Should I upgrade from Win98 to XP?

[SuperCyrix]

Is XP faster?

 

[PsychoAndy]

i follow the microsoft rule of 2's. i get software 2 years after its released

win95- got it in 97
win 98- got it in 2000
win 2k pro- got it 3 months ago

 

[Martin]

Get 2k instead. Its like XP, but without any of the sh!t.

I've been using xp for 4 months now, and now that I got my new HD, I'll reformat and put 2k back on. I hate XP.



PsychoAndy, I think you should follow the rule of 1s.

Win2k has all its quirks worked out by the time it turned 1 and it was a very good OS to begin with.

 

[SuperCyrix]

yeah I usually wait awhile too, how long has xp been out? 1/2 year.
Wonder what everybody thinks about it. My SB16 could only play sound on the right speaker once
I installed Windows 2000 pro at work so I'm a little skeptical about Xp.

 

[FelixDeCat]

2 answers:

1) No.

2) Hell no.

Its slower than 98 and less compatible with older games, especially dos ones.

 

[Zenmervolt]

The general rule I follow for Win 9x is thus: If the system is by some miracle stable and works fine, don't change anything. Don't sneeze on it. Don't vibrate the case. Don't even look at the thing funny.

I like XP, and it is a vast improvement, IMO, over Win 9x/Me. XP has far better legacy support than 2K as well, so if you're gaming XP is definitely the way to go. I've not run into any problems with XP that I have not caused by forcing drivers (AGFA, please release XP drivers for the CL18 camera), and I'm impressed with XP's overall polish. 98 to XP is definitely worth it. 2K to XP would have been debatable.

ZV

 

[ILikeSprite]

XP sucks. If you want the stability of NT use Win2k. WinXP is way too bloated............

 

[Ameesh]

XP rocks, it works great.

 

[SuperCyrix]

I don't understand what everybody mean by bloated. How is xp bloated?

 

[InverseOfNeo]

I love XP. I have used it since before the official release. I have not had any problems with it. Solid operating system. It is faster then 2k, boots up in a fraction of the time. And it has better gaming support

 

[Martin]

<< XP rocks, it works great. >>



Yeah, if you're near sighted and colour blind, you might actually like the UI.


It seems 2k was the best, and it'll all downhill from here.

 

[DigDug]

I have always resisted upgrades, but I must say XP was worth it.
The little conveniences (Sarcasm) like driver compatibility, and legacy support make it worth its weight.
Ironically, it runs faster than win98 did on my laptop - attribute it to the memory management? What else could it be, considering that the OS is humungous!


...and I do like the interface. But also like Zima, so I've never exactly been brought up to be Mr. Macho (thank god). But four years at Vassar (70/30 girls/guys ratio) forces you to be secure in your manhood.

 

[Ameesh]

<<

<< XP rocks, it works great. >>



Yeah, if you're near sighted and colour blind, you might actually like the UI.


It seems 2k was the best, and it'll all downhill from here. >>



turn off the gui if you dont like it, XP is a lot faster then w2k and alot better code, lots of fixes and redesigns.

 

[LordMaul]

Get XP. Marty is insane and thinks he can use Photoshop among other things, so TRUST ME! Don't listen to him! Next thing you know he'll have you put Gator, and Audio Galaxy, and a bunch of other progams and your computer will revolt! Do what I say if you want to be happy!




/twitch...twitch...

But yes, Get XP. As for Marty...well, let's just say that the nuthouse was full.

 

[Jokersmokerwannabe]

2000 and xp are both good upgrades from 9x. Both oust software access to your hardware, depleting computer meltdowns. Supposively, xp is 15% more stable, but that's only what Microsoft says.

 

[Martin]

<< turn off the gui if you dont like it, XP is a lot faster then w2k and alot better code, lots of fixes and redesigns. >>



You can't really turn off the the GUI. Here are several gripes I have with it:
1. Explorer and Internet explorer buttons
2. Programs (including many MS ones) don't conform to the new GUI.
3. New explorer bars suck, you can't bring in the 2k style ones, you only turn it off.
4. User management is simply awful. Thank god I found a workaround.
5. In certain areas (such as Find) the old GUI still shows up.


Over all, XP has a few minor improvements over 2k, but with so much crap stuffed in it, its hard to appreciate those improvements (what I do like is the many included drivers, the collapsable systray, and the fast boot time). Btw, in case you are wondering, yes, I am using XP and the moment, but I'm gonna reformat and put 2k back on in a few days.


As for Mauly, I wouldn't listen to him if I were you. True, the nuthouse was full, but only cuz Mauly was there first and he takes up the resources of 15 normal mental patients put together.
Poor guy has many issues to deal with. He still thinks he's sane...tsk tsk tsk

 

[freebsddude]

<< Is XP faster? >>



XPs system requirements are different than Win 98s, you need more memory and a faster processor to get the full benefit(s) of speed. What hardware do you have ?

Win98 requires 486DX 66 with 16-24MB RAM, while XP requires 233 MHz with 128MB RAM.

 

[bulldawg]

<< XP sucks >>




Whatever.....

Works fine for me. If you don't like the graphics crap, just turn them off.

 

[ProviaFan]

I use XP, and have the Luna interface stuff turned off. It's not noticably different in speed from Win2k for me, and it supports more of my hardware. YMMV.

 

[FuManStan]

<<

<< XP rocks, it works great. >>



Yeah, if you're near sighted and colour blind, you might actually like the UI.


It seems 2k was the best, and it'll all downhill from here. >>




I guess i'm near sighted and color blind then, cuz i love it over the same grey bar i've been looking at for the last 6 years

 

[Grimner]

Went from W98SE to XP two months ago (for the first time I paid honest money for a Microsoft OS, and yes, I even registered - it's that good), and I'm not looking back.

It's fast - but it likes memory; min 256 I think.
It's stable - but check your hardware first. My ISDN card worked but gave a blue screen on shutdown. Switch to ADSL, take the ISDN out, problem gone.

I installed on a fresh harddisk and fiddled around with two disks for a few days until the emigration was complete (well, I don't miss anything).
An upgrade of your existing installation might carry some cravats, judging from the various reports out there.

There are a few annoying features, but you can either turn them off or get used to them.

The worst for me was the CD-Burning thingy - I just cried NO and went back to Nero.

The best is the way XP handles USB digital cameras. Here I was hunting around Sony's site for XP drivers. Then I plugged in the camera just on the chance - and the gates to Paradise opened


After this I'd better say I don't own Microsoft stock, and that I fool around with SUSE on the side - I just don't trust myself enough with Linux to make a full switch

 

[Sunner]

I prefer Win2K over XP.

XP is like 2K, with 15 seconds shorter boot time, but about a million small annoyances that in the end add up to annoying the $hit out of.
Oh and the new GUI sucks so much I just can't find the words to describe it.

 

[Dreadogg]

post specs! I would not install XP on anything less the 1 GHZ and 256 MB ram!

 

[HalfCrazy]

I kinda like XP but the only thing I do hate about it. Is that darn MSN Explorer and the windows messenger. Too bad they did not make it so you can choose what you want installed off the bat. I'm able to play WarCraft and Doom plus a few other old games which are dos games.

 

[yesman88]

Definetly go for XP, my machine is running p3-850 + 384mb ram and I'm happy with it. It's little slow on my p3-550 + 256mb machine and I'm thinking switch back to Win2k on this one.