W98SE vs. WinXP

[beetlejuice]

Please vote. I like 98SE alot and just cant decide which to go with this time. :-\

[bigc73542]

I have had 98, 98se, and me, and now xp. I really liked 98se and me both but after I got used to xp and learned how to secure it correctly I would have to recomend xp. It will be interesting to see the results of your poll. It is just a lot harder for anyone to get into xp that isn't sopposed to be there if you use an administrator password and all the security it has to offer. Of course nothing is fool proof

[beetlejuice]

Yes I'm interested too. Like I said, I can't decide. I don't know much about XP except for some of the horror stories I've heard from a couple of people concerning having a hard time getting drivers to run all the periferials.

[bigc73542]

There are quite a few web sites you can find now concerning drivers for most of the perifrials you might need. Personally the only programs that I have had trouble with are older games. and some of them will work with the built in compatibility wizard. It wont make every older program work but quite a few. Well I will be quiet now and let you hear some other opinions. :-X

[LowWaterMark]

A lot of people think XP is the devil. ;)

You'll see them post about it being nothing but Microsoft spyware, having all kinds of phone homes, massive security holes, etc. etc. Sure, it can be bad if you just install a default config out of the box. But, once you take the time to learn it and secure it properly there are very few issues.

For the longest time I used Windows 95 or 98... A couple years back or so, at work the standard laptop was a high end Dell with Win2000. I made them give me Windows 95. (It's good to be the boss ;) ) I held out longer than anyone else I know. Then finally I got a new home PC with Windows XP on it and really liked it. Now I'm sold on XP.

I believe the stability of XP is the best of the Windows OS. I rarely crash the system. Actually, I never crash it unless I'm messing around with stuff I shouldn't. Those are the only failures I've had. I believe XP is fast, stable and capable.

Also, time is moving forward. So, I think getting a much more current OS is better than staying in the past.

[bigc73542]

compatibility wizard it rally works pretty fair

[DolfTraanberg]

As long as possible our network remains on W2000 ;D
Dolf

[sig]

I'd go with XP. Stability is the main difference in my experience. XP handles memory use and resources much better than 98. Which makes a tremendous difference IMO. One can read up on how to better secure the system and best practices with XP. And newer software generally tends to accommodate the newer OS better than previous older systems.

For compatibility concerns one can look at this page: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/compatibility/default.asp

[the Tester]

The first computer that I used was my Dad's 98.
I surfed on a few 98's before I bought my own computer.

I have XP home SP1 now and I like it better than 98.

XP does have a lot of security issues.
But with XP Anti Spy and the tweak sites like blackviper it's not that hard to disable the un-needed services.

Overall, I like XP Home and I'd choose it.

[crockett]

Hi everyone... :)

Still on W98SELite, never tried WXP 'cause I'm still running on an old and weak pc. 98Lite doing a fine job for me for the time being...

Since I couldn't compare, I didn't vote so as to not spoil the results.

BTW, I have a colleague who just bought a new computer running under WXP and asked me to secure it.

The first problem is that he knows almost nothing about pc's. The second one is that I know nothing about XP. :o

XP users, could you tell me if I can secure his pc simply and efficiently, say by using a few small third-party freewares that 'd do the job for me ? If yes, which ones and how to run them ?!

Sorry if the wrong place to post about this... If so, feel free to PM me if you can help.

Thanks,

Rgds,
Crockett 8)

[the Tester]

Hi Crockett.

For securing XP by disabling services I use XP-AntiSpy.
It's small and free.
It has color coding and at the top of the program panel there is a ?,click that and then click "about XP- Antispy".
That will explain the color code.
You can also hover the mouse over an item and you get a explanation of that item.

The home page is in German/English with an English FAQ link also.

http://www.xp-antispy.org/

Screenshot attached below.

[sig]

Since XP runs so many services that open ports on the net, running a firewall is (for me and most average users) a necessity. So that's a given. :)

Many people also disable unnecessary services and for that XP AntiSpy is a handy tool (and free). Some people go further than XP AntiSpy, but that should be reserved for people who have a clue what they're doing and the potential consequences. The deal with disabling services is to know what functionalities/dependencies are associated with it and whether they're desirable or not for the user. XP AntiSpy does provide some info regarding that, I believe, so one can choose. But many people don't disable services and just run a firewall and are ok. It depends if one wants to reduce unnecessary resource use and get rid of running services one doesn't want/need or not.

Just one note though about UPNP: when XP first came out as I recall, universal plug and play (not the plug and play you're used to with 98) held a port open (5000?) even when running ZA. I don't know if that's still the case with XP and/or ZA, but it was when I got XP and that was the first service I disabled. The majority of home users will have no use for it. I don't recall offhand if XP AntiSpy takes care of UPNP so that's something to look for.

One service I retained is I do like automatic notification of MS updates which is on by default, just set to notify rather auto download and install as long as the user knows that it's for convenience so the download and install process doesn't interfere with what he may be doing at the time. And one shouldn't slack off on installing critical updates. But I ususally check forums to make sure there is no generally reported problem with an update before I download and install it. Only critical updates are covered through this auto update as I recollect. I occasionally use the Windows Update tab in IE to check on recommended, etc to see what else may be available and whether I want it or not.

Anyway, the main thing is having a firewall. Generic Host Processes does need access to the internet, no server rights (as in ZA). Can't think of anything else, offhand.

[the Tester]

Hi Sig.

You brought up a good point about Unplug and play.
You can disable that service with XP-AntiSpy.
I think that you still have to close that open port(5000) associated with it though.
I'm pretty sure that M$ still ships XP with that
vulnerability.
At least my new system had that port open. >:( and that was 3 or 4 months ago.

There's a patch for that from M$,but I use "UnPlug and Pray" from Steve Gibson.
You can open or close that port with Gibson's little program.

http://grc.com/UnPnP/UnPnP.htm

[crockett]

Hi Tester ;) Hi Sig :)

Thanks for the quick replies... Those freewares definitely what I just needed ! Thanks...

Is XP Anti-Spy able to disable the built-in XP firewall ? I'll probably install ZA since it is so easy to use for starters... Hope it's gonna go smooth on XP...

I once more realize it's such a heavy responsibility to take care of someone else's computer... Not sure I had a good idea to accept it. Well, I'll see.

AdAware scan recommended on XP or is it gonna do more harm (by deactivating essential services) than good ?!

Tester, "Happy Birthday' for your 500th post ! Sig, I think you and I still have a long way to go to have the slightest chance to catch up... Particularly I ! :D

Rgds, guys...

Crockett, tonight posting on Beonex-browser 8)

[MickeyTheMan]

I run a dual boot system with 98SE and win2k.
Took me the longest to get used to win2k, but now spend most of my time on it and 98 is only used as a backup in case of...

[sig]

Yes, as MTM mentions, W2K is another alternative and does better on older or underpowered machines than XP.

Crockett: My understanding is that the firewall (ICF) now should be on by default with newer shipments of XP. I activated it before I connected to broadband and then went online to download updates, etc. It's serviceable in that instance. Easy to activate and deactivate. It's in the network connections and I found that it's activated or deactivated for each connection when I added a dial up DUN connection as a back up to my cable connection. Anyway, info about ICF is in XP's help and support section, which can be accessed from the start menu.

The other issue I forgot to mention which is going to be probably new to an average user moving up from 98 to XP is the administrator account vs limited user account. Administrator account is allowed to do anything on the computer; limited user accounts are just that (and I think can be adjusted to what the limited user can or cannot do). Best practice is to spend most of one's time as a limited user and only logging in as Admin only when needed to do certain things. And use passwords. Default for XP Home is Admin mode and one would need to set up a limted user account. There is also a guest account but that is recommended to be turned off for security reasons. Instructions for these also can be found in the help and support file.

Now that doesn't mean that XP can't be set up (if there is only one user) to run without a logon or password and without a nonAdmin user account. XP Home happily does that on it's own as I found if there is only one user account and no password. And some users do run it like that. I'm just mentioning what is recommended best practice and it all depends on the user and the cirumstances (other users in the house, etc) how you/they will want to set that up.

It's not difficult. Just have to read up on it a bit, the help file is actually helpful on these matters. And here are a couple pages from the MS site that also may be useful before you deal with XP:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;EN-US;winxp

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/

I'm no expert and I'm using XP Home. XP Pro has some other flexibilities for greater control of user accounts perhaps and certainly group policies, etc. Anyway, the thing is, XP Home can be too easy so one has to look for the settings and ways to make it a bit more secure like using limited user accounts, etc.

BTW, congrats Tester! :)

oops, forgot, Adaware should be just fine on XP. I haven't used it on XP, but I don't know that it would even get into the services issues so I doubt that's a concern. I imagine it wouldn't be any different than using it on a nonXP box. I use Spybot Search and Destroy and never seem to have more than an occasional cookie that slips by me. Also, I use SpywareBlaster and Spyware Guard. All run fine on XP.

[meneer]

I voted 98 (yes, it me) because I've got a licenced version. I doubt if I would pay for XP. No I don't doubt, I wouldn't pay for it, I'm moving to linux for my office system.

In all earnest I do believe XP is more secure. But to run windows software a secured 98 is good enough. I recently moved to W2K for stability reasons, though :-[, but I was running some beta software and 98 couldn't cope any longer. So there's a case for XP.

btw:
Lot's of illegal XP's at home and on the market. Do these systems benefit of all security patches and service packs that Microsoft is issuing? No, don't think so. Talk about secure XP :(

[StAnger]

-{ Quote: " quoting: meneer link=board=19;threadid=15132;start=15#msg94932 date=1066649471]
Lot's of illegal XP's at home and on the market. Do these systems benefit of all security patches and service packs that Microsoft is issuing? No, don't think so. Talk about secure XP :(
" }-

I don't see why not. Do you think I give MS my real key just to get some patches? No need for that. ;)
I don't think Paul would appreciate it if we went into details, but anyone that doesn't patch his illegal version of XP, doesn't care enough.

Back to the topic at hand. I voted XP, but that is not really fair because I never used 98. I skipped that one.

[FukenFooser 007.5]

8)


I would pick XP Pro

Works great even for an idoit like myself.

Have used "patched" and real version many times, (don't ask,{failing HD kicked my U know what}), and bolth update and work better than I can keep-up with, and after using XP @ home I dread going to work to see what else they messed up on many 98's that r in use there. (Had to build a junker to be able to look @ 98 @ home, {goof there also, I used 98SE, @ work is 98}, seems trivial but at least none on 95 still, allthou I did restore a old notepad 360c for my 95 referance point).
All things good to said about XP Pro, even with all the "nasties" going arouind.

Thats my opinion.

Great work to ALL the TECH's @ WILDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jayzzz]

The XP firewall is merely a box to check or uncheck in XP's Advanced Properties for the LAN connection. There are no other typical firewall- type settings for it. My understanding is that 2 firewalls can't hurt. I've been using the XP firewall (which I consider like a mini-firewall) together with Zone Alarm, and like the idea of "double protection," myself.

I've also used Windows 98 on the other computer in the house, and I had Windows 95 prior to XP. I prefer XP, now that I've taken care of the problems it comes with by default. It doesn't tell you everything is illegal, which irritates the you-know-what out of me in Windows 98. I've only seen crashes with Windows XP when it tells me there's been one, so far. It seems to sort of pick itself up again and fixes a lot of things, itself, if in a decent computer.

Good luck. Hope you enjoy whatever you decide on. mj :)

[the Tester]

Hi Crockett.

XP-AntiSpy doesn't have an option to disable the ICF.
You'd have to do that manually.

Thanks for the Birthday Wish about the posts.
It indicates a novice's addiction to this forum. ;)

[Daniel SR]

I like, use and recomend XP because of it's stability. But 98se still is a great Windows option.

[DougRees]

XP is the only MS operating system thus far that I've truly liked. When I used 98SE, I got more "illegal operation" notices than I would have if I had smoked marijuana in Texas or Alabama.

[Acadia]

Win98se because I have no choice: my system is too old for XP. Eagerly awaiting getting a new system in 6-8 months THEN the fun begins! 8)

Acadia

[snowbound]

-{ Quote: " quoting: FukenFooser 007.5 link=board=19;threadid=15132;start=15#msg94939 date=1066653539]
8)
I would pick XP Pro
" }-

I use xp home now but hope to go to xp pro shortly.

xp pro users have told me it is a lot more secure.



Snowbound

[Dan Perez]

I don't think there is really any choice here ;D

WinXP is far more stable, far more surviveable and far more scalable with newer hardware. It will take a bit of getting used to if you have been using 98 all this time but you will not regret it once you give yourself time to get used to it. Some of your 98 apps will not work under XP though. (Still, they would be the ones more likely to wreak havoc anyway ;D )

[Peaches4U]

My two cents worth. :D

I would say the biggest difference is stability. Also, Win98SE is missing the system Restore and Movie Maker features, both of which are standard with WinME & XP. It also lacks support for smart menus, Hibernation mode, system file protection, automatic updating, effortless home networking, and Internet gaming. In short, the wrinkles of Win98SE are starting to show.

As long as your current OS supports your computing activities, you have no reason to upgrade or if cost is a factor. You also have to consider whether your PC can handle an upgrade. WinXP demands a lot of a computer, and many older systems - especially those, running Win98 SE, may not be up to the challenge.

I switched from Win98SE to XP and have never looked back. My computer handles it well. I like it. Cheers.

[AplusWebMaster]

-{ Quote: "I don't think there is really any choice here..." }-

Dan...that's probably an accurate assessment, but it seems that might change in the near future. Big bucks may soon be allocated in an entirely new direction (I hope), according to this article:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/24/46NNdesktop_1.html

[Chuck57]

I use xp home and prefer it to 98 purely because of the stability. I haven't had an OS related crash yet. If I'd thought about it more when I had my desktop built, I think I'd have opted for 2000. Same kernel and less bells and whistles.

As for the xp firewall, mine was on when I got it. I've downloaded a dozen different firewalls to play with since, and they all turned off the xp firewall automatically.

xp's firewall is found in the bar at the bottom, the network connections. Open it, select network connections, and it will show the firewalled connections. Click on whichever isp you're using and find security, then unclick the checkbox. I don't think it's necessary. ZoneAlarm, among others seems to deselect it automatically.

[solarpowered candle]

-{ Quote: " quoting: AplusWebMaster link=board=19;threadid=15132;start=15#msg103913 date=1069719791]
-{ Quote: "I don't think there is really any choice here..." }-

Dan...that's probably an accurate assessment, but it seems that might change in the near future. Big bucks may soon be allocated in an entirely new direction (I hope), according to this article:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/24/46NNdesktop_1.html

" }-
Thats true , I remember reading a press article 6 months ago how the Japanese goverment were discussing passing legislation to switch all computers over to linux . This would be a big move as In Japan apparantly all communications with local govt are going or mostly conducted through the internet . if that be the case and microsoft is dumped and other Asian countries follow suit ( which is highly likely ) and pacific regions etc then much will be obsolete that is now looking not so ...... just a thought .... ( I still use win98se and its fine for my purposes . )

[bigc73542]

I absolutley agree that linux is making some great headway around the world. I read that linux is getting real big in south america. I run two versions now and am getting another hdd and am going to put mandrake 9.2 and red hat fedora on it then maybe shoot ms windows.

[Bildgerat]

I vote XP as I have found it to be more user friendly and the features like remote control help is great as well as the fact that it uses memory more effeciently helps as well.

[nadirah]

Really, I say windows XP is far more superior compared to previous versions of windows in terms of reliability, speed and security. What's XP? XPerience the best windows ever.

[MikeBCda]

I'm in what looks like a small minority, but I sure wish I still had my 98SE. But of course when I had to go with a new system last fall because my old one died, I had no choice but XP-Home.

The biggest advantage of XP, which has already been mentioned in terms of stability, is its memory management -- it's nice to no longer have to keep an eye on system resources. And on the rare occasions when it does crash and you have to reboot, it's nice not to be forced through Scandisk in the process.

On the other hand, there's a major disadvantage -- and this isn't new with XP, admittedly, but is post-98. Now that DOS is for all practical purposes gone, I've lost a heckuva lot of old favorites that would happily run under 98, often quite nicely in DOS windows without even needing rebooting into DOS mode.

[Vaudeville]

I have both an XP Home and an XP Pro system. When I first got XP when it was first released a few years ago, I really disliked it because I was used to my Windows 98SE system. Now, after having it for a few years I am obviously used to it and would recommend it. The only problem with XP is that it is hard to use any older peripherals, sometimes the compatibility wizard can not fix the problem. For example I have an Intel Webcam that was meant for a 98 system and will not install properly on XP. Not that it is a big issue, but if you are strapped for cash you might not be able to replace all of your old peripherals that you might need.

[Q Section]

Well......it seems there are not many graphics tweakers here. XP enables so many more graphics opportunities like transparencies. When we first looked at XP (GUI) it looked like just so much useless/non-utilitarian eye candy. Then one day someone pointed out that XP can be changed back to the classic (98SE) style graphics. Right away that was a MAJOR improvement.
XP is so much more stable in that it fixes its own crashes more often. We do quite a bit of beta testing and crash 98SE many times a day!!! XP crashes but not nearly as often and the computer usually does not need to be restarted.

XP uses the NTFS file system and is more effecient than FAT32. Quote from the MS website "NTFS manages disk space more efficiently than FAT by using smaller cluster sizes. For example, a 30-GB NTFS volume uses 4-KB clusters. The same volume formatted by using FAT32 uses 16-KB clusters. Using smaller clusters reduces wasted space on hard disks." So you see 98SE uses 4 times the space just for a simple folder!:o

Making XP secure as possible is not difficult.

A few good programmes cannot be run using 98SE. For an example see some of Diamond CS's programmes.

Be seeing you.

[ronjor]

-{ Quote: "Well......it seems there are not many graphics tweakers here. XP enables so many more graphics opportunities like transparencies. When XP was first seen it was just so much useless/non-utilitarian eye candy. Then one day someone pointed out that XP can be changed back to the classic (98SE) style graphics. Right away that was a MAJOR improvement.
XP is so much more stable in that it fixes its own crashes more often. We do quite a bit of beta testing and crash 98SE many times a day!!! XP crashes but not nearly as often and the computer usually does not need to be restarted.

XP uses the NTFS file system and is more effecient than FAT32. Quote from the MS website "NTFS manages disk space more efficiently than FAT by using smaller cluster sizes. For example, a 30-GB NTFS volume uses 4-KB clusters. The same volume formatted by using FAT32 uses 16-KB clusters. Using smaller clusters reduces wasted space on hard disks." So you see 98SE uses 4 times the space just for a simple folder!:o

Making XP secure as possible is not difficult.

A few good programmes cannot be run using 98SE. For and example see some of Diamond CS's programmes.

Be seeing you." }-


QSection

I use the classic view on XP myself. The green and blue colors do not mix in my opinion.

[10yrsgone]

I'm right in the middle with Windows ME, and no one is gonna trick me into upgrading to XP for any reason. I don't care about SP2, i use firefox anyway. I have always done just fine with Win ME. Haven't had any real problems with malware yet. I'll just wait till Win ME runs out in 2007. Then maybe i'll upgrade. But there's always Linux. ;D

[Pigman]

WinXP. My only beef with XP is that a) it's a resource hog, and therefore not possible to run on my aging computer, and b) IE is completely integrated into it, and, AFAIK, cannot be removed at all. (I think the same is true of OE...) I suppose that Win2k offers the best of both worlds, but I'm not sure... I've heard a few times that it is a bit buggy...

Btw, is there a way to disable all the rounded corners in XP?

[nadirah]

C'mon, XP is far more better than any other operating system. I used 98 in the past, but now after i started using XP i am really impressed by XP! :)
The New Standard in Dependability and Simplicity

Impressive Reliability, Built on new Windows engine

With Windows XP Home Edition, Microsoft has merged the best features of its consumer operating systems with the power, security, and reliability of the Windows 2000 engine to create a new friendlier, more dependable operating system.

Windows File Protection

Prevents you or your applications from accidentally changing the core operating system files. This helps protect your system proactively and automatically.

Protected Kernel Mode Architecture

Your applications do not have access to the software code kernel upon which your operating system is based. This greatly improves the reliability of your system.

Process Separation

Errant applications will not cause your computer to crash. Each application is in a completely separate, protected memory space.

Side-by-Side DLLs

These provide you with a mechanism for multiple versions of individual Windows components to run "side by side." Now you won't have to worry that your applications will conflict with each other and cause application instability.

[gerardwil]

You can read the whole story at Microsoft Nadirah

[rdsu]

WinXP is much more stable, have a better GUI and manage much better the memory that Win98 SE...

[nadirah]

Windows XP is XPriencing the BEST of the digital age. ;)

[Q Section]

-{ Quote: "Windows XP is XPriencing the BEST of the digital age. ;)" }-Hmmm......Do you know about the VAX System with the VMS Operating System? "The clustering capability that was added to VMS is still years in advance of anything in Windows NT or any other operating system for that matter. In 1992 Digital released the Alpha, which was a 64-bit RISC (reduced instruction set) machine which ran a modified version of VMS called AXP. This machine was fast - in fact, it broke many of the speed and performance records in place." We should not even mention the Emerald Operating System (!).

XP is old hat but we do not advocate getting rid of it. It has a great potential.

[ronjor]

-{ Quote: "Hmmm......Do you know about the VAX System with the VMS Operating System? "The clustering capability that was added to VMS is still years in advance of anything in Windows NT or any other operating system for that matter. In 1992 Digital released the Alpha, which was a 64-bit RISC (reduced instruction set) machine which ran a modified version of VMS called AXP. This machine was fast - in fact, it broke many of the speed and performance records in place." We should not even mention the Emerald Operating System (!).

XP is old hat but we do not advocate getting rid of it. It has a great potential." }-


I worked with VMS and X-windows sitting on top of it. This was in an industrial setting. Believe or not, it would lock up just like any other operating system.

Great piece of software though.

[Azn_Tweaker]

i would use XP ;D

[manOFpeace]

My situation is W98 against XP Home.
Why? XP is a much more stable system, rarely giving any bother. :)

[Whynot]

After using every M$ product since 3.11/DOS 6 I have to say that I prefer XP. I thought W2K was good and initialy was put off of XP 'cause of the appearance, but once I got used to it, it's my OS of choice. Win98SE was (and is) good for games but as far as I'm concerned that's it (I still use it for games that refuse to run well under XP). However, for internet access, HD management, security (Iknow ,I know - it takes a lot of patching and adding 3rd party proggies) etc compared to Win98SE, XP is in a different league. So, if you mainly play games and use dial-up only occassionaly stay with Win98SE, if not change to XP - and just accept the learning curve (and tweaking) involved. HTH ;)

[BlackSwan]

I'm using both 98 SE and XP SP1 Home on two different machines. I can't really see any substantial difference in stability - both PCs work equally well and I rarely had problems with anything I installed on them. It might sound strange, but I do find 98 SE a tad more stable than XP. What I also like in 98 SE is this wonderful simplicity that makes the user's life so much easier - no bunch of mysterious accounts although you're the only person using the machine, no millions of entries in the registry or back-up copies of whatever you install/uninstall scattered all over the HD, no need for never-ending downloads of the latest drivers possible for any existing device, etc. And I also happen to love DOS.

But XP's System Restore feature is really useful (although 98's Scanreg /restore isn't too bad either) and image managing programmes admittedly work much better on XP...

It was really difficult to choose, but I finally voted for 98 SE because there are many programmes I've loved for years and which I was unable to use on XP (the compatibility manager didn't help at all).

BS :)