Win 98 vs. Win XP

[WillowHawk]

Now, i've been having a debate with a few friends of mine, i say that windows XP is the best OS available. He says that 98 is the best for stability and security. i do admit that the majority of viruses are targeted for the windows xp platform, but of course that is to be expected. he posted the arguments on his forum, but i cant seem to find it as of right now, i'll post it some time later when i get it. both of us had really good points, and i, ofcourse, came out the victor. but now i want to hear your arguments. :)
analize points of

security
ease of use
"modability"
stability
os lifespan
os damage control/recovery
boot times
os operating speed
registries


I'm really interested in what u guys have to say about something like this.
anything extra can be sent here (flamingshadow27@hotmail.com)

[brom42]

It is hard for me to believe that someone would pick 98 over xp. Once I used XP I never looked back.


Where is windows 2K? That is the OS that made me drop 98.

[S1nF1xx]

There really is no choice anymore. Win XP is more stable for one, that should eliminate Windows 98 right there. Second, Win98 support is being dropped left and right. That clinches the decision. Time to move on people. ;)

[lomn75]

Win98 and "security" do not go together. period. Nor does stability, relative to XP. In fact, there's no comparison at all. Why bother to beat a horse that's been dead since Win2K came out, much less XP?

[XOR != OR]

securityAdministrator? What's that? The OS has no concept of privledge seperation. Not secure.
ease of use*shrug* Six of one, half dozen of another. Use the one you like
"modability"Erm?
stabilityXp is far more stable than 98. No real arguement here that is serious, and it borders on troll if you try to argue otherwise
os lifespan*shrug* Xp has more potential to last longer than 98 does
os damage control/recoveryI wipe and reload regardless, so it's about the same. :)
boot timesIsn't this XPs big selling point?
os operating speedXp is supposed to be faster, but I don't know bout that.
registriesThey both have 'em.

[acascianelli]

ill never go back to a win9x based os ever again. windows 2000 is the oldest ms os ill use.

[brom42]

This could of been worse. He could have been trying to say that windows ME was better! :eek:

[acascianelli]

remember back when windows 2000 and windows ME were released, everyone was saying that windows 2000 was NOT for desktops and that windows ME was better for everyday usage :D

[Direwolf20]

remember back when windows 2000 and windows ME were released, everyone was saying that windows 2000 was NOT for desktops and that windows ME was better for everyday usage :D


Hahahaha, yea. I remember that. Then MS was like "yea, our bad" and swept it under the carpet.

[Steel Chicken]

Why argue? Use em all.

I use 98se, win2k, and xp-64 on one puter
(old games, almost everything, and testing)

assuming youve got decent hardware, XP smacks 98 around like an angry pimp smacks a whore who was out all night and made no money

[Moto Guzzi]

I still has a laptop with 98, but from 3.5 years experience on home XP PC, I say to hell with 98..... :D I will never consider putting 98 on my home PC :mad:

[Met-AL]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Microsoft discontinue '98 which means no new updates for it? If that is so, how can '98 be secure at all anymore since no one is watching and fixing it?

[Moto Guzzi]

I have just recently still updated 98[2mths ago], but don't know, maybe they stopped, must check again. :eek:

[Steel Chicken]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Microsoft discontinue '98 which means no new updates for it? If that is so, how can '98 be secure at all anymore since no one is watching and fixing it?

you would be incorrect:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;EN-US;w98

jun 30 , 2006 is the current end of life date

however, for the sake of argument, if it wasn't supported, since no one really uses it, no one really bothers to write virus/hacks for it...whens the last time you heard of an OS/2 virus? Or a DOS virus?

[XOR != OR]

remember back when windows 2000 and windows ME were released, everyone was saying that windows 2000 was NOT for desktops and that windows ME was better for everyday usage :DNot me. In fact, what I remember most clearly about that time is telling people that I was staying with SE until I had a damn good reason to upgrade to the 2k series. I also remember saying how big a pile of crap ME was.

And I also remember saying that I would be childish and say, "I told you fuckers so".

I told you fuckers so.

[ComputerBox34]

This is kind of a waste of a poll. Win 98 was probably one of the WORST OS's I've ever used. I went back to 95 for a while because it seemed to me that it was more stable. Once Win 2k came out in 1999, I switched over to that hoping that it would better than 98....and it was.

[ComputerBox34]

Now, i've been having a debate with a few friends of mine, i say that windows XP is the best OS available. He says that 98 is the best for stability and security. i do admit that the majority of viruses are targeted for the windows xp platform, but of course that is to be expected. he posted the arguments on his forum, but i cant seem to find it as of right now, i'll post it some time later when i get it. both of us had really good points, and i, ofcourse, came out the victor. but now i want to hear your arguments. :)
analize points of

security
ease of use
"modability"
stability
os lifespan
os damage control/recovery
boot times
os operating speed
registries


I'm really interested in what u guys have to say about something like this.
anything extra can be sent here (flamingshadow27@hotmail.com)


XP is the OS everyone is basically using, the OS that companies like Dell, HP, etc put on their machines, the OS that companies use, schools, etc. Exploits are released more in XP then 98 because NOBODY uses it. I can't name one person off the top of my head using it. I'm sure there is people still using it but no one of a real target. I'm not sure if I agree with the "stability" of Win 98. I personally think XP is more stable then 98. Win2k owns all OS's with stability over all though....

[Steel Chicken]

This is kind of a waste of a poll. Win 98 was probably one of the WORST OS's I've ever used. I went back to 95 for a while because it seemed to me that it was more stable. Once Win 2k came out in 1999, I switched over to that hoping that it would better than 98....and it was.

well, 98SE was pretty good

IMO:

2K>XP>98SE>98>95>Me

2K>XP by just a hair, a matter of preference

[starhawk]

call me a noob, call me nutty as a squirrel's winter stash, but i actually prefer win 95/98. why? i like some of those old legacy games. try this list:

tyrian (dos 7.0) (c) epic megagames
lightbringer/cydonia (released under both titles) (win95/98) (c) dreamcatcher interactive
space bucks (win95 only, won't work in win98 for some reason :confused: ) (c) sierra
museum madness (dos somethingorother) (c) mecc
beyond time (win95/98) (c) dreamcatcher interactive

i like all of those games but my emachines winxp computer won't run them right. space bucks won't even open in anything other than win95, beyond time the cursor won't appear, lightbringer/cydonia quits for no reason at one point. :(

[brom42]

call me a noob, call me nutty as a squirrel's winter stash, but i actually prefer win 95/98. why? i like some of those old legacy games. try this list:
:(

For this sole reason I keep an old win98, and an ancient dos 6.22 486 machine around. Whenever I want to play one of the legacy games I pull one of those machines out of the closet and play them. There is nothing like pushing a turbo button to make the game play at the right speed to bring back memories. :D

[starhawk]

dont suppose youd have an 80mb quantum hdd lying around? my 386 served that purpose until the un-dusted psu fried the hdd.

or maybe you'd like to tell me how to dual-boot my eMachines in winxp/win95?

[M11]

Most lopsided poll ever.......

Other than legacy apps, 98 offers no clear advantages in any aspects.

[starhawk]

how can I make my emachines dual boot into win95/xp so i can enjoy all those old games w/o fragging my comp?

& i need a new video card... got crystal key 2 but it won't play cuz i only have 64mb vid ram... blasted intel graphics... and i only have 3 pci slots. help!

[>WP< $lipKnot]

Now, i've been having a debate with a few friends of mine, i say that windows XP is the best OS available. He says that 98 is the best for stability and security. i do admit that the majority of viruses are targeted for the windows xp platform, but of course that is to be expected.

Tell your friend to save some money and get with the new technology. The majority of "cool" new programs, hardcore hardware and also a lot of the new games do not support 98. Look at this screenie from DOOM3 on my machine from hell aka the Black Demon 3.4 oc'd to 3.6 with a Gig of GeIL ultraplatinum pc3200dual channel ddr and a BFGTech6800gtoc oc'd to ultra.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/videogameguuruu/screenie4.jpg

[>WP< $lipKnot]

how can I make my emachines dual boot into win95/xp so i can enjoy all those old games w/o fragging my comp?

& i need a new video card... got crystal key 2 but it won't play cuz i only have 64mb vid ram... blasted intel graphics... and i only have 3 pci slots. help!

New at the computer thing are you not? Google search to find info on anything you want to do with your machine.

[darktiger]

XP all the way....

[mosin]

Why argue? Use em all.

I use 98se, win2k, and xp-64 on one puter
(old games, almost everything, and testing)

assuming youve got decent hardware, XP smacks 98 around like an angry pimp smacks a whore who was out all night and made no money
I agree. As far as stability with Win98, I have an original install that goes back to 11/97, upgraded from Win95 to Win98SE. It's stable...if you know what you are doing.

[DR_K13]

maybe a win 200 vs. xp or win nt vs. xp would be better.

:D

[emorphien]

where are you folks getting the idea that nobody uses 98? Not that long ago the statistics were clear that it was the most widely used OS in the world still.

[Carloswill]

Now, i've been having a debate with a few friends of mine, i say that windows XP is the best OS available.

I see your debate falls short of being the best Windows OS. I think both are good and bad.

98 - stability was not as good

XP - security sucks

[Carloswill]

maybe a win 200 vs. xp or win nt vs. xp would be better.

:D

Windows XP is Windows 2000 :confused:

[Roberty]

call me a noob, call me nutty as a squirrel's winter stash, but i actually prefer win 95/98. why? i like some of those old legacy games. try this list:

tyrian (dos 7.0) (c) epic megagames
lightbringer/cydonia (released under both titles) (win95/98) (c) dreamcatcher interactive
space bucks (win95 only, won't work in win98 for some reason :confused: ) (c) sierra
museum madness (dos somethingorother) (c) mecc
beyond time (win95/98) (c) dreamcatcher interactive

i like all of those games but my emachines winxp computer won't run them right. space bucks won't even open in anything other than win95, beyond time the cursor won't appear, lightbringer/cydonia quits for no reason at one point. :(


Ever thought about running a Dual Boot Windows 98SE/XP setup? I did until recently and it's the best of both worlds. I just got rid of the old 98SE partition because I haven't used it in about 8 months. XP Pro is the ONLY way to go anymore unless it's for an old laptop that won't run XP.

[XOR != OR]

Windows XP is Windows 2000 :confused:erm?

[starhawk]

(1) winxp is as much win2k as i am an egret. the two are totally different. shell *and* kernel :rolleyes: *somebody* really needs to read up on their os knowledge
(2) i don't have a win98se disk. i do have a win95 disk. if you want to send me your win98se disk, i am flat broke but i can trade you a comp.

[Carloswill]

(1) winxp is as much win2k as i am an egret. the two are totally different. shell *and* kernel :rolleyes: *somebody* really needs to read up on their os knowledge
.

All that extensive OS knowledge and you're flat broke...go figure
:rolleyes:

[Steel Chicken]

(1) winxp is as much win2k as i am an egret. the two are totally different. shell *and* kernel :rolleyes: *somebody* really needs to read up on their os knowledge


Hey egret!!
check this link from another thread:
http://www.tomax7.com/winxp/Windows%20XP%20Paper.doc

there are a number of differences twixt the kernels, but they are fairly minor, certainly not enough to warrant saying winxp is nothing like 2k, unless of course you *are* an egret in which case you would be correct.

[starhawk]

not just the kernels... mainly the shells actually
and i only know how to do qbasic, carloswill... how many os's use that? :rolleyes: very, very few, if any, because it's not that powerful... i'd try c++ if i could get a good editor/compiler for free.

[Steel Chicken]

not just the kernels... mainly the shells actually
and i only know how to do qbasic, carloswill... how many os's use that? :rolleyes: very, very few, if any, because it's not that powerful... i'd try c++ if i could get a good editor/compiler for free.

the shell? could you be more specific about what exactly youre talking about?
provide some more data?

cant find a good freeware C++ compiler/editor? have you heard of Google? Try it.

all this coming from a guy who can't dual boot and still thinks qbasic is usefull

:p

[starhawk]

(1) the shell is very different. look at the title bar at the top of your screen. that is part of the shell. i do not recall the x button being red in any previous version of windows.
(2) qbasic will always be useful as long as text adventure games exist and people still get excited about 80s early pcs. that's what you used back then. i am very proud of my tandy trs-80 series iii color computer... it may not outperform a modern computer (by far) but i would not trade it for anything. except perhaps my life.

[lagsmoke]

(1) the shell is very different. look at the title bar at the top of your screen. that is part of the shell. i do not recall the x button being red in any previous version of windows.
(2) qbasic will always be useful as long as text adventure games exist and people still get excited about 80s early pcs. that's what you used back then. i am very proud of my tandy trs-80 series iii color computer... it may not outperform a modern computer (by far) but i would not trade it for anything. except perhaps my life.

1) Windows XP was designed with Windows 2000 as a base, yes they colored some things up and rounded some edges, even changed some file names but that doesnt mean they arent very very similar. Also its called a THEME, my X isnt red up there :rolleyes:
2) http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html <-- that took about 5 seconds to locate
Just in case you dont read the left side panel
http://www.bloodshed.net/compilers/index.html

[starhawk]

thanx, lagsmoke. nice to know some people really are helpful. :D

[OldPueblo]

This reminds me of those other polls... You know, "the american revolution flintlock vs the AK-47" and "crude mud huts vs. skyscrapers". Oh, and "civil war surgery vs modern day surgeons." This mentality makes me think that maybe DOS is more stable and safe then Win98? Or better yet, not having a computer is safer then using DOS? Its asking a question that has no bearing or point of reference to today. Therefore, whats the point of gathering the information? 98 has been left behind, and its "goals", "reasons for continued existance", "hardware support", etc, are totally different then XPs. No comparison.

[starhawk]

:rolleyes: i've yet to crash my tandy trs-80 series iii color computer... 4mhz processor, laughable ram, no onboard prog storage *at all*... and you have to program it in qbasic. those were the good old days, weren't they...

:p but it never crashed. good for a 1988 comp.

[Steel Chicken]

(1) the shell is very different. look at the title bar at the top of your screen. that is part of the shell. i do not recall the x button being red in any previous version of windows.

OMG hahahah they changed the color its totally different!!!!
MUAHAHAHHAHAHAAA


(2) qbasic will always be useful as long as text adventure games exist and people still get excited about 80s early pcs. that's what you used back then. i am very proud of my tandy trs-80 series iii color computer... it may not outperform a modern computer (by far) but i would not trade it for anything. except perhaps my life.

I can't even respond to that.
I think we are being trolled.

[starhawk]

:confused: what does trolled mean? i am only a n00b to forums, not comps...

and i should think that there are many more changes to winxp than just bar colors, lol. that was just an example...

god but some folks here are nuts... me included :p but not *that* much... geez.

[Steel Chicken]

i wonder if this guy is in a timewarp or something, he is in 1985 playin with his TRS-80 and listening to Bengals "walk like the eygptian" while his posts are magically appearing in 2004 on the [H]

ROFL

or, we are being trolled

[OldPueblo]

Naw its not trolling, just misinformation and a friendly debate. The truth is that the cores are mostly the same (NT5.0 for Win2k and NT5.1 for WinXP), but as you move up towards the "user level" you begin to see the differences. Tightened security, extra features, hot-hot-hot sexy themes, etc. Hence my rant in an older thread about why there's no reason to ever use Win2k over XP (except in wanting to maintain an original all Win2k environment). At the core they are so similar enough to say Win2k does nothing better then XP, and at the higher level XP gives you many easier ways to do things, newer hardware support built-in, higher security standars now with SP2, etc. So the statement really isn't so much focused on "XP is better then 2K", its more like "If you are still using 2K and don't have money to move to XP yet, you aren't screwed or anything." Remember, sometimes theres more then one right answer and sometimes you are really just splitting hairs. Just because something is better overall doesnt mean that the "loser" sucks. Does 98 suck? Not really. Is there any legit and sound reason to use it over WinXP (unless you require it for apps)? Negatory good buddy.

[starhawk]

:rolleyes: actually my comp is a toshiba sattelite 1415-s173... only 2 years old. 1.8ghz celeron proc, 512mb ddr sdram (had it upgraded from 256mb), 30gb hard drive.

:p and i am listening to sci fi music right now but i am about to change it to linkin park.

only thing this needs is a proc upgrade and i'd be happy... :confused: can you do that w/ a laptop?

:rolleyes: and the trs-80 i have didn't come out till 1988...

[jmroberts70]

Stability is one of the biggest difference between the two. As someone who has supported both platforms as a tech, I will note that XP boxes are waaay more stable. Even when a system gets corrupted from who-knows-what, I have had to do a LOT less complete system rebuilds as a result than when working with 98. In fact, my rule of thumb was to wipe and rebuild a 98 box at least once a year on systems that were getting a lot of usage -if they were going to stay stable.

From a performance standpoint...Yes, 98 would run on weaker hardware, but it can't address RAM that well (or manage it, considering it's still just a DOS foundation with a pretty face). While XP can not only address massive amounts of RAM, it actually runs faster with it. Early benchmarks showed this to be the case -and surprised a lot of us that weren't expecting it.

Also, the GUI for XP is more customizable as it us XML-based. This means that a lot more features can be modified than just adding custom "themes" to your GUI. The entire look and feel can be controlled. Also the GUI can be customized to be full of "eye candy" or paired down for the best performance possible from your system. Can't do that with 98.

By having user accounts activated by default -and forcing the user to name their account -other than Administrator- you also can start limiting the access to core systems within the OS. Properly setup, even if a worm or virus get in, due to the limited access of the account, the damage is greatly restricted.

In this past year, I think I have replaced at least a dozen 98 boxes that were totally screwed up due to being connected to broadband internet lines without any protection. Their security was compromised probably within the first few hours online and a total meltdown followed. In many cases, I was able to wipe the drives and just install XP in it's place and run fine -of course I'm usually trimming a lot of the bloat out of XP upon system setup. You'd probably be surprised at just how fast you can get XP to run when a lot of the unnecessary frils are disabled. Server 2003 is a good example of this. It is still just built on the foundation of an XP setup but there is absolutely no unnecessary features installed. That platform flys like an eagle -even on fairly old hardware.

[starhawk]

i agree very strongly w/ jmroberts70. my friend, you certainly know what you are talking about.

many others here do not always have this knowledge. thank you for having the patience to explain it to them. :)

[OldPueblo]

Stability is one of the biggest difference between the two. As someone who has supported both platforms as a tech, I will note that XP boxes are waaay more stable. Even when a system gets corrupted from who-knows-what, I have had to do a LOT less complete system rebuilds as a result than when working with 98. In fact, my rule of thumb was to wipe and rebuild a 98 box at least once a year on systems that were getting a lot of usage -if they were going to stay stable.

From a performance standpoint...Yes, 98 would run on weaker hardware, but it can't address RAM that well (or manage it, considering it's still just a DOS foundation with a pretty face). While XP can not only address massive amounts of RAM, it actually runs faster with it. Early benchmarks showed this to be the case -and surprised a lot of us that weren't expecting it.

Also, the GUI for XP is more customizable as it us XML-based. This means that a lot more features can be modified than just adding custom "themes" to your GUI. The entire look and feel can be controlled. Also the GUI can be customized to be full of "eye candy" or paired down for the best performance possible from your system. Can't do that with 98.

By having user accounts activated by default -and forcing the user to name their account -other than Administrator- you also can start limiting the access to core systems within the OS. Properly setup, even if a worm or virus get in, due to the limited access of the account, the damage is greatly restricted.

In this past year, I think I have replaced at least a dozen 98 boxes that were totally screwed up due to being connected to broadband internet lines without any protection. Their security was compromised probably within the first few hours online and a total meltdown followed. In many cases, I was able to wipe the drives and just install XP in it's place and run fine -of course I'm usually trimming a lot of the bloat out of XP upon system setup. You'd probably be surprised at just how fast you can get XP to run when a lot of the unnecessary frils are disabled. Server 2003 is a good example of this. It is still just built on the foundation of an XP setup but there is absolutely no unnecessary features installed. That platform flys like an eagle -even on fairly old hardware.

That is of course until you use Win2k3 Server as it was intended to be used. DNS server, Active Directory, FTP, IIS, whatever. Both can be burdened down by services, and both can be "tweaked". I see the concept you are talking about, but come on... its a server OS. Do you really think its faster then XP when XP is in classic mode, extra junk is turned off, etc? Any links comparing them?

Edit: Nevermind, I see with a second read that I misread you. You weren't another "win2k3 is faster then XP" moron. I'll leave my answer up anyway though in case they come around...:p

[WillowHawk]

Alright guys, i finally got the link for the thing my friend and i were having...it started with just the 2 of us and then i went out to one of his friends named Chozo4......i'm solland27 on that quote...but its a really long dialogue and to save time from formatting my stuff(i'm lazy, i know it ) i just caped everything in the first one. now i know i came off as a "elite highhorse" but that was just because i tend to get very, erm....excited about my positions. chozo spent time editing his stuff, i didnt, forgive my negligence...but he had good points, and i think i did too....

http://s4.invisionfree.com/ZealForum/index.php?showtopic=74

please read the whole thing (tis i lot tho) and i want to hear ur responses.

P.S. this is the thing that started it all off http://zealnet.myvnc.com/shared/xpsucks.html

[brom42]

Alright guys, i finally got the link for the thing my friend and i were having...it started with just the 2 of us and then i went out to one of his friends named Chozo4......i'm solland27 on that quote...but its a really long dialogue and to save time from formatting my stuff(i'm lazy, i know it ) i just caped everything in the first one. now i know i came off as a "elite highhorse" but that was just because i tend to get very, erm....excited about my positions. chozo spent time editing his stuff, i didnt, forgive my negligence...but he had good points, and i think i did too....


Wow, I read that entire thread; and all I can say is that they seem to be getting way too upset over something that really comes down to personal opinion. In my personal experiance, I provide staff/faculty support on a university network. In that environment, there is no comparison between 98 and XP. After XP is joined to a domain it is infinitely more secure than 98. The thing that comes to mind is group policies. All the users are power users. This simple fact cuts down problems with spyware(about 25% of all calls it seems) by a huge margin. Only about 20% of machines are still using 98, but they account for over 95% of virus/spyware calls.


On the gaming front; for any modern game how can 98 be better? As all of us know, 98 has problems addressing large amount of ram (over 256mb, if my memory is correct) I don't want to even think about running doom3 with that little ram. The vast majority of the games I owned worked when I upgraded to XP; as I think any properly coded program should. Any old dos games I need to run I just use DOSbox (which I recommend) If the program still doesn't run, then I drag out a old machine that has 98 still installed and play them there.


OK, I am going to stop there, 'cause now I am starting to get mad myself and I don't want to start sounding like some of the people on that other forum.

[starhawk]

simple answer: 95/98 can run games that xp cannot.

i can play a game called space bucks on a 95 comp
it will not even open in 98 or anything later

i can play a game called lightbringer on 98
after a certain point it is unplayable in xp, you click on this one particular thing and it closes for no reason w/ no explanation or anything

i can play a game called beyond time on 98
after you click on the first thing when you run it in xp the cursor dissapears and the game stops responding to user input. you can still get to menus and stuff but it does nothing in the actual game.

[OldPueblo]

simple answer: 95/98 can run games that xp cannot.

i can play a game called space bucks on a 95 comp
it will not even open in 98 or anything later

i can play a game called lightbringer on 98
after a certain point it is unplayable in xp, you click on this one particular thing and it closes for no reason w/ no explanation or anything

i can play a game called beyond time on 98
after you click on the first thing when you run it in xp the cursor dissapears and the game stops responding to user input. you can still get to menus and stuff but it does nothing in the actual game.

Yeah but the same argument could be had for all other operating systems. Doom3 doesnt run on 9x (im talking legitly here, not hacks), many DOS games dont run in 98 (dont fool yourself, many of them are actually running in DOS, not 98), MacOSX games dont run in Windows, those damn accelerated penguin games dont run on Macs or Windows, NES games dont run on PS2, yadda, yadda, yadda. They all cancel each other out. :)

[odoe]

Don't go knocking the Tandy TRS-80. A lot of people still use them today, including students and even reporters. Why? Because they are incredibly rugged, small, easy to use and the perfect note taker.

[Synful Serenity]

The main benefit to Windows 98 is compatibility. But that's for an older box, my main comp runs XP, which is much more stable. 98 would crash much more often, and with XP many problems are recoverable without rebooting....However, 98 does have an edge on XP in the security department solely because a lot of features that XP has that can be exploited simply do not exist on Windows 98. I'm still sticking with XP, of course!

[qb4ever]

call me a noob, call me nutty as a squirrel's winter stash, but i actually prefer win 95/98. why? i like some of those old legacy games. try this list:

tyrian (dos 7.0) (c) epic megagames
lightbringer/cydonia (released under both titles) (win95/98) (c) dreamcatcher interactive
space bucks (win95 only, won't work in win98 for some reason :confused: ) (c) sierra
museum madness (dos somethingorother) (c) mecc
beyond time (win95/98) (c) dreamcatcher interactive

i like all of those games but my emachines winxp computer won't run them right. space bucks won't even open in anything other than win95, beyond time the cursor won't appear, lightbringer/cydonia quits for no reason at one point. :(

I agree with that because I have a few games that won't run on NT based oses, My rule of thumb is run the correct MS os for it's age/ speed.


It's can't get much worse than my school, there's running PII 350mhz 128mb IBM 300GL's on win95C and Northwood 2.6C 512mb ddr netvistas on win98se :rolleyes:

[lomn75]

However, 98 does have an edge on XP in the security department solely because a lot of features that XP has that can be exploited simply do not exist on Windows 98.utter nonsense. there are zero restrictions on execution in 9x. "exploitable features" aren't needed because the whole mess is wide open.

[Synful Serenity]

Heh I never looked at it that way before...

[Steel Chicken]

Don't go knocking the Tandy TRS-80. A lot of people still use them today, including students and even reporters. Why? Because they are incredibly rugged, small, easy to use and the perfect note taker.

? TRS-80? Small?

I when I was in high school many moons ago back in the late 80's we had TRS-80's. Those things were *monsters* hardly small...are we talking about the same thing?

http://images.google.com/images?q=trs-80&hl=en

And, they were absolute garbage, which is why we called them TRaSh-80's...always crashing, doing weird crap. When we got them replaced with IBM's, we (and the teachers) were much happier.

[odoe]

I'm talking about the 100 and 200 series
http://www.etedeschi.ndirect.co.uk/picts/TRS-80-100.jpg

I've always wanted one

[compslckr]

XP = t3h w1n!!

EOT
(end of thread)

http://www.mentallyretired.com/h/index.cfm/u_compslckr (http://www.hardfolding.com)

[starhawk]

mine is a trs-80 series iii color computer
came out in 1988.

looking for pics...

[starhawk]

here's a pic of what i have...
http://www.machine-room.org/images/pictures/hires/160/16/TRS_80_Color_Computer_III.jpg

[Shane]

Why not just put on a multiple boot system like on mine I have winxp pro, linux, win98, win95, and dos 7 for cool old programs.

[ColinR]

How to dual-boot:

1) Install Windows98
2) Install Windows2K/XP. It asks you if you want to upgrade your current install or create a new one.

My personal rig has Windows98SE and Windows2K. This is because some stuff can be fixed on the very rare occasion that W2K dies, by going into Win98SE and fiddling with some stuff (copying original copies of files back and so on). Actually using 98 to DO anything? The last non-fix thing I used to do in 98 was rip CDs. That stopped once I got a new ASPI layer. I stay away from NTFS simply because of it's fixability is lower than FAT32. I haven't actually reformatted my machine for 3 years. Even when I upgraded my hard disks (a pair of RAIDed 20G Maxtors to a pair of 80G Maxtors) all I did was Ghost them from one pair to the next. The annual wipe that I used to do is a thing of the past.

The only downside to XP is it's such a prevalent OS that it's the hacker's choice of target. Example: I built an XP machine (this was a while ago), and started getting the first Service Pack (really should have downloaded the network version on a protected machine, but it was a rush-job). Even before it had finished getting it, Blaster got the machine and started rebooting it. Took about 3 reboots to get the protection it needed.

The security on an XP machine simply embarasses a 98 one. You're presented with the password input screen on 98. How do you get past it? Guessing the password won't help..........but pressing "Escape" will!!!!!!! Wtf is that all about? :D

[WillowHawk]

Well, i was hoping that more of u would read the forum link that i put on here before, but dosnt really matter that much. i'm was just trying to see how many of u guys were with me. so far i got 98 votes on the poll, and 84 votes (methinks) for XP, granted it is the main OS, and i wanted to know if pple went for it just because it was the newest thing to come out or if they honestly liked it better than the previous versions.
Well, heres the link again for any new comers, but i personally think that the topic shouldnt even come up anymore as XP clearly is the winner...

http://s4.invisionfree.com/ZealForu...hp?showtopic=74

Any counter arguments are welcome

[OldPueblo]

The security on an XP machine simply embarasses a 98 one. You're presented with the password input screen on 98. How do you get past it? Guessing the password won't help..........but pressing "Escape" will!!!!!!! Wtf is that all about? :D

It was designed as a customized desktop/network authentication login, not a secure workstation login.

[starhawk]

xp is good for some things... but 98 is a clear winner in my book, at least on technical points.

(1) xp is not always stable but 95/98 is very much so.

(2) xp service pack 2 makes it impossible for your comp to tell whether your norton is working. 95/98 *never* had that problem.

(3) xp takes up about a gigabyte of space. 95/98 is much smaller. no reason to gunk up a drive if you dont have to.

(4) most older dos/windows games will not run properly on xp. most will on 95/98. i can provide a list of the ones i dealt with and whether or not they work in xp or 95/98.

(5) 95/98 can boot from both floppy and cd-rom but this was made cd-rom only for xp. in these days where floppy drives are becoming less and less common it may not seem like an advantage, but in older comps and budget models a floppy bootup can be a good thing. this is also true of most if not all 1u servers.

(6) 95/98 is about 10 years old now, which means that, having lasted so long, it must be very good. its kernel actually dates back to the original form of dos... missing how? ms collaborated w/ apple to make the 1st mac os... to test the mac gui they basically refitted dos and dumped the gui code on it. they were unable -legally- to make their own os because of this, so they simply changed a few shapes and colors and marketed it as windows 1.0... this became windows 3.1 after a few years. but the kernel stayed the same. so, when they released win95 they tacked on 32 bit capability to the dos kernel and used the NT gui... so its the same!

(7) xp cannot deal properly with *any* 16bit code. i cannot tell you how many legacy programs will hang like a fish from a pole when ran under xp because of this. it drives me up the wall cuz i still like that old stuff.

[jmroberts70]

(1) xp is not always stable but 95/98 is very much so.


[chuckles to self] 95/98? ... stable?


(2) xp service pack 2 makes it impossible for your comp to tell whether your norton is working. 95/98 *never* had that problem.


That's because 95/98 didn't care if you were running an antivirus program at all.


(3) xp takes up about a gigabyte of space. 95/98 is much smaller. no reason to gunk up a drive if you dont have to.


Well I just guess I have to. I have to to run all my modern apps and games. I have to so I can get all the features XP brings me that 98 doesn't. Can I complain about the massive installation footprint? Sure. But with storage costing as low as $0.50/gig, who cares?


(4) most older dos/windows games will not run properly on xp. most will on 95/98. i can provide a list of the ones i dealt with and whether or not they work in xp or 95/98.


That's because 95/98 IS DOS! 2K/XP is not -it only emulates DOS. If you need to run pure DOS software (meaning: games), then you're one of the lucky few that will never need to upgrade your hardware. ever.

Expecting legacy DOS-based software to run on the lastest OS is asking a but too much.


(5) 95/98 can boot from both floppy and cd-rom but this was made cd-rom only for xp. in these days where floppy drives are becoming less and less common it may not seem like an advantage, but in older comps and budget models a floppy bootup can be a good thing. this is also true of most if not all 1u servers.


What are you talking about? I've loaded XP from floppy before. Didn't like it but it worked just as easily as you can load Win2K from floppy. 1U servers? What, they will have a floppy drive and not a CD-ROM? I don't think so.


(6) 95/98 is about 10 years old now, which means that, having lasted so long, it must be very good. its kernel actually dates back to the original form of dos... missing how? ms collaborated w/ apple to make the 1st mac os... to test the mac gui they basically refitted dos and dumped the gui code on it. they were unable -legally- to make their own os because of this, so they simply changed a few shapes and colors and marketed it as windows 1.0... this became windows 3.1 after a few years. but the kernel stayed the same. so, when they released win95 they tacked on 32 bit capability to the dos kernel and used the NT gui... so its the same!


Being old and lasting so long doesn't necessarily mean that it must be very good. It simply means that it is old and long-lasting. Also, your historical facts are a bit off. Saying that the kernel is the same from 98 on down to 1.0 is a bit of a stretch. The fact of the matter is that DOS was a compromise from the very beginning. It wasn't what they wanted to use as their foundational platform but it happened to be what they could legally use. So while DOS was being developed and improved through the years, Microsoft decided to start working at the same time on a "New Technology" that would eventually replace their DOS-based OS, hence, the term "NT". At about the point of 98, there was a divided userbase Microsoft was marketing for: The home user running 98 and the commercial user running NT. NT4 and 98 looked pretty much the same from a GUI standpoint but their underlying architecture was totally different. 98 had multi-monitor, PnP, and USB support but NT4 had support for software RAID, SMP, larger RAM addressing, Hardware Abstraction Layer, ect. It became obvious that there needed to be a merger of the two platforms. The ease of use and ammenities of 98, with the stability and power capabilites of NT. Win2K was the result. It was hoped that 2000 would mean the end of DOS-based OS'es for MS but they were wrong as most manufacturers were slow to adopt it and the bastard-child ME was born to fill the gap. In the time after 2000, many complained about the slow boot times of 2000 and XP greatly improved that issue (along with many other improvements)... [ok now i'm starting to ramble]


(7) xp cannot deal properly with *any* 16bit code. i cannot tell you how many legacy programs will hang like a fish from a pole when ran under xp because of this. it drives me up the wall cuz i still like that old stuff.


I know of quite a few 16-bit software platforms that still run like a champ in XP -and without any tweaking. If you're having problems, then stay on 98 but don't try and say that 98 is better than XP because it won't support your legacy apps.

[OldPueblo]

Starhawk, ever hear the phrase "You can't argue with a madman?" That last post was so far offbase that there's really no way to refute it. Logic does not exist on that level. The only thing that has kept 98 useable for so long is business/money, not "how excellently it is programmed." No offense bro. :) Have a read Starhawk: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winserver2k3_gold1.asp

[starhawk]

Given your own rule, OldPueblo, I will not argue with you.

However, I will address some points that were laid down by jmroberts70:
(1) It's harder to crash 95/98 than it is XP, as legacy programs do not crash 95/98.
(2) Why should XP care about antivirus, either?
(3) I will still need to upgrade my hardware eventually... unless you *really* think my TRS-80 can run games like Tyrian (MS-DOS 7.0) or Lightbringer (Windows 95/98/Me)
(4) XP really loads from a floppy? I thought it took like 6 floppies to make XP boot from your A: drive.
(5) I type corrected on the issue of the kernel being the same since DOS. But 2k and XP actually use kernel32.dll, which I think is from NT 4.0. 95/98 used kernel386.dll.
(6) Yes, you can run *some* 16-bit apps in XP... because there is DOS installed on there! Look in the System32 folder if you do not believe me. However, I am told that I am *very* lucky to make my QBASIC editor work... most 16bit apps will not.

By the way... one good thing about 95/98: have you ever had the portalsearching spyware? Guess what? 95/98 do not have svchost.exe, therefore they are immune to it. Having had that particular bug on my system, I can tell you that I am very glad that some OS's are immune... and I had thought seriously of reverting to 95/98 because of this.

[DanK]

It's windows 3.11 for workgroups for me.

[OldPueblo]

Boot an OS from a floppy, worried about security and viruses, here you go! http://www.toastytech.com/guis/qnxdemo.html

FYI, I did phone-line tech support for MS for Win95/98. I was on their escalation team. I know exactly what it takes to crash 95/98 and exactly how stable they are. Two words for ya... NT executive. Check your gas lines my friend... :p Sorry to sound like a smartass, but do the research and realize that personal opnions have a hard time trumping industry recognized and documented facts.

[DanK]

You can still get a free QNX demo, on a bootable livecd no less. Look here http://www.qnx.com/download/feature.html?programid=8450

[jmroberts70]

Well I guess the apps must be getting better if many of you are saying that somehow 95/98 is more stable than XP. It seems that my experience with supporting users under both palatforms have been quite the opposite. In fact, the BSOD has nearly become something of "legend" considering how rarely I see it now. In my own personal network, I haven't experienced a single OS crash in the past 4 years -and I normally pound the snot out of my systems. From a tech support standpoint, I have had FAR less stability issues with 2K/XP than 95/98. There's no comparison. My current userbase is around 200 clients in a variety of conditions ranging from grandma in her mobile home to high-end AutoCAD users in architectural firms in LA. Maybe I'm just the exception to the rule but I doubt it.

[Chozo4]

It was designed as a customized desktop/network authentication login, not a secure workstation login.

That can be corrected with a small registry tweak which will remove the cancel button and Escape functionality on the Login screen. This tweak would cause the PC to require a successful validation from the Domain Name Server before it can log-in.

http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/130/

[Josh_B]

It empirically proven that Win98 is less secure, and less stable than WinXP. XP is also faster in some cases, and should never be significantly slower unless you are low on RAM.

There is no question. Go with XP.

Besides, how can Win98 be safer, when there are relatively few patches coming out for it anymore? Is it even on MS' supported list anymore???

[odoe]

You can still get a free QNX demo, on a bootable livecd no less. Look here http://www.qnx.com/download/feature.html?programid=8450


My OS prof would swear up and down that QNX is the greatest OS on the face of the earth.
I should check it out.

[Josh_B]

[chuckles to self] 95/98? ... stable?



That's because 95/98 didn't care if you were running an antivirus program at all.



Well I just guess I have to. I have to to run all my modern apps and games. I have to so I can get all the features XP brings me that 98 doesn't. Can I complain about the massive installation footprint? Sure. But with storage costing as low as $0.50/gig, who cares?



That's because 95/98 IS DOS! 2K/XP is not -it only emulates DOS. If you need to run pure DOS software (meaning: games), then you're one of the lucky few that will never need to upgrade your hardware. ever.

Expecting legacy DOS-based software to run on the lastest OS is asking a but too much.



What are you talking about? I've loaded XP from floppy before. Didn't like it but it worked just as easily as you can load Win2K from floppy. 1U servers? What, they will have a floppy drive and not a CD-ROM? I don't think so.



Being old and lasting so long doesn't necessarily mean that it must be very good. It simply means that it is old and long-lasting. Also, your historical facts are a bit off. Saying that the kernel is the same from 98 on down to 1.0 is a bit of a stretch. The fact of the matter is that DOS was a compromise from the very beginning. It wasn't what they wanted to use as their foundational platform but it happened to be what they could legally use. So while DOS was being developed and improved through the years, Microsoft decided to start working at the same time on a "New Technology" that would eventually replace their DOS-based OS, hence, the term "NT". At about the point of 98, there was a divided userbase Microsoft was marketing for: The home user running 98 and the commercial user running NT. NT4 and 98 looked pretty much the same from a GUI standpoint but their underlying architecture was totally different. 98 had multi-monitor, PnP, and USB support but NT4 had support for software RAID, SMP, larger RAM addressing, Hardware Abstraction Layer, ect. It became obvious that there needed to be a merger of the two platforms. The ease of use and ammenities of 98, with the stability and power capabilites of NT. Win2K was the result. It was hoped that 2000 would mean the end of DOS-based OS'es for MS but they were wrong as most manufacturers were slow to adopt it and the bastard-child ME was born to fill the gap. In the time after 2000, many complained about the slow boot times of 2000 and XP greatly improved that issue (along with many other improvements)... [ok now i'm starting to ramble]



I know of quite a few 16-bit software platforms that still run like a champ in XP -and without any tweaking. If you're having problems, then stay on 98 but don't try and say that 98 is better than XP because it won't support your legacy apps.

Why would you care about boot times - you should never have to reboot in the first place. Oh yeah, this is Windows we're talking about.... nevermind.

[GreNME]

My OS prof would swear up and down that QNX is the greatest OS on the face of the earth.
I should check it out.
As long as embedded OSes are your thing, it's the most stable one out there.

[Chozo4]

heh, seems the [H]ard|forum is back up. Was getting database errors earlier ... *grumbles*

At anyrate, I was appending this to my post but thats when the databse went down. Might as well put it in another I suppose.

---------------

Yes... I'm one of those who voted Windows 98 *ducks to avoid flying rotten fruit and random objects*. My only reason is purely for compatibility with older applications and games. I just prefer to stick to an O/S I can do whatever I wanted with and not be hindered by any issues regarding compatibility. I find it pointless to dual boot and switch between O/S's purely to use a couple apps and games I frequently use/play and then switch back.

For those who may think I use it because my comp is older than dirt... 2.2ghz Intel Mobile, 512mb DDR SDRAM to say the least which is still pretty up to date. Granted it came reinstalled with XP pro I got fed up with in after a week and switched to 98se on it. I'm more satisfied with it than XP. It may be a bit less stable but it's not as bad for me as anyone else claims it would be/were for them. I've gone over 2 weeks of uptime without shutting it down and through daily use of Webserving, Coding, Gaming, Burning, etc. That's pretty good in my eyes. No, this isn't a fresh install of Windows 98se either.

Before I get flamed for even saying my opinion on why I use 98se which I did from someone else... To each their own. Poeple use what they want and what they are satisfied with and there is nothing wrong with that. Despite XP or whatnot being the most up to date, windows 98se can do pretty much the same things without the extra bloat and overhead. So it doesn't have the fancy schema's and themes... can use windowblinds for that if ever desired. Can as well add a small extention or two to get features that would be in xp if you REALLY needed them.

Windows 98 is still supported by microsoft so it really doesn't matter how outdated it is yet (unsupported as of 2006?). It gets the job done and still does it well. :cool:

... meh, if it does what I need in as small of a program as possible, I'm there. I'm all for lower size/memory footprint/resource usage within reason. No, I won't switch to windows XP since it's bloat to me and has all those extra features I won't need or ever use.

[/end random babbling and rambling]

[Tyklfe]

For this sole reason I keep an old win98, and an ancient dos 6.22 486 machine around. Whenever I want to play one of the legacy games I pull one of those machines out of the closet and play them. There is nothing like pushing a turbo button to make the game play at the right speed to bring back memories. :D


Haha - so true, so true.

[starhawk]

i also go for windows 95/98

/ducks random objects but gets hit by burnt out at power supply
:mad: who threw that?!?! grrrr....

:D just wanted to inject some humor. sorry for bad joke.

what i think id really like to see is something inbetween winXP and win95/98/2k

it should:

- support all programs that win95/98 supports
- support all programs that win2k/xp supports
- compatibility w/ modern hardware, etc.
- be stable for prettymuch all apps
- not stick its nose where it doesnt need to
- support as many features as possible w/o going hal9000
- allow for full configuration of said features to allow users to only use what they need

basically a patch that allows winXP to be backwards compatible to 1990 and still be sane.

i know its crazy but i think it would be good... any c++ programmers out there? youd make a fortune... :rolleyes: ok, ok, id buy it in a heartbeat tho.

[compslckr]

if you are still running software that is not supported by windows xp it is really time to upgrade. new software isnt that expensive when you put it in perspective, and some of the new features may actual be benificial to you and/or your company.


XP has been out long enough so that there is an application to replace just about every old application that may still have some use in todays world.

[Synful Serenity]

XP has been out long enough so that there is an application to replace just about every old application that may still have some use in todays world

Not games though! No ones going to come out and make a new version of a 10+ year old 16-color EGA game that runs in XP....Even when they do for a rare classic game, they update it with current graphics, and it essentially becomes a new game....In this case, extra features and graphics are what we don't want, we want to be able to play the original game.....There's nothing like playing the original game you played years ago....Of course, for this I have a DOS box.

[starhawk]

I like to play strategy games. Here's a list of my choice progs and whether or not 98 or XP gives me headaches with them:

- Myst- 98, XP
- Riven: The Sequel to Myst- 98, XP
- Myst III: Exile- XP
- Uru- XP (Incompatible with Intel Extreme Graphics 2)
- Rhem- XP
- Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?- 98 (XP?)
- Museum Madness- DOS 5.0+, 98, probably not XP (have yet to test)
- Lightbringer (originally Cydonia)- 95/98 only
- Beyond Time- 95/98 only
- The Crystal Key- XP
- The Crystal Key 2: The Far Realm- XP (Needs More Than 64mb Video RAM for Good Gameplay)
- Tyrian- DOS 7.0+, 95/98 (XP?)
- Crazyoid (from GlobalStar's 100 Great Games)- 95/98, XP
- SK-111 "Starkiller" (from GlobalStar's 100 Great Games)- 95/98 only
- Adventure Blaster (text adventure game from GlobalStar's 100 Great Games)
- Space Bucks- 95 only (will not even open prog in 98 or later)

Those are my programs and whether or not they give me problems. :p I may not be into first-person shooters but I have my fun /ducks flying rotten fruit and old computer parts

[Steel Chicken]

the main difference between 98/95 and 2k/xp, the 9x series allow direct access to the hardware. this is a gulf that cannot be breached between the two camps. it is why old games work better on the 9X, and not so well on the new OS's, they want to have low level control of the system, which is a Bad Idea™ in modern times.

If people want to play old games, multi boot, its that simple.
In regards to security, reliability, stability, the newer OS's are far superior.

[ColinR]

Every one of those games are either shit or have been superceded by sequels. Tyrian was good, but Mame provides about 100 better vertical shoot em ups.

Basically, get a PC, put XP on it, then get DOSbox (a PC emulator) to play all those bad old games. (Any compilation of 100 games will be 95% bad.)

98 machines were great, but life moves on. Do the world a favour, stuff it full of ram, put XP on it, and sell it to your grandparents, and buy a couple of decent games with the proceeds.

For DOSbox:
http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/news.php?show_news=1

[MeatWad]

Windows XP SP2 here, although my older games won't work at all.

These are the Games that wont work for me, or work not very well

1: Quake Classic
2: Doom 1
2: Doom 2
3: Ultimate Doom
4: Descent 2
5: Simcity 2000, not too well
6: Simcity 3000, plays well, sometimes
etc...

[starhawk]

I know what a $#!* game is. I have one. I left it off the list, it's so bad. The game is called The Day The World Broke. First time I ever heard of it was when I saw it on clearance at Zany Brainy (a now-defunct division of that famous toy co in NY whose name I cannot recall)

It's a very good game... challenging puzzles, plenty of humor, good plot and story dynamics... only one problem with it: the game randomly freezes.

Yep. That's why it was on clearance. I got it for a lousy song cuz that's all it's worth... anybody out there like debugging assembly code? I would pay up to $50 (5x what the game's worth) to have it fixed.

And it's true that most of those games in the cd are crap. But there are always some that are good... and, BTW, I have only the demo version of Tyrian... anyone who wants to sell me the full version, I will pay $20.

[OldPueblo]

Windows XP SP2 here, although my older games won't work at all.

These are the Games that wont work for me, or work not very well

1: Quake Classic
2: Doom 1
2: Doom 2
3: Ultimate Doom
4: Descent 2
5: Simcity 2000, not too well
6: Simcity 3000, plays well, sometimes
etc...

I don't have the others, but Quake Classic, D1, D2, and UD work for me. Quite well in fact, I can even play multiplayer.

[MeatWad]

Cool, and how did you get it work in XP? I tryed the XP Compatability wizard thingy and that dosen't help.

[OldPueblo]

For D1, D2, and UD they have kind of a "windows version" where you launch it from a menu system. For Quake I've tried out GLQuake. I havent touched either of them for a long time, I'll go home and poke at 'em and PM you or something.

[MeatWad]

Cool, thanks :)

[Steel Chicken]

Windows XP SP2 here, although my older games won't work at all.

These are the Games that wont work for me, or work not very well

1: Quake Classic
2: Doom 1
2: Doom 2
3: Ultimate Doom
4: Descent 2
5: Simcity 2000, not too well
6: Simcity 3000, plays well, sometimes
etc...

those work for me all fine in 2K, xcept quake classic and descent 2 which i dont have

[Chozo4]

Ahh... Games... I too enjoy getting back to the classics. Lesse..

The older games I have and play at times that have compatibility troubles in XP Pro since SP1 (Haven't had XP since before SP2 was even thought of).

To note... I HAVE tryed DOSbox for the DOS based ones and didn't get any results. I have also tryed all compatibility wizard options as well. Also tryed editing the emulated config.nt and autoexec.nt to added dos-side CD-Rom support and sound card initialization. Only got DukeNukem 3D to actually function through such methods desite it being slow.

**These barely work on XP...

-Mechwarrior 2: 31st Century Combat for windows (loads menu but crashes in game)
-Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries Titanium Edition (Freezes up and looks distorted)
-Shattered Steel (loads menu but will NEVER detect a CD in the drive thus unplayable)
-Diablo 1 (Will not run)

**Works in XP with a few problems...

-Mechwarrior 2: Ghost Bears Legacy (only works when you boot XP into VGA mode)
-MechWarrior 3 (often locks up / Zone.com has trouble seeing it on some installs)
-Duke Nukem 3D (slow / incredibly choppy but somewhat playable)
-Quake 1 DOS/Win version (works fine except trying to host a LAN game will cause the server to disconnect from the port being used)
-Strife (Can get running but slow and crappy)



All these work flawlessly otherwise now that my system uses only Windows98se. ^.^

After-Thought: Don't get me wrong, I still play some newer games as well of course. A few are Mechwarrior 4: Mercenaries + Mechcommander 2 + Unreal Tournament 2004.

[Deadlierchair]

DOS based machines are nice if you want to play old games, but XP, like everyone has said, really is the way to go.

I use 2000 Pro a bit, and I really like it as well. I prefer to use XP because it's more of a consumer oriented product IMO.