DrunkenMaster Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 I'd like to install Windows 98 or ME on my computer instead of using XP. Reasons: 1) Quicker boot. 2) Only going to use it to play games. I'm concerned of the stablility on newer hardware. Heck it would crash on my P3 with simple hardware. I have 1 GIG of RAM, and if I recall, there were some bugs w/ it crashing with a lot of RAM. Has it been fixed? Also, I know that many games are increasingly geared for XP only. Are there still a lot of new games that also work on 98? I'm not connecting this particular OS to the 'Net so there are no security worries. My "workstation" is going to be in Linux now. XP has too many annoying features for me to continue using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostspyder Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 your worried about stability, but are considering installing ME on a computer...... The beta builds of longhorn are more stable the ME. This is the stupidest thing ive ever heard. Install a nt os for gods sake. and what anoying features does XP have, you mean like compatability with modern hardware and modern software support? and why are you using 64 bit hardware if your not willing to upgrade to a 64 bit OS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trance Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 LostSpyder is right... XP will play the games better, it is more secure than any 9x kernel. There will be drivers for it in XP. It is unlikely the MB manufacturer has the drivers for it. Go with XP or else you are just throwing money at the hardware when you won't even remotely use it properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkenMaster Posted February 19, 2005 Author Share Posted February 19, 2005 The beta builds of longhorn are more stable the ME. I did mention that I was going to try 98 as well which is more stable. and why are you using 64 bit hardware if your not willing to upgrade to a 64 bit OS? 585501088[/snapback] Well, the 64-bit OS isn't stable yet. And I can't get RC2. XP still takes 1/10 of my memory or more just to run: its at 132 MB. Maybe I'll wait for XP 64 to go gold and see how much it will cost. Besides, 64 bit is so cheap right now, its like getting it for free. This was the purpose to AMD pricing them so low to begin with. I didn't think much of it but maybe I'll just download XP 64 RC1 right now and see if it runs a bit better for some games. My XP partition is being wiped anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yochanan Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I did mention that I was going to try 98 as well which is more stable.? Well, the 64-bit OS isn't stable yet. And I can't get RC2. XP still takes 1/10 of my memory or more just to run: its at 132 MB. Maybe I'll wait for XP 64 to go gold and see how much it will cost. Besides, 64 bit is so cheap right now, its like getting it for free. This was the purpose to AMD pricing them so low to begin with. I didn't think much of it but maybe I'll just download XP 64 RC1 right now and see if it runs a bit better for some games. My XP partition is being wiped anyways. 585501165[/snapback] 98/ME will not read more than 512 MB, and yes it may crash. Use nLite or something to remove unneeded crap from XP 32-bit and use that until XP 64-bit is out. C'mon man, putting 98/ME on it is like buying an old lady a Ferrari to drive to the grocery store 2 blocks away once a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigCheese Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I did mention that I was going to try 98 as well which is more stable.? Well, the 64-bit OS isn't stable yet. And I can't get RC2. XP still takes 1/10 of my memory or more just to run: its at 132 MB. Maybe I'll wait for XP 64 to go gold and see how much it will cost. Besides, 64 bit is so cheap right now, its like getting it for free. This was the purpose to AMD pricing them so low to begin with. I didn't think much of it but maybe I'll just download XP 64 RC1 right now and see if it runs a bit better for some games. My XP partition is being wiped anyways. 585501165[/snapback] Windows Xp x64 RC2 is now publicly available to download from Microsoft. https://microsoft.order-9.com/winxp64/produ...d=winxp64&id=dl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayF1 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Windows Xp x64 RC2 is now publicly available to download from Microsoft.https://microsoft.order-9.com/winxp64/produ...d=winxp64&id=dl 585501526[/snapback] you think windows 9x is more stable than xp where is this guy from !!! yes 98 is well stable (compared to windows me) but is still shocking compared to XPSP2 oops wrong quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lothodon Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 problem with x64 rc2, is that this user intends on playing games on it. as of now, there are issues with a lot of games due to the install folders being different than expected. 32 bit games install to program files x86 (i think) and when you run the game it looks in program files, which is now for 64bit programs only. there are "patches" available for some big name games, and some run fine, but not 100% by any means. ntcompatible has a short list of some more popular games and how to get them to run on rc2 effectively. also, don't forget, rc2 requires 64bit drivers for most hardware, and those, sadly, are lacking as of now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayF1 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 all he needs to do is install xp 32bit then when 64bit goes gold install that + the preformance isnt that good as DRIVERS are in beta aswell so offer no real boost over xp and somtimes lower results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted February 20, 2005 Veteran Share Posted February 20, 2005 I'd like to install Windows 98 or ME on my computer instead of using XP. 585500979[/snapback] So you wanna run 32bit software on a 64bit CPU that runs a 16/32bit shell on top of a 8bit OS? Yikes. :argh: Why not just hammer nails into your leg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkenMaster Posted February 20, 2005 Author Share Posted February 20, 2005 So you wanna run 32bit software on a 64bit CPU that runs a 16/32bit shell on top of a 8bit OS?Yikes. :argh: Why not just hammer nails into your leg? 585501562[/snapback] XP has some stupid bugs in it. Not to say 98 doesn't either. And XP 64 doesn't exactly work very well as yet. MS should just make a Game oriented OS for the PC (of course, it would erode on their paltry X-Box sales). And AMD 64 probably won't be very stable @ 64 bit for a few years on Linux or Windows. It takes years to get the compilers stable. I bought the AMD 64 for price, performance, power usage and stablility @ 32 bit. Its equal or better than the Intel for most stuff. Sorry for thinking differnt than you guys. I was asking for an opinion about wether Win 98 would be a good idea. You guys are trying to insult my intelligence. Quit wasting my f***** time. I hate this form for this very reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomis_nehc Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 hate it then don't use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McCormick Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Why don't you use Windows 2000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nocstar Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 ^^^ Uhhh... Goodbye ?? Plus I think you go to your answer on wether it's a good idea or not. PS It's not!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Lyle Global Moderator Posted February 20, 2005 Global Moderator Share Posted February 20, 2005 if it's an AMD 64, it's suppost to be used for XP, longhorn, or the 64bit OS. it's not ment for 98... and it will boot just as fast as any OS. 98 has alot of bugs and security holes.. and if it's a 64, theres NO real need to use 98.. sorry to say. patches and upgrades for games are made mostly for XP, and higher (soon) so it's worth the upgrade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean l Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Sounds like a waste of money to me, putting 98 on a 64 machine. At least snag 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvbfan Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostspyder Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 XP has some stupid bugs in it. Not to say 98 doesn't either. And XP 64 doesn't exactly work very well as yet. MS should just make a Game oriented OS for the PC (of course, it would erode on their paltry X-Box sales). 585501605[/snapback] No the reason they dont is because why would you buy a gameing only operating system. I dont know anyone who only uses there computer for gaming...... And were just trying to tell you not to do a kinda dumb thing. If someone came up to you and asked if throughing a rock at a police officer would knock the cop unconcious and you woulnt get arrested for it. Are you going to say 'yes' or say "hey mabie you shoulnt do that". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvbfan Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 No the reason they dont is because why would you buy a gameing only operating system. I dont know anyone who only uses there computer for gaming...... 585501889[/snapback] I do, it's called a console. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostspyder Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I do, it's called a console. 585501898[/snapback] let me revise that a little then "I dont know anyone who spent more then 400$ on there computer would buy a gaming only operating system." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted February 20, 2005 Veteran Share Posted February 20, 2005 Quit wasting my f***** time. I hate this form for this very reason. 585501605[/snapback] Wasting time would be to try and install Windows 98 on an AMD64 system. We're trying to SAVE you time. ASUS doesn't even bother producing Windows 98/ME drivers for that. I guess we're all surprised that anybody would want to try. http://www.asus.com/support/download/item....Deluxe&Type=All Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NienorGT Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 :ermm: Dude... we are in 2005... 98Se is in 99... XP (2001) is already to old for me and you want bother to install 98 ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chconline Veteran Posted February 20, 2005 Veteran Share Posted February 20, 2005 k dude, I run Windows ME on the comp in my sig (in fact i am using it right now) and i have absolutely no probs (stable too man) altho i would choose windows xp over it any day. one thing: boot times are about the same for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amradiar Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 wow. what a waste of a AMD64.. windows 98 will not run and shouldnt run on that!! ITs meant for like longhorn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chconline Veteran Posted February 20, 2005 Veteran Share Posted February 20, 2005 Works for me. (dual booting pwnz tho i set it to automatically load winxp pro after 3 seconds if i didnt do n e thing.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts