WINDOWS upgrade form 98se to???
- Thread starter Equinoxe
- Start date
WinXP is far from a stable server OS, so 2K will stick around for quite a long time.
The ones that are up to die are 98se and ME.
At work, in my computer (1Ghz PIII 128MB RAM) I got Win2K. My boss got WinXP on his laptop (1.3Ghz Celeron 128MB RAM), and his computer runs as slow as the ones that have Win98SE and 64MB RAM. It takes a lot more time to load any apps and to start up the OS.
And I have yet to find XP-only apps. Everything that works on W2K works on XP and vice-versa.
The ones that are up to die are 98se and ME.
At work, in my computer (1Ghz PIII 128MB RAM) I got Win2K. My boss got WinXP on his laptop (1.3Ghz Celeron 128MB RAM), and his computer runs as slow as the ones that have Win98SE and 64MB RAM. It takes a lot more time to load any apps and to start up the OS.
And I have yet to find XP-only apps. Everything that works on W2K works on XP and vice-versa.
Originally posted by Curtis@Jan. 28 2003, 5:51 am
Steady on, tiger!
It's saved my butt on the few times a third party application has screwed my system over. Ever wonder why this doesn't happen in Linux or Mac OS? There's no software for either OS...
And you talk to me about Linux?
You are correct...or were correct, if your comment had come around a year ago. It did take softare companys a while to come around, but now there is even MS Office 2001 for OS X. And, that is what classic mode is for...to run apps that have not been carbonized for OS X. I don't want to get into an aurgument about it, but OS X is unix based. You know unix, don't you? The server OS that has been known for up-time hours measured in years w/o a restart?. Now not all Mac OS's have been that great. OS 9.0.4 comes to mind from recent history. But for the most part, it has had far fewer problems than Windoze. I am not an Apple zealote though. I own and use daily an AMD 800 running Win2k. I am very comfortable in both environments, but do prefer my G4 Mac for any seriouse work.
By the way, Mal, there is a way to run OS X.2 on your PPC 9500, if you want to give it a spin. You will need a version of OS 9 installed and then use a utility called XpostFacto to install OS X. Though I'm sure you are probably aware of this.
Umm...WinXP is NOT a server OS. That's what Win .Net coming out soon is for. WinXP is the replacement for Win2K Workstation. Win2K servers are going to be replaced soon.
Anyway what do you expect from a Celeron anyway. Besides 128MB is too little these days anyway. And ram is dirt cheap. Upgrade that puppy to 256mb at least and you'll see it fly.
You can't really compare the speed of Win9x to WinXP anyway. They both do completely different things. It's not like Win9x as to deal with all the security and networking issues WinXP does.
As for Mac's. Of course they're stable and never crash...that's what you get when you have no software to run on them.
And for the record I've been using WinXP on my laptop for well over a year now and it has yet to crash on me once.
Anyway what do you expect from a Celeron anyway. Besides 128MB is too little these days anyway. And ram is dirt cheap. Upgrade that puppy to 256mb at least and you'll see it fly.
You can't really compare the speed of Win9x to WinXP anyway. They both do completely different things. It's not like Win9x as to deal with all the security and networking issues WinXP does.
As for Mac's. Of course they're stable and never crash...that's what you get when you have no software to run on them.
And for the record I've been using WinXP on my laptop for well over a year now and it has yet to crash on me once.
My girlfriend's laptop (Dell Inspiron 8000 - PIII 1.1Ghz 256MB Ram), when it came from the factory, absolutely flew with WinXP. In fact, I played quite a few games of GTAIII on it. However, several months later, it's suffering from the same issue win98 has - massive slowdown. She's not using it for much more than web browsing and document editing, and now we're looking to reformat. I mean, it's terribly slow.
OS X hasn't impressed me yet. Every time I try it, there's some problem with it (very strange). I went to two mac stores, and CompUSA; at CompUSA the system immediately froze when I moved the mouse, and the salespeople kindly brought out a laptop for me to use from the storeroom that also crashed. The mac store in PA, well those I assume were abused - but the mac store (upstate ny) - brand new. And pretty slow. :
I may have a jaded view of macs because of this, but I'd actually take a Wintel machine any day.
Thou speaketh out thoust ass! Actually, as I stated before, that is technically true, there is less software available for the Mac. But what there is works right the first time. It is interesting that windows proponents used to say that pc's were just as good as Macs. Now they have given up on that and speak to it's supposed software availability. But it still is the standard for photo/film/video editing work and many Universities and science labs rely heavily on them. Strange for a machine with no software. As far as emulation/gaming on Macs goes, there are emu's for every console available and with they're superior graphics capabilities, the gaming experience is greatly enhanced. but then if you are a sheep ( or as I have stated in the past, a parrot only repeating what you hear and not what you know from actual experience) following the flock, what can you expect but to hear helpless, hopeless bleating. :
A lot of universities in the PA area are dumping macs in favor of PCs. Not sure why, especially with this OS X thing. Probably more cost effective (those macs are pretty damned expensive).
Now, I take quarrel with this buzz phrase that Apple throws around: 'superior graphics capabilities'. What the hell does that mean? I don't ask in sarcasm - I ask because Apple and Apple users boast this but in reference to what? How is the emu experience for say, Genesis on a mac versus a PC? My machine gets 60+ fps with the Kreed renderer, how would it be better on a Mac? It's a serious question...
I'm always wary of these broad phrases. I played THPS2 on these new macs (re: Upstate NY, slow) and I thought it was worse than the PC version (and the PC version is garbage).
mac's were the graphics artists dream. but when it comes down to it now a days you take a gfx card for a pc and put it next to one for a mac and it gets its ass thoroughly whooped. and the only real reason mac's can hold a candle to pc performance is due to the huge level 3 cache those craptactular motorola processor's are equipped with. Oh and at a graphics design course my dad took everyone was scared when the next time there mac was gonna crash, hmm evil photoshop
. anyways all that hullabaloo about mac's being superior to pc's well. your average intel is running at 2.8 now as being the best lest not forget the 3.06 which has HT. now for mac cpu speeds... 800mhz i mean thats just sad. and they are still using sd-ram. technologically inferior is what comes to mind. even amd processors that say they run better and have higher performance for mhz than intel are running around 2.3ghz and are using ddr-2. mac is dieing and good ridance to those cute lil white things. that you have to pay for service packs and pay for the equivalent to windows update.
Originally posted by gamefoo21@Jan. 28 2003, 12:49 pm
mac's were the graphics artists dream. but when it comes down to it now a days you take a gfx card for a pc and put it next to one for a mac and it gets its ass thoroughly whooped. and the only real reason mac's can hold a candle to pc performance is due to the huge level 3 cache those craptactular motorola processor's are equipped with. Oh and at a graphics design course my dad took everyone was scared when the next time there mac was gonna crash, hmm evil photoshop. anyways all that hullabaloo about mac's being superior to pc's well. your average intel is running at 2.8 now as being the best lest not forget the 3.06 which has HT. now for mac cpu speeds... 800mhz i mean thats just sad. and they are still using sd-ram. technologically inferior is what comes to mind. even amd processors that say they run better and have higher performance for mhz than intel are running around 2.3ghz and are using ddr-2. mac is dieing and good ridance to those cute lil white things. that you have to pay for service packs and pay for the equivalent to windows update.
But if you do your research instead of bleating, you know that while intel has focused on speed only, ignoring processing power, which has decreased with each boost in speed. mac has not maintained processing power...it has increased it. By the way, the new G4's ship with 1.5 ghz cpu's. I say cpu's because they are dual cpu systems. Thats two 1.5 ghz processors that have taken on all comers and won. They may not measure as fast in base speed, but are faster because they handle more instructions per cycle. That is where the real power is. Not in a number that mean didley. And all the while drawing less power.
But, yes..chances are high that mac's are on their final leggs, as far as sales ect. While they are great machines and very innovative, it's been too little too late. The new OS is great. Even windows will be moving to a more unix base in the future, it has been speculated. But too little.......
Steve Jobs is a dreamer/nutcase. No one can figure his plan out (where he wants to take Apple). It's too bad as now Sun really will be the only competiter to Intel for computer design. I love all 12 of my Apple's, but also enjoy my four pc's. We'll just have to see where things go.
Oh, and most older Mac OS's are free for download, including updates. How many is MS offering on their web site? 00000000000000000000000000!!!!! Not even Dos is available, not Win 3.1! And doesn't MS do the same? Wasn't win98 just an upgrade? And winMe? And isn't winXp just a hobbled version of NT? And how do you explain NT3, 3.5,4 Ect? Didn't you have to pay for all those upgrades?
antime
Extra Hard Mid Boss
While it is true that the PPC architecture provides you with more power/clock and power/watt, Intel's offerings beats the G3/G4 in every other way. Slashdot recently posted a couple of stories which show the dual-cpu Macs being beaten in DV and photo editing, both traditional strong points of the Macintosh. It's just a fact of life that for desktop performance you can't beat Intel's and AMD's offerings, at least until the 64-bit generation arrives.
Does that include the OS ROMs for the older versions?
No, XP is NT 5.1 and comes in other flavours than the home edition. (Isn't OS X just a hobbled version of FreeBSD?)
While it is true that the PPC architecture provides you with more power/clock and power/watt, Intel's offerings beats the G3/G4 in every other way. Slashdot recently posted a couple of stories which show the dual-cpu Macs being beaten in DV and photo editing, both traditional strong points of the Macintosh. It's just a fact of life that for desktop performance you can't beat Intel's and AMD's offerings, at least until the 64-bit generation arrives.
Does that include the OS ROMs for the older versions?
No, XP is NT 5.1 and comes in other flavours than the home edition. (Isn't OS X just a hobbled version of FreeBSD?)[/b][/quote]
The roms are built into the mobo on older macs, they are not in the OS. This speeds up the startup as there are fewer calls to the HDD for the startup instructions. On some models the rom is on a dimm-like stick. For a few models, mostly early in the Mac family tree, you could switch out or replace it with a more up to date version. After the first generation of PPC Macs it was included in the OS software though, @1995 or so.
Like I said, winxp is just a revised/upgraded version of nt, which you had to pay for.
Falstaff: You are correct when you say there is plenty of software for both OS's (my earier post) and I'm not going to argue the technical superiority of the Mac architecture (especially over the mess that is x86). I fully acknowledge that in almost all respects the Mac is a better system. The fact remains that there are things Macs can't do. I still can't do any serious 3D graphics work with tools I know with a Mac (eg. 3DS Max). There are still many audio tools that don't work with X. And regardless the fact you can get MS Office 2001 now doesn't make it any more useable for me. I hate, hate, hate the old OS 9 interface - especially the file browser solution. I don't feel that OSX has improved much in this regard. The Aqua interface thingy is pretty, but if you have too many programs quickly becomes cluttered.
Sure it's more stable - and I'm well aware of what Unix is and isn't - but it's hardly a good marketing line is it? "More stable than the last release!" (same goes for XP). Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you have to pay for X.2? What was essentially just a service pack?
Comes down to personal predjudice, I guess.
Sure it's more stable - and I'm well aware of what Unix is and isn't - but it's hardly a good marketing line is it? "More stable than the last release!" (same goes for XP). Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you have to pay for X.2? What was essentially just a service pack?
Comes down to personal predjudice, I guess.
Actually......no...I didn't have to pay. I do some Mac network support and was sent a free copy. But your point is well taken. I don't hate pc's. I own 4. Each, Mac and PC, have their strong points and weaknesses. I think I've pointed this out here. But in many ways, they are apples and oranges, no pun intended. Each is just a different approach to the same problem. How to graphically interact with your pc harware and accomplish a given task. Some are fanatical about Mac's and hate PC's, and the reverse is true. I will say this. Apple has marketed itself stupidly. They have wasted many oportunities to grow. (need I mention the whole Mac clone fiasco?) At this moment in time, both are pretty neck in neck, other than market share. But, as I stated before, Apple is on it's last legs. if they don't snap out of their elitist attitude soon, they will die.
But I must take issue with you about the stability issue. I would rather have less software options available, and a system that did not require a reboot several times daily, than a plethera of titles and a crash happy OS. You can't get much done on a computer that won't keep running. It becomes a large paperweight. I do love the simplicity of the Mac OS. I have migrated the whole hard drive contents of on Mac to another by simply copying over the files.....including the OS. And it ran perfectly. Can't do that with windows very easily. In fact, I keep a few 1 gig hdd's around with a particular OS on them just for this purpose. It's faster than installing from the cd and I can copy over programs the same way, and they work. No reinstall process necessary. I really do encourage people to give Mac's a try. The learning curve is a lot shorter. Usually, people who know nothing about computers can learn most of the ins and outs of a Mac OS in about 1/2 hour. Takes much longer on a windows machine.
But I must take issue with you about the stability issue. I would rather have less software options available, and a system that did not require a reboot several times daily, than a plethera of titles and a crash happy OS. You can't get much done on a computer that won't keep running. It becomes a large paperweight. I do love the simplicity of the Mac OS. I have migrated the whole hard drive contents of on Mac to another by simply copying over the files.....including the OS. And it ran perfectly. Can't do that with windows very easily. In fact, I keep a few 1 gig hdd's around with a particular OS on them just for this purpose. It's faster than installing from the cd and I can copy over programs the same way, and they work. No reinstall process necessary. I really do encourage people to give Mac's a try. The learning curve is a lot shorter. Usually, people who know nothing about computers can learn most of the ins and outs of a Mac OS in about 1/2 hour. Takes much longer on a windows machine.
Well said, as usual.
I think we are both over generalising to a certain degree here. I'm very impressed with the stability of XP - a rarely have to reboot the system at all. I'm even happy with the Win98 install on my other PC. I've certainly never had to reboot "several times a day" with XP, and only when I've screwed something up in 98.
As with you, I don't hate Macs. I just find the PC is much more useful for my needs.
I think we are both over generalising to a certain degree here. I'm very impressed with the stability of XP - a rarely have to reboot the system at all. I'm even happy with the Win98 install on my other PC. I've certainly never had to reboot "several times a day" with XP, and only when I've screwed something up in 98.
As with you, I don't hate Macs. I just find the PC is much more useful for my needs.
ok the whole taking one boot hd to one pc to another and windows being a whiney whore about it, is totally BS!. i migrated a 98se drive over and she booted up and installed all the new hardware and ran like a charm. later did the same with win 2k pro. this was from a amd platform k6-2 500 to a pentium platform well via, via c3 800. it did this without a complaint just initialized the drivers and turned on. while with macs you have an obvious point they all have the same hardware and so there is not really much chance of it screaming and dieing.
As for the whole hardware thing... a top class dual Xeon based on 533mhz fsb p4's with rdram is $4020.00 that is in canadian. the same thing with mac's fastest processor's are $2,699.00 american. the mac uses IDE and the Intel platform runs scsi....
.mac internet essentials is $99.95 usd a year and you can get all of it for free on your fav pc platform.
and as for mac being so much better to its loyal customers and fanatics they pawn off an incomplete os which is OS X, and then were to poor to finish it so here is the finished product pay us again plz. Mac OS X v10.2 $129.00, for every fault ms has they have never charged for such a stupid service pack. atleast for the most part ms releases finished os's. Yes windows 98/me/Xp are all technically service packs but the core kernel was expanded to meet new demands. Xp is a workstation Os while 2k was more aimed at the server segment. so that argument dies there.
And you are right ppl will always swing one way or another on which is better and there will be those who like both. And your right Mac needs to loose its elitest attitude and stop trying to convert ppl from windows its getting annoying.
As for the whole hardware thing... a top class dual Xeon based on 533mhz fsb p4's with rdram is $4020.00 that is in canadian. the same thing with mac's fastest processor's are $2,699.00 american. the mac uses IDE and the Intel platform runs scsi....
.mac internet essentials is $99.95 usd a year and you can get all of it for free on your fav pc platform.
and as for mac being so much better to its loyal customers and fanatics they pawn off an incomplete os which is OS X, and then were to poor to finish it so here is the finished product pay us again plz. Mac OS X v10.2 $129.00, for every fault ms has they have never charged for such a stupid service pack. atleast for the most part ms releases finished os's. Yes windows 98/me/Xp are all technically service packs but the core kernel was expanded to meet new demands. Xp is a workstation Os while 2k was more aimed at the server segment. so that argument dies there.
And you are right ppl will always swing one way or another on which is better and there will be those who like both. And your right Mac needs to loose its elitest attitude and stop trying to convert ppl from windows its getting annoying.
My thoughts on the different OS's:
Win2k - good performance, little memory usage, wonderful stability, good to use as a server, and has the ability to run basicly everything xp/win98se/me can.
WinXP - lacks a real DOS, eats up too much memory, but is currently the most used m$ OS for new comps which makes it so it gets the most upgrades and attention from that company.
WinME - Pure and utter crap. More bugs then youany OS I can think of. Never use this OS unless for some reason you absolutly have to.
Win98se - Ive been using this OS for some time now, and while as it does have some problems, and isn't quite as stable as i'd like, it runs the vast majority of programs out their currently, and eats up a minimal ammount of resources.
Win95 - The OS that's interface all other Win OS's base theirs off of today. Very old and out of date, can't run very many things these days.
Win 3.1 - Relativly stable in comparison with todays OS's, but so increadably out of date that no one would dare use it on anything faster then maybe 200mhz.
Pre-Win 3.1 - Hardly worth mention.
All Mac's - Ive tried most of them, and found a few things to be true: 1. They are extremly easy to use and learn. 2. They run only about as many programs as Win95, if that. 3. They are great for anything grafic intensive such as 3d modeling. 4. Schools love to use them instead of PC's.
Linux + BeOS - havn't tried them yet.
Win2k - good performance, little memory usage, wonderful stability, good to use as a server, and has the ability to run basicly everything xp/win98se/me can.
WinXP - lacks a real DOS, eats up too much memory, but is currently the most used m$ OS for new comps which makes it so it gets the most upgrades and attention from that company.
WinME - Pure and utter crap. More bugs then youany OS I can think of. Never use this OS unless for some reason you absolutly have to.
Win98se - Ive been using this OS for some time now, and while as it does have some problems, and isn't quite as stable as i'd like, it runs the vast majority of programs out their currently, and eats up a minimal ammount of resources.
Win95 - The OS that's interface all other Win OS's base theirs off of today. Very old and out of date, can't run very many things these days.
Win 3.1 - Relativly stable in comparison with todays OS's, but so increadably out of date that no one would dare use it on anything faster then maybe 200mhz.
Pre-Win 3.1 - Hardly worth mention.
All Mac's - Ive tried most of them, and found a few things to be true: 1. They are extremly easy to use and learn. 2. They run only about as many programs as Win95, if that. 3. They are great for anything grafic intensive such as 3d modeling. 4. Schools love to use them instead of PC's.
Linux + BeOS - havn't tried them yet.
I've tried BeOS... even have the full version of it on CD (which installs on both PCs and Macs). It looks very promising and there are some impressive demos included with it. Nothing like playing not one, but several MP3s all at the same time without a single glitch. Sounds messy
but is a testament to the effective multi-threaded architecture of BeOS.
I would've in fact installed BeOS alongside Win98SE long ago except it doesn't support Ethernet via USB and I never did quite feel like getting a PCI Ethernet card - plus I only have one slot left and it's damned close to the video card's heatsink which is hot enough to burn your fingers. Ohwell.
By now, BeOS is probably increasingly becoming niche anyway, thanks to Palm, Inc., not saying a *bleep* about it.
I would've in fact installed BeOS alongside Win98SE long ago except it doesn't support Ethernet via USB and I never did quite feel like getting a PCI Ethernet card - plus I only have one slot left and it's damned close to the video card's heatsink which is hot enough to burn your fingers. Ohwell.
By now, BeOS is probably increasingly becoming niche anyway, thanks to Palm, Inc., not saying a *bleep* about it.
Wow! Nice............balanced(?) viewpoint there gamefoo21. Obviously derived from an impartial thought process. Ok, we get the point....you hate Apple computers. Why you are so vehement about it...........?
Just a heads up, yellowdog linux will run on a Mac, if you personally don't care for the Mac OS. Also there are rumors that Apple (you'll love this one, Gamefoo21) is thinking about a release of one of the versions of the Mac OS that will be optimized for a pc/windows platform. Since the iMac, Apple dropped scsi as their standard and adopted IDE and usb as their standard, it probably could work. I don't know how smart it is as a marketing ploy, though. They have sold their goods for so long as being better/an alternative to the wintel platform, that this, along with the adoption of the above mentioned hardware standards, would show a kind of hipocritical turn around in thinking. But then it would also make it more attractive for software companys to code for the Mac OS.
Just a heads up, yellowdog linux will run on a Mac, if you personally don't care for the Mac OS. Also there are rumors that Apple (you'll love this one, Gamefoo21) is thinking about a release of one of the versions of the Mac OS that will be optimized for a pc/windows platform. Since the iMac, Apple dropped scsi as their standard and adopted IDE and usb as their standard, it probably could work. I don't know how smart it is as a marketing ploy, though. They have sold their goods for so long as being better/an alternative to the wintel platform, that this, along with the adoption of the above mentioned hardware standards, would show a kind of hipocritical turn around in thinking. But then it would also make it more attractive for software companys to code for the Mac OS.
