Windows 98SE or XP? Performance related

[Clockface]

I have an IBM T20 Thinkpad running at 700MHz, which I'll shortly be upgrading to 384MB. At the moment it's running Windows 98 SE, but it's been suggested that I reformat, and install Windows XP instead. What are the (dis)advantages of using Windows XP over 98SE? I know that Xp is supposedly more stable, but I've heard that it runs slower than 98, which is something I don't want, as Unreal Tournament etc already push the machine to it's limits.

I should mention that the laptop won't be connected to a network or the internet, so security isn't a problem, nor does it have a CD/DVD burner, printer, scanner etc connected up, so any advantage XP might have there is void. The laptop is used mainly to read text and scanned books, and to play games and emulators.

My big concern is speed; will XP slow down programs, such as games? If so, I'll stick with 98SE, which works fine on the laptop. Ond advantage of XP that I have heard of, is that it can compress drives, so theoretically I can install more games and data on to the laptop. I know this entails some risk, as corrupted data in a compressed file (the file being a virtual drive) is far more serious than the same amount of file corruption on a real drive (as there only some files will be lost, wherease in the former case the whole file, and therefore the whole virtual drive, will probably be lost), but since I have the game CDs anyway, this small risk won't be too imortant. And of course any important data (none, really), and the Windows XP installation, would be on an uncompressed partition.

The only other problem is that of DOS compatibility. I know that some DOS programs, such as Doom and Duke Nukem 3D, now have user written freeware frontends, that allow the game to run (often with great new features and vastly enhanced graphics) under Windows with no problems. Plus I imagine that most other DOS programs can be made to run under XP, using freeware fixes or whatever.

So basically, what would anyone advise here? Is it better for me to "upgrade" to XP, or should I stay with 98SE? I have no problems with 98SE, aside from the occasional program crash (which can sometimes fully lock up the laptop, requiring a hardware reboot), and whilst I know that XP might well solve those problems (if it doesn't stop the game from crashing, it might at least save me from having to reboot the laptop), the crashes are infrequent enough to be all but negligable. The real issue is performance; would games (the biggest resource hog, by far) run better or worse under XP?

And what programs can be used to make DOS programs run under XP? I've heard of a program that fixes the XP/DOS sound incompatibility, but what would anyone recommend?

Thanks for any answers.

[leoblob]

One person's opinion: Stick with WIN98SE. WIN XP does require more "processor power" and memory than WIN98SE, so I think your machine will run slower with XP. Also, WIN98SE can compress a drive, too, so you have that capability right now.

I do believe that WIN98SE will crash more often, but I also believe that XP will run your machine slower.

[dsvochak]

Another opinion from someone who uses W2K and XP exclusively: for the uses you're describing there's no reason to upgrade, particularly if you would need to buy a copy of XP. For about the same amount of money needed to buy XP you could likely max the memory (512mb) and get a faster (5,400 rpm) and larger hard drive. A bigger drive would eliminate any need to compress the drive and the increase in rpm (and drive cache) would significantly speed up operations.

[dr_st]

Yeah, stick with Win98SE. I have it running on my older machine and it doesn't crash unless you stress it too much. Do you experience frequent crashes / lockups? If it's once in a blue moon, I say "don't cure a disease that you don't have". If you care about DOS compatibility, definitely stick with Win98SE - it has pure DOS mode, which XP doesn't have. Emulators and fixes will only take you so far.

[christopher_wolf]

I would stick with Win98SE; I also have it running on an old, 300MHz Compaq and it works fine. If there is no overwhelming urge to upgrade to Windows XP, then don't.

[DataAve]

Leave 98. If you need to run a program with XP, you can actually run XP off the cd rom.

[Clockface]

>One person's opinion: Stick with WIN98SE. WIN XP does require more "processor power" and memory than WIN98SE, so I think your machine will run slower with XP. Also, WIN98SE can compress a drive, too, so you have that capability right now.

Yes, but 98SE can only compress 2GB or less partitions, I don't think XP has that limitation. Is there any way around this limitation of 98SE?


>I do believe that WIN98SE will crash more often, but I also believe that XP will run your machine slower.

I can live with the occasional crash, the loss of speed is more important, and I have heard that XP puts a drain on system resources.



>Another opinion from someone who uses W2K and XP exclusively: for the uses you're describing there's no reason to upgrade, particularly if you would need to buy a copy of XP. For about the same amount of money needed to buy XP you could likely max the memory (512mb) and get a faster (5,400 rpm) and larger hard drive. A bigger drive would eliminate any need to compress the drive and the increase in rpm (and drive cache) would significantly speed up operations.

All true of course, but I already have XP, it came with this desktop heap that I'm using at the moment (I only use it for Internet access, letters and stuff, as it's excuse for a 3D card is so bad, and I prefer the convenience of a console (I'm sick of chasing upgrades!)).


>Yeah, stick with Win98SE. I have it running on my older machine and it doesn't crash unless you stress it too much. Do you experience frequent crashes / lockups? If it's once in a blue moon, I say "don't cure a disease that you don't have". If you care about DOS compatibility, definitely stick with Win98SE - it has pure DOS mode, which XP doesn't have. Emulators and fixes will only take you so far.

That's my line of thinking, too. It only crashes occasionally, as I never multitask on it (well, *I* never multitask on it, I just run one program at a time, but Windows runs thousands of threads at any given moment...).


>I would stick with Win98SE; I also have it running on an old, 300MHz Compaq and it works fine. If there is no overwhelming urge to upgrade to Windows XP, then don't.

There's no need as such, I know XP is needed for some hardware or whatever, but that doesn't apply to me (yet, if ever). It's just that since I was upgrading the RAM anyway, it was suggested that XP might benefit me, but I agree with the consensus here that the trade off in compatability (and probably in speed and memory too) isn't worth the extra stability XP would bring. If I was doing important work on it, or hosting a server or whatever then I'd have to consider XP (or more likely Linux, from what I've read), but for the occasional game, emualtor, viewing some text files or html files I've downloaded on my desktop and CD-RWed across to the laptop, etc, then Win98SE has served me well (as well as Windoze can, anyway).

>Leave 98. If you need to run a program with XP, you can actually run XP off the cd rom.

I didn't know that! Anyway, I've heard that there are programs that need XP (I've also heard that the forthcoming PC version of Halo 2 will require the new Windows, named Vista, to run! Go to XBox-scene.com and follow the link, if you want to learn more), but I've never needed to run them.

All in all, unless anyone can give me a good reason to the contrary, I think I'll stick with 98SE for now. I can always upgrade to XP later, if I have to, but I can't think of any necessity that's likely to occur with the laptop.

Thanks for all of the suggestions, everyone

[Kyocera]

This is from my MCSA/MCSE study guide 3d Edition Exam 70-270, Windows XP Professional-

Minimum Processor Requirement: Intel Pentium/Cleron family, AMDK6/Athalon/Duron family (or compatible) 233MHz or higer.

Recommended Processor Requirement: Intel Pentium II (or compatible)300MHz or higher.

Minimum Memory Requirement: 64MB (may limit performance and which features are available)

Recommended Memory Requirement: 128MB


I went to a customer who had a 380ED (i think) with 64MB of Ram, the thing took over a minute to open the start menu. After installing the required ram it ran fine.

I think you will have a problem with gaming. But really otherwise it should run fine.

[DataAve]

It's called WXPC and you actually run xp from the rom. Great for troubleshooting.

[cakesy]

Definately stick with 98se. Don't upgrade unless you have to (this is a rule for everybody)

And i wouldn't use any os to compress a drive, especially when, as you say, speed is an issue.

[cakesy]

Definately stick with 98se. Don't upgrade unless you have to (this is a rule for everybody)

And i wouldn't use any os to compress a drive, especially when, as you say, speed is an issue.

[Nolonemo]

While I agree that there's no real reason to upgrade to XP, you should know that it will run just fine on your machine, if you turn off all the eye candy.

[Rob Mayercik]

Definately stick with 98se. Don't upgrade unless you have to (this is a rule for everybody)

At the risk of throwing kerosene on this fire, wouldn't the fact that Microsoft has set this June as the "This time, no kidding" end of any support whatsoever for Windows 98/ME mean that those of us that use 98/ME will at some point "have to"?

I have honestly been contemplating this same upgrade. In my case, all my current systems are used on the Internet, and run 98SE. While it is true that attacks against 98 are fewer these days because of the prevalance of newer versions of Windows, it concerns me that my OS is soon to be abandoned. As if that weren't enough, at some not-too-distnat future point many web sites will probably stop supporting IE6 in favor of IE7, which 98 can't get, let alone use (my primary bowser at home is Firefox, but as everyone knows, there are still sites you still need IE for).

Then there's hardware - ever try to use an iPod on a computer without XP? Sure, but you need XP to format it. I have a Shuffle that I got through a promotion at a local Lexus dealer, and I have yet to take it out of the box, because I have no PC at home capable of formatting it.

Oh, and the last time I saw an XP box networked to an NT4 box over a local LAN, the network performance was appalling. I somehow doubt it's any better talking to 98.

I think everyone will agree that ultimately 98 will have to be abandoned, but I'd bet that day's closer than we suspect.

[AlphaKilo470]

I've had at one point Windows 98SE and Windows 2000 Professional SP4 running on my 400mhz ThinkPad 600E and I now currently have Windows XP Professional and oddly enough, with each OS the performance has got better. While on machines below the 300mhz mark best not go above Windows 2000 Professional, I find the XP is probably one of the best choices for a computer that hs sufficient RAM and CPU power. On my 600E, XP boots up pretty fast and runs excellent, my software loads faster, the computer is more responsive, even with the visual elements enabled and media seems to playback better. Making the upgrade to Windows XP seems to have fixed the lag in my DVD playback even.

While other people's results might not be as good, my experience with XP so far on my older computer makes me say that you should have no problem at all running it on your T22.

[awdark]

How much ram do you have on that computer though alphakilo470?

Im thinking Windows 2000 for everything but computers slower than 300 like you said, but windows XP seems much more demanding for power.