Poll: Performance VS stability. Which OS do you use?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Sugadaddy

Banned
May 12, 2000
6,495
0
0


<< Not to mention I'd have to reinstall all KINDS of stuff, replace bookmarks, backup files. I'd probably be too lazy once I got it anyhow. >>


it's not that bad, just put everything you want to keep (bookmarks, archived e-mails, etc) on a seperate partition before you install. Programs aren't too long to install...
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
i wouldn't call millenium a performance OS. its universally slower than 98, especially if you have the buggy system protection/backup/restore stuff on
 

A2KLAU

Golden Member
Nov 11, 2000
1,406
0
0
I ALWAYS leave my other PC which runs Win98 on 24/7, and occasionally use it to play games too, and I hvae never ever had to re-start it! Its just keeps goin on and on and on, and it never crashes until I do something stupid to it! I doubt Win2K will be much stabliler than my Classic Athlon 650, Asus K7M, setup! Its solid as a rock IMHO!

Albert.
 

Mustanggt

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 1999
3,278
0
71
WIN 98 works fine for me only time I get BSOD is if I try to do a restart with alot of Apps opened up thats the only time. WIN 2K is not worth the price Microsost charges Im sure its better than WIN 98 buts its not worth paying $200+ for it.
 

Adul

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
32,999
44
91
danny.tangtam.com
reason 98 crash for us is because a lot of use do more than just gaming has well. I use photoshop and dreamweavor a lot. Two programs that suck up the memory pretty good. Also running a bunch of other apps at the same time and win98 will buckle on the load. Win2k, I can stress it all I want and not fear a crash. Hell, I can burn a cd, host a server and do some work and not have it crash. So in short stability does have a lot to do with how you use your system. If you only use it for few things, yes it will be very stable.
 

fallenoncrack

Banned
Dec 19, 2000
1,747
0
0
Win98SE is solid, almost never crashes, gets a bit sluggish once in a blue moon, but that is most likely because i have 15 apps open and my system tray is jammed packed with programs. Nortons, Personal Web Server, MSN Chat, ICQ, AOL, Memory defrag program, Dnet Cracking program, Zone Alarm Firewall, napster, and lots more. I'm surprise my system doesn't join the union and go on strike due to the way I treat it.
 

Gunbuster

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,852
23
81
Win2k

I want whistler to come out so I have the stibility of win2k, and Component/software vendors wont be able to shirk the responsibility of making good drivers since win2k is not for &quot;home/game/dvd/5.1 audio use&quot;
 

borealiss

Senior member
Jun 23, 2000
913
0
0
windows 2000.


<< As for it's stability, it sucks compared to NT 4.0 >>


i use to think the same thing since i ran nt4 for about a year or so. when all of the hardware i had finally had win2k drivers, i'd have to say win2k is more stable. i'm getting up times in the weeks more often then nt4.



<< I personally don't have $400 for an OS, I'd love to own win2k but I can deal with some instability. >>


last time i checked win2k pro was around 100 dollars, and it does offer an upgrade option to install over your win98 installation and upgrade it to win2k keeeping all of your settings.
 

Wizkid

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 1999
2,728
0
0
I use win2k on everything that can run it and NT4 on everything else.

I have win98se installed for games when I host LAN parties (need all the speed I can get) but usually just play in win2k if I'm practising...
 

Schola

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,479
0
76
I run w2k on all my machines, the stabilty is worth any few fps's in games.

schola
 

Nessism

Golden Member
Dec 2, 1999
1,619
1
81
I keep reading about how stable Win2k is so I just assume it's my setup everytime it freezes. Just tonight my system locked up when I loaded a music CD in my drive - I learned afterward that my Norton virus scan program was trying to recommend a update. I know, I know, it's the software that's causing the crash. My wonder is why doesn't my other system, running Win98, crash so often? Just wondering...and keep trying.
 

Super6

Golden Member
Oct 11, 1999
1,054
0
0
Original 98 ala 98Lite Micro...fast and stable...clean install came in at 72MB. Have run for weeks 24/7 without problems.

Super6
 

rickkipp

Member
Nov 5, 2000
30
0
0
Yeah, Win 2 K. Stable, and it drastically sped up my more complex applications. Also like the defrag utility, with the analysis feature. Even USB connections with camera and scanner are faster. I reboot once a week at most, just from habit, NOT NEED. Resources stay maintained.
 

Soccerman

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,378
0
0
benefits of 2k over 98 are huge.

if so, can you please mention any?

here's what I see.

-no improvement in stability (why, cause my systems' rock stable as it is)
-huge increase in system requirements
-however there are some benefits, besides stability (when you're a moron who doesn't know WTF uninstall is!), like better memory management, and better support for multiple users.

ok, I'm being a bit extreme when I accuse the user of being the one at fault when it comes to keeping 9x stable, but it's the truth, 90% of the time, it is because of something that the user has done (tweaks gone awry, installing tons of shareware, or installing Norton software, and even worse, UNINSTALLING it).

I find that windows 9x does especially well when you don't have much going on. using the norton Antivirus example, that is one of the worst Anti Virus programs to get, if you want to keep system resources to a minimum. I recommend McAfee, becuase they have supported my (at least) 2 year old version for a long time, and they don't consume so many resources (heh, it's still pretty bad though).

so, my solution is this. I don't even have McAfee, or Norton Anti Virus running all the time. plain and simple, I run Distributed.net, Volume control (of course), and PS/2 Rate on start up.

at any one moment, you won't find me running more then 6 or 7 programs (counting the ones that are running in background).

mostly what I do is have Winamp, and Netscape open (however I can have multitudes of Netscape windows open without a problem), perhaps with notepad open to use to take notes etc..

don't install any of those tweaking programs, learn to do the tweaks manually in registry and .ini file configurations.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
3,003
126
I use Windows 98 SE for both performance and stability reasons. Honestly, a system crash for me is extremely rare and everything runs great. I run a wide variety of programs and play a lot of 3D games.
 

Adul

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
32,999
44
91
danny.tangtam.com
Improved performance on network.
Improved security.
Much improved memory management.
Try running it for a few months with out a reboot.
W
ill handle all the aps I tend to use at once without a problem. Plus, I like securing different files for my home network and restricting access to my comp to certain comps on netowrk. ICS sharing on it works well, TCP/IP performance is better. Also try using Half a GB of memory and expect win98 to stay up.
 

Frosty3799

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2000
3,795
0
0
i run a gaming server 24/7 and never touch tht computer. i have ran it on win98/winME/win2k pro/win2k advanced server and have found win2k advanced server to be the most stable/fastest in other users of my server opinion.

for my gaming computers i prefer winME over the rest, user friendly, cant complina aobut speed, and i have experienced problems w/ win 98 that i no longer get now that i am running ME

BTW all my OS's are legal, trial copies... the best way to fly
 

HaVoC

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,223
0
0
Sorry Soccerman, but your assertion that Win98 does &quot;well&quot; when nothing is going on has not been borne out by my experience. I agree that adding more bloatware destabilizes the OS but even with the most careful installs...the kernel can become unstable.

Furthermore, let's take two CLEAN installs. Same machine, two identical HDs. One is formatted and installed with Win2K, the other Win98. The hardware in the machine is very mature so both OSes have equally good drivers. I am willing to bet if you leave them running 24/7, after a week, the Win98 machine will have noticeably less memory available due to the numerous &quot;memory leaks&quot;

Of course in the real world, everyone has their apps they need to run, not including crap like AOL IM. It's just no comparison...98 blows compared to Win2K when it comes to stability and performance under load.

The only place where 98 outperforms Win2K is in 3D graphics performance with certain 3D cards. It is the 3D companies fault that they can't write decent Win2K drivers. If you look at nVidia's latest drivers, Win2K gives up little or NO performance to Win98.
 

badguy

Member
Jan 27, 2001
67
0
0
I use NT 4.0 for years and still think it rules in stability and SMP performance, on condition that you do not go to UNIX.
 

Shu8

Senior member
Nov 28, 2000
278
0
0
win2k all the way. i use it for everything...all my games work for it too.