have to be huge to make something work. Micro$oft's credo seems to be, "If it don't work, throw more RAM at it."
# stoopid Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I thought Windows 98 could only address 384MB of RAM?
Also, I have to agree that there's something fishy about the testing methods used. I game from time to time and my Vista performance is on-par with XP, which is supposedly on-par with win98 if I were to take this article on its word. And yet we have a huge discrepency in the results here but not in the real world use of Vista?
# Cliff Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Ya still don't get it. MS wants you to buy new hardware every 18 months. They want to make your perfectly functional equipment junk as often as possible. I got a cheap HP PC with vista only to try and get video on my Zune. I do my real work on XP machines and still have two running 98 so that I can play great games and use that older equipment until it falls apart. Those guys are not stupid. We are for putting up with it. I'm at the point of learning linux soon. Just had to vent. Nice article.
# don Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Wouldn't it have been better to run the machines on the top of the line equipment for their heyday? That way you can see what the OS can do with what it was designed for. How did 98 run compared to it's hardware specs? How does Vista run compared to its hardware specs? XP? I am guessing that if you did them based on their preferred specs, they'd probably all run about the same for things like start up time, etc. Hey, guess what!?!? DOS 3.1 runs SOOOOOO much better than Vista on my Vista machine. DOS just screams along at unreal speeds. #ronrealtor Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I have Windows 98 on an old desktop (purchased in 2000) and XP on the laptop and it's a happy, tremendous choice to work on either. BUT now PCPitstop no longer supports Windows 98 for testing!! WHY? Bring it back.
# Vista has been good to me Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
In all honesty, Vista has been good to me. I use it daily on a homebuilt system that's getting close to three years old. The only thing I had to do to it was upgrade to a dual core processor. I got vista legally for free through a giveaway at work. The processor was about a hundred bucks, and I prefer the computer as it is now to how it was with pirated XP before.
AMD 64×2 4200
Nvidia 6600
2gb PC3200 DDR
This runs vista well enough. The only problems I have are in games that I don't have time to play anymore… and that's incompatibility issues, not performance. The games that are compatible work as well as expected considering the now weak stats of the computer.
# Ralph Bain Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I agree about bringing back Windows 98 into the PCPitstop arena for testing. Moreover, you could do us 98 users a huge favor by listing sites/utilities, work arounds, etc. for Windows 98. Something like the Fred Langa series of "things to do" as MS dropped its support for Windows 98 would be of great service.
# Michael Jones Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Now you need to do one and include 64-bit versions of XP and Vista. I believe you will find that Vista 64 is faster than XP 32 and XP 64 is faster than Vista 64.
# Mark Sowul Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Of course it's faster, has everyone completely forgotten what happened when XP came out? It was much slower than 98 (for many of the same reasons - primarily crappy drivers and bigger RAM footprint) and everyone swore they wouldn't switch (many still swear by 2000, but mainly because of WGA). And yet, here we are again with XP somehow being a "speed demon."
# ByGeorge Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I feel very sorry for those buying pre-built machines these days. Limited options for O/S's and they are usually a bucket of poo as well. Build your own, or have it built, with XPsp2, even though I have fond memories of 98, it's just not "capable". I have a dual boot Vista/XP and even the kids say "the old one, dad".
Now we have to pray that M$ will continue to support the O/S, or allow or remove activation requirements.
Not holding my breath!
# Darryl Gittins Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
You tested Vista on a box with only 512 MB RAM? And you are surprised that it didn't excel? Why stop there? Let's howl and moan because Vista won't run on a 486 or 386 or even a 286. We see all the same moaning and groaning every time a new OS comes out. The OS is designed for the hardware of today, and hopefully tomorrow, but not for the hardware of yesterday.
# Arthur Kendrick Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
As a volunteer at a poor school who rely on donated computers, I have installed W98se on nearly all these (Relatively cheap OS to get hold of and also will run on the minimum hardware configurations available). We have installed USB software courtesy of Dell's website and are able to use USB memory sticks fine. We are relatively happy though speed sometimes is an issue, especially with Open Office! Why should we spend money which is better spent elsewhere?
# John Krecker Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I have two computers one a 4 year old windows XP pro sp2. 3 gig of ram. Nivida 5500 vido card and SB audilogy sound. this computer runs rings around my Windows Vista Home Delux with 3 gig of ram, nivda vidio card with 256 on board ram, and SB sound card. It works like this in the morning. Turn on vista machine, make coffee, Turn on XP machine, pour cup of coffee.
Weather bug comes up on XP machine, check the weather radar.
Ahh yes Vista finaly opens the desk top and is ready to run.
This is about 3-4 minutes differance in boot times, and you say Vista is better?
xp maachine is a P-4 at 2.8ghz Vista is a duel core P-4 at 3.0ghz.
# Terry W Spencer Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
The Windows 98 rollout came with great anticipation. I was like a kid on Christmas eve. Upgrading from 95 promised to be the best experience ever.
I first installed and ran it on a machine at work, and then on two successive machines at home. It was a new world!
And a big pain! In a typical eight hour workday, '98 crashed or froze 3 to 4 times. This was a vast improvement over '95, but still annoying. Running devices was a crap shoot, except the odds were better at craps.
Moved on to ME with its great graphical look, but not much better performance. That didn't come until XP. The stability was priceless. I can still remember the first whole day without a crash. WOW!
Running VISTA now. Have had no problems. The great advantages are graphics handling, quicker startups and shutdowns, and tighter security.
# Jason Dennis Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 4:19 am
I have xp on 2 machines, vista 32bit on wifes machine and vista 64bit on my games machine.
I find tweaking and streamlining Vista no harder than XP and any issues I have had with vista has been due to games publishers and hardware manufactures.
Certain publishers of games seem to intentionally slip in OS dependent code others take a more forward thinking view, I have games 3-4 years old which run like a dream on Vista even 64bit others don't even recognise it as an operating system.
If you get past the MS hatred club and XP love, give Vista a try especially 64bit version (crysis runs faster on my pc 64bit than wifes 32bit) I love the extra security, and easy ability to setup mediacenters and lets not forget Vista if you have a compatible pc is a dream to install.
Give Vista a modern budget home pc (i'm talking intel core 2 e6400, Gigabyte mb, sata hd, and 4gb ddr2 mem (uk price 300 or for those of you overseas $600) with an ATI 3850) and you will blow 99% of games away.
Having used pc's for about 15 years and upgraded/built my own for 13 years i'm very happy with Vista.
# Pete Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Very interesting results. Perhaps VISTA would have socre better than the much maligned ME 换用更牛配置的电脑试试？ #Paul Salzman Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 10:37 am
We still have four Win98 computers at our radio station. The rest are XP with one Vista. Most of the employees ask why we run Win98. They think if we upgrade to Vista it would be SO much better and faster! Somehow they think the apps will run better on Vista, after all, it's the latest and the greatest.
My favorite is XP, but I do work with Win98 every day.
I love PC PitStop, especially the "Full Test" section. HOWEVER, I was quite disappointed a few months ago to find PC PitStop no longer supports Win98 on the "Full Test"!
Now that you have this great comparison test, I bet some others are trying to check out their old Win98 boxes too.
Keep up the great work!
# mouse Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Win 98 was a house favorite for my family. Just last year I finally got my daughter in law to give it up. We used it with DSL without a problem except that web site have stopped supporting IE 5. Of the 4 computers here that ran win 98 all were P4s with the slowest being 1.6ghz and the fastest being 3.4ghz.
# Joshua Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 11:29 am
This is absolutely ridiculous. It is like putting an engine from 20 years ago into a car today. Sure it worked fine 20 years ago, but now most people would think it is comparitively slow. Besides it would get less gas mileage and pollute more. People need to realize that technology improves and that the supporting software improves too. And it isnt fair to run comtemporary software on ancient hardware, for these very reasons.
# Paul Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Well to all of you money loaded super tech types, go ahead enjoy the latest and greatest it's your money, but some of us aren't that rich and frankly don't trust our beloved M$N. I have worked on computers for probably 20 years and have seen it all from DOS and basic to Vista. It never stops amazing me how people can have a nice computer that runs all the software they need but with in 18 months to 2 years its to SLOW or cant run my software. I guess you just need something to keep spending your money on, but like I said its yours to spend but DONT begrudge us poorer folk who are happy with older stuff!
# Manny Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
If you were testing two automobiles, one running on regular gasoline and the other requiring premium, would you be making a fair comparison by using regular in both. I'm certainly not defending Vista, but a fair test of the OS's should use the minimum requirements for each, not uniform hardware that is inadequate for the newest one.
# Bill Richardsoncoochico@comcast.net Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I just loved Win. 98 S.E. It ran great no problems.Would like to get a copy of it . Have X.P. now and it is ok as long as you have system restore. Had Vista on other computer and had it changed to XP.
# John Call Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I am now running XP,SP2. Window 98 was still my fastest loading, shut down and process handling. XP seems to take forever on everything.
# Charles Romer Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I am still using Windows 98 on one of my computers. I continue to use it because it handles audio tasks with less distortion that any Windows XP machine I have used. It rips wavs from CDs and then converts them to MP3s using 'obsolete' (DRM Free) hardware and software that are better than anything now available.
The machine with Win98 is dual booting with WinXP and is a Pentium 3 Dell with a max of 512MB of RDRAM (doesn't allow more). The XP OS IS more stable but the Win98 OS is NOT unstable enough to discourage my using it as long as it lasts.
Win XP does not allow startup sounds of more than 15 secs or so and also distorts startup audio from games (those that still play on the hardware like d2).
I have tested this machine on PC Pitstop this year and it has been getting decent scores. And it did not matter which OS I tested (98 or XP) the scores were the same. But coincident with the PC Pitstop article on Win 98, XP, and Vista, they (PC Pitstop) have stopped supporting Windows 98! So, I can't test it again today.
Oh, for web surfing, MS has fixed IE6 so it will not run on Win98 but Firefox runs perfectly (kudos to the Firefox team!). Also, if you want to keep Win98 on a dual boot machine, NEVER accept a hardware update (like for a network card) when updating the WinXP partition using Windows Update. Hardware driver updates from MS (and their partners) will cause the Win98 partition to stop functioning!
# Rad Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Loved win 98SE , But Now running XPsp2. Both great OS,… Vista ?
# Alfredo Cyrino Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Don't you perceive?
Xp was also subject to criticism for some time after its launching.
The real intention behind Vista is to have the users now considering Xp as a near perfect OS, so allowing MS to say: - Once upon a time, we did a perfect OS.
""Evil laughter of a truehearted UNIX user…""
# Keefy k.lever@tiscali.co.uk Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I am sure I could supply you with a backup copy of win 98SE if you mail me.
I for one will NEVER downgrade to VISTA from XP Pro. It's absolute rubbish.
I've given up counting the ammount of people I know that have bought new PC's with Vista on, that I have been asked to help revert them back to a decent OS, that is XP, and are now MUCH happier.
Keith.
# Phil Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I just loved win98 but most of the games out now days don't run on this os, I run winxp sp2 turned on auto updates got a blue screen 4 to 5 times per day. formated hard drive and sp2 turned off updates no crashes in 7 months!! sounds like I will pass on installing Vista!!!!
# Carey Crittenden Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I'm still running Windows98 and wouldn't have any other. Does anything and everything I want with absolutely no hassle and you wouldn't believe all the other programing I have loaded in with it. You name it and I probably have something to fill the need. I can't believe how many others still run it and you would be surprised at how many organizations still use it. Still the best all around operating system around. It's a shame that there are some dropping support for it when there is no good reason for that. Just as it is stated in this article; they all want you to dig into your wallet and spend more money on nothing really new or any better. #Cathy Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I'm still running Win 98 on 2 computers, both purchased in 2000. Both run great and due to diligence in keeping both machines "cleaned up" I have no problems. I surf the web, do embroidery digitizing, photo editing, and mt business bookwork on both and don't have any problems. I'm forever having to talk my daughter through problems with her XP. The only thing I don't do is gaming. Bring back 98 testing, please!!
# Karine Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I am so pleased to let you know that I have an ancient Dell laptop (ole Bessie), and it has Win 98! Its like the energizer bunny it keeps going and going .. I have 256MB on that one and run it very lean - no frills .. Tell you what, I am happier with Win 98 than with Vista Home Premium on my Toshiba Satellite. Microsoft really messed up BIG TIME with Vista !
# Shaun Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I am a odd fish out. Vista is fantastic. More and more I realise I am very alone in a big pond. However 512 mem is the mininum to run Vista come on. When MS says minimum it means litterally minimum, we all know that. 1 gig still not the best. Try 2 gig and above on a dual core and above cpu, very different animal. I have no problems at all. I am in IT and pound the system with Dev and testing, no problems.
Having worked with the system on diff hardware platforms I think many manufacurors are not getting it right yet though they are claiming to.
# Ed Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I wish you had benchmarked windows 2000 as well. You conclusions simply confirm what I intuitively figured out for myself. I have a desktop that has W98 running a fax server application that operates flawlessly, and has for near the entire life of W98 (70 dog years!) and it only has 128mgs of memory at that. I really object to the control that Vista has taken out of the users hands. I can't believe it can take 30 minutes to remove or install a simple application that take only few minutes in XP or W2K. I do tune ups on friends and neighbours PC's (and find PC Pitstop a great tool for this) but refuse to even try with Vista. And won't until I start hearing some good news. Microsoft needs to wake up before they become the next Chrysler!
# M1918A1 Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
I have to agree that using 512mb of ram was not a fair test for Vista. Who says you can't use more than 512mb in Win98? My first computer ran Win98. I put a second stick of 512mb in it and followed the instructions of the ram manufacturer and changed the v-cache and Win98 ran great on 1gig of ram. Don't know if it will run on more because that was all my motherboard would accept. Yeah, I still think Vista is crap, but at least test it fairly.
# Dan Says:
April 11th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
I built my cumputer about seven years ago, with 512 MB of RAM. The only OS I had was W98 and I've been running it happily until about six months ago. Never had a problem with that amount of memory, but, because MS will no longer support W98, I decided to switch over to XP. The only difference I've noticed is that XP has more fluffy junk to deal with. If it weren't for the support issue I would go back to W98………………and keep it simple, in a flash.
# james Says:
April 12th, 2008 at 12:41 am
i am very suspicious that ms give vista to oem's for free or at least for a huge discount
with dell laptops, you have to go to their 'business machines' before you get the option of (free) xp
ms probably are trying to get a large installed base of vista so the poor customers (suckers) do their beta testing for them
because vista has not got the relevant code revealed (except to big software companies) and the small companies have to pay for it–they are reluctant to write drivers for vista, but if enough base is installed they will have to
at last we have linux to force some compromise out of ms
# DONALD BISBEE Says:
April 12th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Like windows 2000, stable as Xp and easier to use. Microsoft wont let my 32 bit pc cards work on 2000 or XP , but work om 98 and some 95 [IBM P1 765l thinkpad}so 98 is useful sometimes.
Changing OS every few years only creates much work and problems.
A real improvement would be for modules to be improved, not a whole system with too many cute pictures.
# Scott Says:
April 12th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Ok, been playing this game with os's since MSDOS 3.3. All operating systems have problems when the first come out. The only one that I truly disliked was ME…. Didn #Frank Says:
April 12th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Running win98se (with unofficial SP2) on a 800 mhz ibm machine with 512 MB of memory. Surfing the web with Firefox. A fast boot, stability and no frills. What do you want more ?
The only reason i see that this OS was pulled out is because Micro$oft could not make more money when everyone is running multiple machines and paying for only one license.
# Frank Says:
April 12th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Please make available an old "full test" so we too can test our win98se…
# 98keeper Says:
April 12th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
My 98 is actually 98SE… for you 'techs', that may be the difference, since that minor upgrade was an improvement.
# 98keeper Says:
April 12th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Any AVG free users be aware that support for 98 in that antivirus program will be discontinued this year also. Already in effect, based on my experience! Go with AVAST! Free.
# kdre Says:
April 12th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Between work and home I work with NT4.0 Server and WS, W2K Server, Server 2003 Std R2, XP, and Vista; THEY ALL HAVE THIER QUIRKS!.
I believe that Microsoft has to bo what GE, Siemens, and other PLC/BAS software writers have done in recent versions, that is the next release, "W7", needs to be a clean break from the PAST! Forget all the backwards compatable code. When you upgrade the "project" there is NO going back without doing a total memory wipe and subsequent reprogramming. Interfacing with the previous version and drivers for epuipment 3-5yrs max should be it. Vista basic can run on computers that were considered outdated (and not just by marketers or gamers)before XP came along, and Office 2007 can work with Word 6.0 docs nice but come on people, this eats speed, which is the primary reason we upgrade. How many NEW cars come with 8-track or cassette decks, I'd bet some of us have these audio media storage units. "Come On" the days of the CD are numbered! So why expect Microsoft, Apple or any other OS provider to make things work with 10,20,or 30yr old technology.
# Bill Ford Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 1:12 am
It sure would be nice to see 98 support. I still have a 386 box on which I use AMIPRO for forms designing. Won't run under 98SE. But then, I also have a WIN95 box still running, a DOS 3.11 machine and you may not believe this, but I still have a running Radio Shack TRS-80 Model ONE in near original shape with a Z-80 processor running at 1.4 mb (yes, as in "one point 4" megabyte) and a 300 baud modem, 48k RAM, four 5.25 inch drives and an original working RS Color Graphics Printer (CGP-115) that uses 4.5" rolled paper and 4-colors. Its actually a "pin-plotter" at best. When I first got my Trash-80, we used a cassette tape recorder to boot the thing and load other "programs" — then TECHNOLOGY advanced to DISK DRIVES, first 14 inch then 5 & a quarters, then double density… .and the advancing TECHNOLOGY story goes on….. all that was before the standard IBM PC box in the early 80s. All this goes back to the days when a 4-banger calculator (+, -, x & /) was the size of a cassette recorder weighing pounds and priced above $400. I finally got smart and quit trying to keep up with technology & the Jones's when my bankroll kept going down and settled into being just an appliance operator using computing to its fullest capability… letting others keep up with the "Jones'" to work out the bugs before "I" splurged for the "latest" technology AFTER the bugs were exterminated.
So, today, I still run my NEWDOS 3 (os) on a Trash-80 (just for fun to play "pong" and the first version of MS's Flight Simulator), a 386 box and a laptop with WIN95, another box with WIN98SE (which I'm on right now) and a gift HP with XP Home. I'm satisfied that at my age of 71 I can do what I do without all the whiz-bang bells 'n whistles everyone else seems to "need".
Speed (and features) cost money. How fast and frequent do you wanna go?
Bill Ford
Joshua Tree CA
# Chuck Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 4:13 am
Just a comment for the W98(SE) users who are (or were) having system crashes — it's probably the graphics accelleration. That's preset to max.
Just find where it resides (I've forgotten, now) and slow it down to 1/3, and that should stop the crashes. It did on mine.
# POLLUX Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Just add two cents worth to my previous comments: Also had Explorer 6 with 98 and XP Pro. No problems with 98 but not so with XP. Kept getting booted off internet, upgraded to Exp 7 but didn't improve. Used Firefox and had much better results. With Vista Ultimate have Exp 7 and works great, never been booted of the net.
Like so many things improved capabilty and versatility makes 98 outdated. If all one did was use it for day-to-day programs like Word/Works, internet and music 98 does fine. But so many other uses for PC now requires OS that has up to date technical ability. Technology is changing and keeping your PC current is extremely important if you want to take full advantage of what a PC can do.
Probably the most important changes you need to really get robust use of Vista (and I would advise Ultimate)is you must improve your video and load up on ram (nothing less than 2gb). Chip speed isn't that crucial, but most people now have at least 1.8ghz and that will do fine. But ram is an absolute essential.
My previous PC had 2.4ghz Pentium and nearly 1gb ram and I never lacked for speed in transferring files from one medium to another, but bought wife a 1.8ghz dual core Pentium with 2gb ram and it was faster and she has XP Media and it really has been a good OS.
But my experience with XP Pro was horrible so bought new PC with dual quad 2.4ghz and 3gb ram and this PC lays your hair back. File transferring or copying from one medium to another is more than fast. Old tasks you didn't like to do because of the time involved is no longer an excuse to delay. Music downloads or copying from CD's is quick - I only use wav format as it has the highest playback quality but it needs more space but its the only format I ever used, even with 98.
Will upgrade wife's computer to Vista Ultimate soon, but even with her computer's capability we will upgrade her video and add another gb of ram.
# BAW30s Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 4:37 am
After depending on Windows 98 for several years, I switched to Windows 2000 sp4 on an HP Pentium 3 machine, 650MHz with 512MB of RAM. I find this stable, quick and considerably more responsive than much more powerful computers I have used set up with XP or Vista. Vista does need at least 1GB of RAM to run reasonably efficiently.
The main problem with Windows 2000 in my experience is that although it has rightly, I believe, been called the most stable version of Windows, the boot process is more fragile than 98's and can be relatively easily disrupted, leaving a machine that either boots very slowly or not at all. It then has no system restore facility to reverse damaging changes easily. I overcome this problem by using Horizon Rollback, a very ingenious program which achieves the same goal as system restore, but offers far more possibilities, including a pre-windows boot screen which allows non-booting systems to be recovered quickly.
Unlike windows 98, Windows 2000 can still be used with all but a few current programs, and hardly ever crashes in use. It was rare for me to reach the end of a 98 session voluntarily! I only wish it were possible to turn off the multiple users facility in 2000 and later systems permanently, though, as for me it is an unnecessary complication.
# rmacqueen Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 6:05 am
I picked up an old P3 last year to use as a music server. Since I was expected to buy another license with XP I dug out my old Windows 95 disc and installed it, downloaded Firefox, did a few updates and now have a highly funtional server. I even found it easier to setup for the network than XP. I think sometimes we are too eager to move on to the latest technology while these old workhorses still have some life left in them.
# LWF Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 9:00 am
For you who talk about running the test on equipment compatible with the OS, it's true that you'd get a better idea of what the OS is capable of. However, that's not the whole story.
I'm a computer repair tech, and I get PCs in every day that were designed for Windows 9.x and that have been upgraded to Windows XP. When the end user complains that it's too slow, I just upgrade the RAM to 512Mb (the majority of the old machines can handle that much), and the problem is solved. That's impossible with Vista. Vista is the first MS OS that -requires- you to buy hardware technology upgrades if you want to unlock its full feature set. If you install it on a machine not designed for it, it runs in crippled mode, and you don't get to use the program features you paid for.
So the question to me is "how does the OS do on the average PC that is owned by my customers?" The answer to that is "it stinks." An OS that needs 1Gb of RAM to run well - and very specific hardware requirements before you can use several of its advertised features - means that it effectively cannot be installed on almost two out of every five computers my customers own. So in that respect, this test was quite valid; it reflected what would happen if existing PC owners installed Vista.
We don't sell Windows Vista at my store. We won't until we have no choice - the day that Windows XP cannot be purchased from distributors and we run out of copies. Like many Microsoft products, it was rushed into production and forced on consumers before it was ready. It requires consumers to either invest in pricey hardware upgrades or buy new computers, so it isn't an option for people who want to upgrade from older Windows installations. It's unreliable. Many of our customers hate the unnecessary changes made to system navigation. In short, Microsoft shoved a product down our throats before it was mature just to make a quick buck.
How typical.
# Steve Sz Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
It seems that Bill G. should have really concentrated on the development of artificial intelligence in computers as this does appear to be his true vocation. Windows is the first truly paranoid schizophrenic OS ever developed.
I really fear for the sanity of computer users the world over when he finally rolls out his next bloated, clinically-insane abomination
# Bevan Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Ok, well I am one of visa's largest detractors and I'm a gamer still running on an AGP card and windows xp professional. But this test is frankly rather silly.
You cant expect a OS designed to run on a contemporary machine to perform well with largely outdated hardware.
Vista has alot of bloat it naturally uses more ram I would even go as far to say that 2gig is the more realistic "minimum requirement"
# Steve Sz Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Bevan, please re-read the test results. All OS were running on up-to-date machines, the blog even says that there were difficulties in getting 98 to use modern hardware - but it still beat Vista.
# drude Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Win98SE was a lovely OS. I had a Win98SE box that would run for weeks without requiring a reboot. So long as you avoided generic no-name hardware Win98SE was super stable. We still use it on half of our office machines and crashes/reboots are very rare with Win98SE on name brand hardware. WinXP, the orignal release that allowed you to be hacked by simply being connected to the internet, was a piece of garbage, but WinXP Pro SP2 is a great OS.
# Stuart Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Vista is a failure, be it business or home environment. XP, a mess in it's earlier years, is the best Microsoft has produced for the home market, and is a strong OS for small business. However, after many years of computers in general, and Windows from 3.1 (not to mention all those flavors of MS-DOS), I have XP as dual boot for one game, and everything else on Linux. If you need stability from a Microsoft OS, XP is the only way to go. #Daniel Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 3:57 am
What a stupid test.
Vista was always going to lose. You've used a processor that is probably about 5 years old. Now that's old even by XP standards. It's a 533mhz fsb one which means it's not even the best one you could find and we should all know that back in the day P4's were crazy about having bandwidth. So you've used a PC which is well above the reccomended spec for 98, about par for the course for XP and barely minimum spec for Vista and you claim that your results say everything about Vista.
I personally don't see the point of getting Vista and installing it on a machine that was happily running XP. For most everyday people it's simply not worth the outlay. But when you build that nice new PC with a nice Core 2 Duo processor and 2gb of nice cheap RAM and a low end graphics card then buy Vista. It'll be worth it then. I've heard enough moaning from people who have an old/underspecced machine and aren't getting great results from it to last me a lifetime. If you want a PC that runs the latest software well then spend a bit of money. Don't think that going into the shop and buying the cheapest PC is going to result in anything less than disappointment. If you want a PC that is fine for word processing and going on the internet then stick with your old machine and 98 or XP but don't expect support forever and don't expect to be able to get software which works on it forever.
# Daniel Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 4:19 am
Steve Sz you cretin. The tests weren't run on up to date machines.
Did a search on the futuremark site for a p4 running XP and with a 6800 and it came up with a score of 3861 in 3dmark06. My PC which has an X1950 XT which is hardly state of the art gave a score of 6299.
I bet you where whinging about how crap XP was when it came out and how much better 98 was and how crap 98 was when it came out and how 95 was better and so on. People like you surface everytime there is a new OS release and spew your mindless opinion while others just adapt to new things and live happy lives.
# Rick K Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 6:32 am
IE5 in Win98? The last time I looked at my win98, I was using IE6. I did a search for it in Microsoft.com and found the install for it.
# Mike Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 7:53 am
I'm old enough to remember when there were no windows, when Windows came with version numbers, WordPerfect operated off F-codes (remember the cardboard keypad overlays with the spiral flip pads?) computer games didn $#^^%&*(%$*(*(^$%^
^%$*(&*()
OK ? 能不能翻译一下。 Posted by qwb007 on 2008-7-9 12:19 http://www.ibmnb.com/images/common/back.gif
能不能翻译一下。
:-| ^:^ 恶搞一下，能看懂，懒得看 大段英文，看的懂都懒得看了，更何况看不懂。 废话真他娘的多啊 硬件配置还是太高了。低点、再低点、PII+32M内存，98就可以完胜XP了 倒，就算全中文都懒得看:D
回复 #15 zb0502 的帖子
:D :D :D正是这样。。。。。 rubbish threads/////
回复 #15 zb0502 的帖子
^u^同意~ 看E文伤脑子
:) 我昏倒了, 晕。。。。。。。。全是鸟语，直接说结果就ok了 无非就是98比XP好， XP 比Vista 好的那一套城池烂掉呗。
还512 M 内存。。
建议用PII 266 + 10G HDD, + 32 M 内存来实验。哎呀！安装都会有问题，Vista 泰垃圾了！！^u^ ^u^ 40M容量的硬盘.
dos遥遥领先.其它的win安装都成问题 **\ 点着眼药水看完了 98现在只对老机、老软件/游戏有用了。新配的机子连9x驱动都没有，98又无法管理1G以上的内存，只能用来怀旧了。 完全看不懂 哈哈
当年大学考完四级后就再也没有碰过英文，一晃几年过去了现在大字不识几个:D I have three laptop computers, a 200 M is the CPU, 96 memory 4 G hard drive with 98. 1 G is one of the CPU256 memory, 20 G hard drive installed in 2000. There are 1.8 G of the CPU 1G memory, 60 G hard drive with the XP 原来楼上是海龟呀!!
)(*&^%$#@!$%^&*()什么东西看不懂!
页:
[1]
2