Win 98 --------> Win XP Professional: Is It Worth It? (1 Viewer)

[DaveF]

I was comtemplating the same upgrade, Win 98 SE to Win XP. I decided against it for one simple reason: things work fine right now and I don't want to risk screwing them up.
I've no idea what the impact on:
- dual monitor via ATI card
- LAN with roommate's Win98 machine
- connection with cable modem
- compatibility with various programs, including Office 97 and Homesite 5
- Games (I've heard mixed things)
More and more I prefer old stability over new flash. I guess I'm just getting old myself...

 

[Chris Tsutsui]

I have Windows 98SE AND Windows XP Professional Edition.

I do not recommend buying Windows XP if your computer has no problems now. I did not notice any significant speed increase with the new OS or NTFS file system.

Windows XP automatically installed drivers to run my components so I then had to download all new XP drivers I wanted for my video card, etc. Not only did it take hours to download all new drivers but the new ones I did download did not work well.

Some old games didn't work with Windows XP, and I could not get MSN to work without using MSN explorer.

I'll probably give XP another shot sooner or later.

 

[John_Berger]

I was comtemplating the same upgrade, Win 98 SE to Win XP. I decided against it for one simple reason: things work fine right now and I don't want to risk screwing them up.

Thank you! Personally, I'm convinced that people flock and tout Windows XP simply because it's the "kewl" thing to do. It's the newest operating system (read: money grab) from Microsoft, so -- HEY! -- everybody has to have it! After all, Bill Gates is god and Microsoft is heaven, right? No one wants to look like they're not running the newing thing! Can't be the last one on the block!
Having worked with computers for almost 25 years (yes!), I go by a few simple premises:
"Nothing is obsolete until you no longer have a use for it."
and
"Let others be on the bleeding edge. I'll just stick with what works and let them make fools of themselves."
Now that Windows XP has a service pack it's not "bleeding edge" anymore; however, the cutesy little additions that it has and the continual cries from people like Kim Kommando who try to brainwash others to think these are "must have" utilities don't justify the abandonment of common sense and the incessant need to run the "newest thing" for no other reason than it's the "newest thing".
**sigh**
Okay, I'll get off my soap box. I'm sure that someone will require me to get back on it soon enough.

 

[Chris Bardon]

Thank you! Personally, I'm convinced that people flock and tout Windows XP simply because it's the "kewl" thing to do. It's the newest operating system (read: money grab) from Microsoft, so -- HEY! -- everybody has to have it! After all, Bill Gates is god and Microsoft is heaven, right? No one wants to look like they're not running the newing thing! Can't be the last one on the block!

John, I couldn't agree more. I look at it this way though-there's almost always a reason to upgrade, and usually it's something minor that will push me over the edge. One example-I upgraded from office 97 to 2000 because word registered multiple documents as multiple windows (for alt+tab switching), and from office 2000 to office XP because of the commenting feature in word for some online marking that I had to do. It's the same with OS upgrades. 95 was just better than 3.1, 98 allowed for Fat 32, but ME really had no benefit that I could see, so I steered away.

I'd say that the best option would be to make sure that there's a compelling reason for YOU to upgrade though. I know that I've touted the stability of XP, but my 98 system was also stable (for the most part) until I got into more serious research simulations. If your system is stable-don't change it.

That being said though, sometimes hardware will demand it. I was looking at getting one of the ATI AIW radeon 8500s, and they don't support it on 98. Only a matter of time before you have to upgrade the software if you want newer hardware...

 

[John_Berger]

Absolutely. If there is a viable reason for someone to upgrade, go for it. When it comes to Word and OpenOffice, I, too, like the Alt-Tab for multiple windows. Great benefit, and one that nailed me every freakin' time with Word 97.
When it comes to hardware, this is something that we've had to deal with for years and years. You REALLY want a piece of hardware, but you need a new O/S. Well, if you really want the hardware, you don't have a choice. We've all been hit by that in one way or another, not unlike having to get a faster processor to play the newest games.
However, I think it's quite obvious, based on the lines that form at software stores at midnight of a new MS release, that the vast majority of people who upgrade to the newest Microsoft software (whether O/S or application) as soon as possible do so because they're mindless sheep who have to have it for no reason other than to have it and to be able to be the first schmuck on the block with it. To hell with the ramifications of doing so, apparently. I always - always - wait for Service Pack 1 to allow the deserved misfortunes of the impatient people to shape the cautionary actions of the practical people. (If you're offended by that statement, then we all know which category you belong in. )
Now, in Chuck's case Service Pack 1 is already out, so that's a plus on his side. And even if he doesn't want to install XP just yet, he's getting the CD for $12. Pfft! Now, that's a deal that even I'd accept, if just to have a backup of the CD!

 

[Chuck C]

Dear Forum,

It seems like the common arguement is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

I think I'm gonna pick up the disc, put it in my drawer, and wait. Maybe around Christmas time I'll install it. I want to see what unfolds in the next few months.

 

[Andre F]

I always - always - wait for Service Pack 1 to allow the deserved misfortunes of the impatient people to shape the cautionary actions of the practical people. (If you're offended by that statement, then we all know which category you belong in. )

Hmmmm, I deserve misfortune becasue I like to try out new technology that might actually be better than previous iterations. While I did wait a few months for initial bugs to shake out, I've had WinXP since last X-Mas and I'll say it again IT STILL HAS NOT CRASHED! I think that is a step forward and I for one am glad I did my research and bought the new OS. It's been great I've been enjoying it for almost a year while you are obviously not. I don't know, I guess I'm just one of those "mindless sheep" that like to explore new technologies etc, which is practically mandantory at my job (software engineer). Oh well...

 

[Jon_Are]

what kinda RAM is compatible with my computer?

Go to crucial.com for all your memory needs. They'll tell you all you need to know, then sell it to you at a great price. Highly recommended.
I upgraded to XP from 98 around six months ago. XP hasn't crashed yet (98 was crashing daily). However, I've had problems with my printer (still works, but the fancy software that came with it doesn't) and my scanner (does not work, and no driver is or will be available - gotta buy a new scanner).
To repeat what others have said: back up everything, and do a clean install.
Good luck,
Jon

 

[John_Berger]

I think I'm gonna pick up the disc, put it in my drawer, and wait. Maybe around Christmas time I'll install it. I want to see what unfolds in the next few months.

Another option is to get another hard drive (even just an older one that you might have laying around) and install XP on that to see if you like it. That way, you still have your original O/S and data on the original drive. If you like XP, you then have the choice of rebuilding your original drive with it (do NOT upgrade over your existing install - I'm tellin' ya!) or keep the drive and add your original as a D:. You'll need to reinstall your apps, but the data will still be untouched on D:.

 

[John_Berger]

Quote:

Oh, yawn. Spare me.
You are a software engineer. Your job might depend on your knowledge of new operating systems and their capabilities (or at least the cutesy little utilities that are added and then branded as a "new" O/S); therefore, you are the exception to the rule.
You CANNOT tell me that the vast majority of people who blindly line up to get every new iteration of Microsoft's O/Ses are software engineers. They're people who want it because "it's the newest thing" and because they want to be the first on their block to have it, even if a fix isn't due for months. What's worse, I would wager that most don't even bother to take the precaution of installing it separately. They just dump it on top of their existing operating system! { shudder!!! }
Oh, yeah, being the first on the block is really a good reason to risk security problems, instability possibilities, and other issues that are generally inherent in new applications and operating systems. And as history has shown time and time again, Microsoft's initial operating systems releases are rife with problems, security glitches, and just nasty bugs.
Yet people still line up at midnight to buy their newest products.
{ insert sheep sounds here }
One thing is for sure! If I develop crappy bloatware and I want to brainwash the public to think that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, I want to hire Microsoft's marketing department! I'll give them credit -- they're good! They could sell freezers to Eskimos who have no electricity!

 

[Jeff D.]

Just remember that Windows XP is Windows 2000 for Soccer Moms. Oh, yes, it's so pretty with the pretty colors and the pretty curves and the pretty graphics with their pretty shadows, and it's just oh so pretty, isn't it? But it's still a Windows 2000 core.

XP is not simply Windows 2000 with a pretty face. While it is based on the NT platform, it is more advanced than Win2K and will, generally, offer better support for hardware for the mainstream user.
Oh, and as to all the prettiness - it can be turned off and Windows XP can be made to look just like Win2K.
Oh, and Windows XP is better.
/Jeff

 

[John_Berger]

Oh, and Windows XP is better.

You go ahead believing that. Of course, UNIX blows everything Windows-related out of the water, but that's for another thread.

 

[MikeAlletto]

Yet people still line up at midnight to buy their newest products.

I was thinking about this and I do agree with you, but there may be another reason so many people line up on release night to get a new OS. Fun. I would never install a new OS just because i know how screwed up things can get, but for some people it is a fun experience to go buy something that important, spend the next few hours installing it and playing around with it.

 

[Jeff Peake]

I like XP cause it boots up in under 30 seconds. Way faster at booting than win2k ever was.


For $12, get XP.

JP

 

[Andre F]

One thing is for sure! If I develop crappy bloatware and I want to brainwash the public to think that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, I want to hire Microsoft's marketing department! I'll give them credit -- they're good! They could sell freezers to Eskimos who have no electricity!

One thing is for sure I'm no huge Microsoft fan but I'd hardly call XP bloatware. It works and works very well for me...of course this is IMHO!

 

[John_Berger]

One thing is for sure I'm no huge Microsoft fan but I'd hardly call XP bloatware.

Linux can run on a floppy disk. Need I say more?
To be fair, a lot of software companies don't bother to optimize their code, but come on -- 250 MB+ for a full install of Office? And that's just CD 1!! OpenOffice is only a 50 MB download, and it does just about everything (practical) that MS Office does!
I also include in my definition of bloatware bells and whistles that really don't do a damn thing or provide any kind of value-add functionality, like those annoying Office helpers. DEATH TO CLIPPY!!!

 

[Andre F]

Linux can run on a floppy disk. Need I say more?

You got me there, I guess the 1.5GB XP needs is a bit much and I'm no Linux expert (I've experimented but that's it) but I here it's very stable. The one thing I will say to this and I know this will be taken wrong but....optimization is not the name of the game anymore. That's not say it shouldn't be (I think it's much better to have good and clean code) but most people in the industry don't care about that anymore. They'd rather have it in time and under budget. "So what if you can make run 1/10th of a second faster and 5MBs less in size, just get it to me." Again, something I hear all the time. I'd rather tinker with the code and get it perfect, but with RAM and harddrives so cheap no one seems to care anymore.
In summary (boy this one ran away from me ), I like XP a lot and I think it runs extremely well. I recommend it to all my friends (you know the ones who call with all their computer problems...) however in a production environment I'd recommened W2K. For the record, I hated Win98 and ME...but loved W2K.

 

[John_Berger]

I guess the 1.5GB XP needs is a bit much

It's inexcusable. Consider that Windows 3.11 is only three or four versions back, and it took up a whopping 15-20 MB. I think that Windows 95 was only 100 MB or so. But now 1.5 GB? If that's not bloatware, then Florida has the best voting procedures in the world!

 

[nolesrule]

then Florida has the best voting procedures in the world!

Now don't be blaming the entire state for a couple of bad counties.

As for WinME, you must be the only person who never had problems with it. Everyone I know who bought a computer with it either went back to 98 or went up to 2K/XP because they couldn't keep their computers on without rebooting every 2-3 hours.

 

[John_Berger]

As for WinME, you must be the only person who never had problems with it.

I'm just giving up on this one. I must be the only one. It works great on any of PCs on which I installed it, and my laptop absolutely loves it.
This is just one of those mysteries that man was not meant to solve -- like the intentional desire to buy pan-and-scan.