Worst Version of Windows?

[Unknown-One]

That is a false statement. WIndows 2000 blows POS WIndows 98/ME out of the water regardless of the memory footprint because Windows 2000 is a good OS and POS WIndows 98/ME are not and don't have the same capability of being able to run high end games well. A high end game like Source and HL2 had no place supporting that POS OS. WIndows 2000 would run it a lot better because it is a quality OS that can run modern games very well.

Just to humor you and settle this once and for all, I set up a little test.

From extra parts I had around I put together a system with the following specs:
Athlon XP @ 2.0GHz
512MB DDR RAM
GeForce 6600GT
80GB Hard disk


I partitioned the hard disk into two parts, then installed Windows 98 on one and Windows 2000 on the other. Now here's the fun part, I installed Half Life 2 (and Episode 1) on both OS's ( with matched settings) and did some testing. Do you know what I found?

Windows 98 - Half Life 2 Episode 1:
Max FPS: 81
Min FPS: 28
Average FPS: 53

Windows 2000 - Half Life 2 Episode 1:
Max FPS: 79
Min FPS: 26
Average FPS: 49


Windows 2000 performed worse on the same hardware! Now watch what happened when I dropped the system down to 128MB of RAM:

Windows 98 - Half Life 2 Episode 1:
Max FPS: 78
Min FPS: 20
Average FPS: 42

Windows 2000 - Half Life 2 Episode 1:
Max FPS: 64
Min FPS: 18
Average FPS: 31

Well, that had an obvious effect, looks like Windows 98 is ahead by 10FPS on average. This was most likely due to its lower memory footprint; witch left more for the game and caused less stuttering (hence the dramatically lowered Min FPS on both OS's).

Now if you want to suggest Vista or Windows 2000 for today's games, than Windows 2000 will run games better because of the much lighter memory footprint of Windows 2000 and Windows 2000 is a good highly capable OS.

Way to contradict yourself! So Windows 98 does not benefit from a lighter memory footprint, but Windows 2000 does?

Wrong! The test results above prove that Windows 98 performed slightly better than Windows 2000 with 512MB of ram, and MUCH BETTER than Windows 2000 with 128MB of RAM.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

Beautiful post chock full of ownge, but the problem is people like Super Mario likely won't concede their point, even when presented with hard evidence.

 

[Super Mario]

Just to humor you and settle this once and for all, I set up a little test.

From extra parts I had around I put together a system with the following specs:
Athlon XP @ 2.0GHz
512MB DDR RAM
GeForce 6600GT
80GB Hard disk


I partitioned the hard disk into two parts, then installed Windows 98 on one and Windows 2000 on the other. Now here's the fun part, I installed Half Life 2 (and Episode 1) on both OS's ( with matched settings) and did some testing. Do you know what I found?

Windows 98 - Half Life 2 Episode 1:
Max FPS: 81
Min FPS: 28
Average FPS: 53

Windows 2000 - Half Life 2 Episode 1:
Max FPS: 79
Min FPS: 26
Average FPS: 49


Windows 2000 performed worse on the same hardware! Now watch what happened when I dropped the system down to 128MB of RAM:

Windows 98 - Half Life 2 Episode 1:
Max FPS: 78
Min FPS: 20
Average FPS: 42

Windows 2000 - Half Life 2 Episode 1:
Max FPS: 64
Min FPS: 18
Average FPS: 31

Well, that had an obvious effect, looks like Windows 98 is ahead by 10FPS on average. This was most likely due to its lower memory footprint; witch left more for the game and caused less stuttering (hence the dramatically lowered Min FPS on both OS's).



Way to contradict yourself! So Windows 98 does not benefit from a lighter memory footprint, but Windows 2000 does?

Wrong! The test results above prove that Windows 98 performed slightly better than Windows 2000 with 512MB of ram, and MUCH BETTER than Windows 2000 with 128MB of RAM.

You are one of the rare ones who gets those stupid results. Perhaps you don't have Windows 2000 setup properly. Windows 2000 Professional would blow POS Windows 98/ME out of the water in any application performance assuming the applications are designed for them and not designed for only POS Windows 98/ME, like was the case with many applications before Windows XP came out.


And an OS won't benefit from having a lighter memory footprint if it is a POS like Windows 98/ME are. Widnows 2000 professional is a good OS, so it benefits from having a lighter memory foot print in comparison to Vista. POS operating systems that are low end, cheap, low performance, uncapable opertaing systems for high end computing won't do anything at that level no matter how good the memory footprint is.

I just can't stand POS Windows 98/ME. Imagine how much better the performance of HL2 would be if it wasn't designed to be compatible with POS Windows 98/ME and was only 2000/XP compatible. Instead of the FPS being around 50-70, I bet it would be 90-100 FPS and better picture quality on the same hardware.

 

[Super Mario]

Beautiful post chock full of ownge, but the problem is people like Super Mario likely won't concede their point, even when presented with hard evidence.

POS WIndows 98/ME suck and I just want them to die!! I don't wnat them to have any place for modern gaming any longer. I wanted it be a Windows 2000/XP only world for the last at least 3 years.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

You not liking Windows 98/ME != either OS conforming to an absolute definition of the word "suck"

I don't think you'll get much argument about ME, but 98 was neither as bad nor as unusable.

 

[Unknown-One]

You are one of the rare ones who gets those stupid results. Perhaps you don't have Windows 2000 setup properly...

Don't insult my intelegance, I know how to set up an OS.

I installed the same drivers on both OS's.
I patched both OS's fully.
I installed a modern game (Half Life 2: Episode 1).
I defragmented both partitions.
I ran the same test between OS's.

Windows 2000 came out behind, deal with it. Windows 2000 has more going on in the background than Windows 98 does, meaning fewer recourses for games, meaning slower performance while under Windows 2000

The poorer the hardware you test this on, the wider the performance gap will grow (with Windows 98 in the lead).

On the latest and greatest hardware (let’s say 2GB of RAM, 3GHz Core2 Duo, and SLI 7900GTX's), you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between this game running on Windows 2000 and Windows 98 (Windows 2000 might be behind by 0.5FPS, but whatever). There is nothing limiting Windows 98 from running the latest games (performance wise), but its old code and Microsoft no longer supports it, therefore game makers are no longer obligated to make sure their games work on it.

Is there any reason to run Windows 98 on that kind of hardware? No. The point is that it wouldn’t hold your games back.

As for your theory that games that were developed for Windows 2000/XP only would perform faster is total bull. For example, anything running under DirectX calls on the same libraries from both Windows 2000 and Windows 98; any performance difference between the two OS’s would be the fault of DirectX and not the game; Considering the base DirectX package is the same for both OS’s, this leaves any performance differences up to the OS’s resource management and efficiency. Windows 98 wins.

 

[Super Mario]

Don't insult my intelegance, I know how to set up an OS.

I installed the same drivers on both OS's.
I patched both OS's fully.
I installed a modern game (Half Life 2: Episode 1).
I defragmented both partitions.
I ran the same test between OS's.

Windows 2000 came out behind, deal with it. Windows 2000 has more going on in the background than Windows 98 does, meaning fewer recourses for games, meaning slower performance while under Windows 2000

The poorer the hardware you test this on, the wider the performance gap will grow (with Windows 98 in the lead).

On the latest and greatest hardware (let’s say 2GB of RAM, 3GHz Core2 Duo, and SLI 7900GTX's), you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between this game running on Windows 2000 and Windows 98 (Windows 2000 might be behind by 0.5FPS, but whatever). There is nothing limiting Windows 98 from running the latest games (performance wise), but its old code and Microsoft no longer supports it, therefore game makers are no longer obligated to make sure their games work on it.

Is there any reason to run Windows 98 on that kind of hardware? No. The point is that it wouldn’t hold your games back.

As for your theory that games that were developed for Windows 2000/XP only would perform faster is total bull. For example, anything running under DirectX calls on the same libraries from both Windows 2000 and Windows 98; any performance difference between the two OS’s would be the fault of DirectX and not the game; Considering the base DirectX package is the same for both OS’s, this leaves any performance differences up to the OS’s resource management and efficiency. Windows 98 wins.

Guess what. There are no drivers for the GeForce 7XXX series video cards nor most new high end chipsets for POS Windows 98/ME.

It was the best decision NVIDIA ever made to not make any drivers for POS Windows 98/ME for the GeForce 7XXX series video cards. It was about time.

You are the one spouting BULL about how games being designed for only 2000/XP won't be faster. They will be faster if it is a high end game.

Windows 98 cannot handle high end computing because it is a cheap, low end, low performance OS. Enough said. Windows 98/ME are pieces of junk!!!!

 

[GreenMonkey]

Just to humor you and settle this once and for all, I set up a little test.
....
Well, that had an obvious effect, looks like Windows 98 is ahead by 10FPS on average. This was most likely due to its lower memory footprint; witch left more for the game and caused less stuttering (hence the dramatically lowered Min FPS on both OS's).



Way to contradict yourself! So Windows 98 does not benefit from a lighter memory footprint, but Windows 2000 does?

Wrong! The test results above prove that Windows 98 performed slightly better than Windows 2000 with 512MB of ram, and MUCH BETTER than Windows 2000 with 128MB of RAM.

OWNED.

People like link19 (I mean Super Mario) don't care about facts, logic, tests, etc. You might as well be trying to convince a religious fanatic that there is no god. It's hopeless.

 

[Super Mario]

OWNED.

People like link19 (I mean Super Mario) don't care about facts, logic, tests, etc. You might as well be trying to convince a religious fanatic that there is no god. It's hopeless.

I do care about facts. The fact is that Windows 98 is NOT a capable OS by today's standards for running any modenr games. It was a lousy OS, even for its time. It is beyond a lousy and incompetent OS today.

HL2 is just one game. Who cares about just one game. Almost all new games that are designed for Windows 2000/XP only, or even just XP only have much better perofrmance than Source and HL2 anyways.

Imagine the performance penalty those same new games released in 2005 and 2006 would have if they were made compatible with POS Windows 98/ME. It would be big.

 

[nigerian_businessman]

Guess what. There are no drivers for the GeForce 7XXX series video cards nor most new high end chipsets for POS Windows 98/ME.

Gee... do ya think this might have something to do with the fact that it's nearly a decade old, that you can't buy it in stores anymore, and that perhaps its because MICROSOFT STOPPED SUPPORTING IT?

You are the one spouting BULL about how games being designed for only 2000/XP won't be faster. They will be faster if it is a high end game.

Windows 98 cannot handle high end computing because it is a cheap, low end, low performance OS. Enough said. Windows 98/ME are pieces of junk!!!!

You are by far the densest person I have ever had the displeasure of having a debate with. Its like you don't even read. You just keep spouting off unfounded garbage with no consideration for fact. Nevermind that you have been presented with benchmarks proving quite the contrary. Nevermind that everyone here disagrees with you. Nevermind that common sense should tell you that the more resources are available for a game, the better it will run. I mean, all those embedded devices don't run stripped down versions of operating systems for that reason at all, definately not.

Yes... nevermind all that. Everyone and everything else is wrong. You are right.

You are the all knowing, all encompassing cornucopia of computing knowledge, and we all bow before you.

Now buzz off, your work here is done.

 

[Xilikon]

I do care about facts. The fact is that Windows 98 is NOT a capable OS by today's standards for running any modenr games. It was a lousy OS, even for its time. It is beyond a lousy and incompetent OS today.

HL2 is just one game. Who cares about just one game. Almost all new games that are designed for Windows 2000/XP only, or even just XP only have much better perofrmance than Source and HL2 anyways.

Imagine the performance penalty those same new games released in 2005 and 2006 would have if they were made compatible with POS Windows 98/ME. It would be big.

Might as well waste our time arguing against a door knob...

Guys, ignore this idiot and let's continue with the poll

 

[syne_24]

lol i didnt even look at the results and just clicked ME and it won by landslide!

 

[odoe]

The trolling can stop now.
Thank you very much.

 

[As I Lay Dying]

hahahahaha....super mario got pwned......any one else feel that super mario might get banned or this thread is gonna get locked.

BTW good job Unknown-Ones on the test.

 

[Yanks2435]

I voted 95, god I hated that OS. 98 first edition is a close second, with ME trailing that. 98 SE was much better than ME, except that ME had system restore. I never had any issues with ME personally, but a whole ton of people did. The good part is that are zero votes for Win 2000, which is probably the best Windows OS ever to date.

 

[Unknown-One]

hahahahaha....super mario got pwned......any one else feel that super mario might get banned or this thread is gonna get locked.

BTW good job Unknown-Ones on the test.

Hehe, thanks.

Still, Super Mario ignored the results and blamed the outcome on some fluke, or how I set up the OS's.

He pulls this same crap every time someone makes a thread involving Windows 98 or ME in any way, shape, or form. He was even banned once on an old user name, and now he is quickly heading for another ban unless he calms down and accepts the fact that Windows 98 was a good OS when it came out, it’s a good OS now, and the fact that lack of recent support does not make it a “steaming POS”.


You hear that Super Mario? We aren’t arguing that Windows 98 is the best OS ever, or that it should be supported now, or that it should replace Windows XP. We are just stating that it was a good OS that still gets the job done, and the only major reason not to use it today is the lack of software support.

Guess what. There are no drivers for the GeForce 7XXX series video cards nor most new high end chipsets for POS Windows 98/ME.

Not officaly, but I managed to hack up the available Windows 98 drivers to run a 7800GS for somone. The hardware does work with it, Nvidia just isn't spending time on new drivers.

It was the best decision NVIDIA ever made to not make any drivers for POS Windows 98/ME for the GeForce 7XXX series video cards. It was about time.

I disagree, I think the 7X00 series should have been supported (the 8X00 should be the cut off). The hardware is obviously compatable, I got it to work.

You are the one spouting BULL about how games being designed for only 2000/XP won't be faster. They will be faster if it is a high end game.

last time I checked Half Life 2 was a high end game, and it was faster on Windows 98.

HL2 is just one game. Who cares about just one game.

You did; don't you remember that YOU used it as an example of a modern game not fit to run on Windows 98 (in your opinion)?

I could run tests on DooM 3 or GTA: San Andreas and give you even more results that prove Windows 98 performs better, but I have a feeling you would ignore those just the same

Almost all new games that are designed for Windows 2000/XP only, or even just XP only have much better perofrmance than Source and HL2 anyways.

New games perform better? Last time I checked TES4: Oblivion didn't perform as well as Half Life 2 on the same hardware

Where are these Windows 2000 and XP only optimizations you were talking about? They obviously don't help Oblivion.

Windows 98 cannot handle high end computing because it is a cheap, low end, low performance OS. Enough said.

Then explain how Windows 98 owned Windows 2000 in my performance test?

Super Mario, purely out of curiosity, how old are you?

 

[number69]

Imagine how much better this thread would be without POS Super Mario in it.

 

[jackofalltrades]

I just wish the babies that won't just let anything end would just shut up and leave it be, everyone has an opinion on what windows was the worst I said earlier me was worse for me then vista bad stuff happened to me on both vista will get better Me didn't as far as someone being an idiot for saying a certain os didn't work for them leave it be this is a poll not a slam thread if that is what you are here for get a life!

 

[Super Mario]

You hear that Super Mario? We aren’t arguing that Windows 98 is the best OS ever, or that it should be supported now, or that it should replace Windows XP. We are just stating that it was a good OS that still gets the job done, and the only major reason not to use it today is the lack of software support.

WRONG!! It is not a capablke OS today for far more reaosns than just lacj of software support. It smply couldn't handle today's hardware or software because it was a cheap, low end, low performance OS. Today's hardware and software need a quality , high end OS to run well.

Not officaly, but I managed to hack up the available Windows 98 drivers to run a 7800GS for somone. The hardware does work with it, Nvidia just isn't spending time on new drivers.

The GeForce 7800GS is an AGP card. I bet no PCI-Express cards would work with POS Windows 98/ME. NVIDIA is making the best decision it ever made by not making drivers for the GeForce 7XXX video cards for POS Windows 98/ME.

It was a great decision by NVIDIA and there is denyig that. I would have barfed if there were POS Windows 98/ME drivers for the PCI-E GeForce 7XXX video cards. Thank god that POS OS was finally dropped by NVIDIA.

NVIDIA should have stopped with the GeForce 6XXXX series video cards.

last time I checked Half Life 2 was a high end game, and it was faster on Windows 98.

Half-Life 2 was probably designed for Windows 98 first because the original Half Life was and HL2 is based on HL1. Also, I bet it would run worse with more than 512MB of RAM on POS Windows 98/ME than it does on Windows 2000/XP.

You cna't compare it to new games designed for only 2K/XP because new games designed for only 2K/XP will run much better on 2k?XP no matter what.

I wnat 2K/XP only games. That's all I ask for.

I disagree, I think the 7X00 series should have been supported (the 8X00 should be the cut off). The hardware is obviously compatable, I got it to work.

You disagree only because you are one of those WIndows 98SE obsessers and lovers who wanted to continue and stick with such a cheap OS for a long time after. Fortunately, most people agree with me on that one and that is why NVIDIA didn't release drivers for POS Windows 98/ME for the GeForce 7XXX video cards.

They released Linux drivers for the GeForce 7XXX series videi cards which is a good thing because linux is a great OS. They also released drivers for the good OS made by Microsoft in Windows 2000/XP/2003. Hail to NVIDIA on the GeForce 7XXX video cards.

It was an awesome decision by NVIDIA to not support POS Windows 98/ME for the PCI-E GeForce 7XXX series video cards. It made me and many other 9X haters very happy that finally that POS OS was killed with those video cards.

 

[As I Lay Dying]

Hehe, thanks.

Still, Super Mario ignored the results and blamed the outcome on some fluke, or how I set up the OS's.

He pulls this same crap every time someone makes a thread involving Windows 98 or ME in any way, shape, or form. He was even banned once on an old user name, and now he is quickly heading for another ban unless he calms down and accepts the fact that Windows 98 was a good OS when it came out, it’s a good OS now, and the fact that lack of recent support does not make it a “steaming POS”.

you know what I actually thought windows 2000 would of been better, not because of super mario devout belief that windows 98 is a flaming pos, but because even though windows 2000 uses more resources, I thought the windows 2000 would have better driver support, and I thought the drivers and game would have optimizations for the 2000 kernel or operating system. Hell I was wrong. Your results speak for themselves.

 

[Super Mario]

you know what I actually thought windows 2000 would of been better, not because of super mario devout belief that windows 98 is a flaming pos, but because even though windows 2000 uses more resources, I thought the windows 2000 would have better driver support, and I thought the drivers and game would have optimizations for the 2000 kernel or operating system. Hell I was wrong. Your results speak for themselves.

Windows 2000 has always been far better for me. Even Windows NT 4 was far more stable and better at OpenGL games than POS Windows 98/ME.

 

[nigerian_businessman]

Windows 2000 has always been far better for me. Even Windows NT 4 was far more stable and better at OpenGL games than POS Windows 98/ME.

Can we ban this troll and/or lock this thread already?

 

[nigerian_businessman]

Geez, I just looked back through Super Mario's other posts. It's like Windows 9x went and fucked his sister and then didn't call her back or something.

Seriously Mario, you need help. I mean, your opinion is one thing, and by itself it would probably be okay even if it is wrong on many different levels, but you really seem obsessed and that's just not healthy. There are a lot of other topics in computing worth discussing, you don't have to continually obsess over Windows 9x and how much you hate it. Especially considering support for it has been offically dropped by pretty much everyone.

 

[Riddlinkidstoner]

LOL I <3 this thread.

 

[odoe]

I already asked once that you guys cut the crap in this thread.
If you guys continue, I'll not only lock the thread, but I'll be sending more than a few PM's out.

Now, I'd rather just not close a thread, because closing threads just shows that you guys are too immature to be any better. See, it only makes you look bad.

This was a fun, valid thread.
I'd like to keep it that way.

 

[brucedeluxe169]

wtf, which idiot voted for 2000

 

[Cowcaster88]

Windows 98se and ME seems like the same except that 98se had less problems. My first computer build in 2001 I installed 98se as my first operating system. It worked wonderfully for about a year until I wanted to try something new, 2000. Never wanted to touch ME.

 

[hi tech hate]

ME gets my vote

 

[Yanks2435]

Ok who is the clown who voted for Win 2K?

 

[weasel2htm]

IMHO 98 was OK in it's heyday I'm not saying it was good but that's what we had and used. After installing win 2000 on my computer though (back in the day), I noticed that it did run faster than 98 such as MS word would open in less than 1 second where it would take 98 a few seconds to open it.

That is the result of my informal test from a few years ago

At the time I was running a Slot-A 700 with 384 meg of RAM

My cousins computer keeps puking with Me though, thankfully she bought a new computer with XP so she's out of my hair YAAAYY!

 

[DarthWombaT]

I voted for windows ME for the obvious reason. Also anyone claiming 98 is crap and linking it to ME, i.e. saying Windows 98/ME doesn't really know what they are talking about. Win ME wasn't to 98 as XP Pro was to XP Home, there is a big difference between 98 and ME. 98 was great. I remember testing my video card performance under 98, 2k and XP. I upgraded from 98 to 2k when I was in my very 'anti XP' phase. I decided to give XP a try and (I must note these were all clean fresh installs) although this could be due to different drivers XP ran much faster than 2k which was slightly faster than 98.

Drivers might be better / worse now, though.

 

[Joves]

I truly hated 95 myself. Using PlugnPray everytime in put in new hardware and, had to load a reload the drivers.. I was given an ME disc from a friend who hated it. Worked great for me after tweaking it.

 

[alkaline]

worse........ME. nuff said

best......tie between xp and 2000. ive always had very good experiences with 2000. up until recently the school district that i do tech stuff for ran mostly on 2000. it was a breeze to set up and i rarely had problems. however theyve switched over to xp because they have been getting donations and grants to buy quicker comps. i like xp because its what im used to. i use it day to day and im very used to it.

not sure about vista because i have yet to experience it

 

[legendz411]

I truly hated 95 myself. Using PlugnPray everytime in put in new hardware and, had to load a reload the drivers.. I was given an ME disc from a friend who hated it. Worked great for me after tweaking it.

Operating systems sold by one of the largest corporations on earth should NOT need 'tweaking' too become user friendly and/or stable.

For me, Win98SE was an excellent OS for a long while. Then Win2000 came out and I was on that for the longest time. I still have it, albeit a much modified version, laying around now. I think XP has come along way from 98. I love bashing MS as much as the next guy, but they did have some good years.



WinME sucked... BIG, BIG time.

 

[0ptional]

ME had the first Windows Movie Maker and I made many a crappy music videos with it. But since I knew ME was a transition OS from the 98/85 kernel to the 2000 kernel, I just copied those folders to a Zip Disk and then installed 2000 on my deskop and copied those in and it worked with no problems. I was happy. I had my Movie Maker and I had my Win2k, so ME wasn't ALL bad, just like 99.98% bad.

 

[As I Lay Dying]

seriously though who did vote for 2000, that os, was rock solid for me, I dunno if it ever crashed on me. Granted I used it shortly, and switched to xp. Vista doesnt seem bad but not impressed with the resources it needs.

 

[ballpoint]

What about MS Bob? My girlfriend had this on her 486DX100 system back in 1995. It was completely useless!

 

[Super Mario]

I voted for windows ME for the obvious reason. Also anyone claiming 98 is crap and linking it to ME, i.e. saying Windows 98/ME doesn't really know what they are talking about. Win ME wasn't to 98 as XP Pro was to XP Home, there is a big difference between 98 and ME. 98 was great. I remember testing my video card performance under 98, 2k and XP. I upgraded from 98 to 2k when I was in my very 'anti XP' phase. I decided to give XP a try and (I must note these were all clean fresh installs) although this could be due to different drivers XP ran much faster than 2k which was slightly faster than 98.

Drivers might be better / worse now, though.

Windows 98 wasn't to WIndows ME as Windows XP Home was to XP Pro.

However, Windows 98 is to Windows ME just like Windows 2000 is to Windows XP.

So saying Windows 98/ME is just as valid as saying Windows 2000/XP.

The difference between Windows 98 and ME is just like the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

Just as Windows XP was the next minor version update of the Windows 2000 based OS, Windows ME was the next minor version update of the Windows 98 based OS


Now I don't see how this post could be counted as trolling?

 

[DarthWombaT]

Yes but 98 -> ME was a step in the wrong direction whereas 2000 -> XP was just more of the same.

 

[Xilikon]

Yes but 98 -> ME was a step in the wrong direction whereas 2000 -> XP was just more of the same.

Yeah, 98 -> ME made things worse since MS is trying to include some NT code in ME, which is a bad idea because the 2 environments is truly different.