Do I need Windows XP?

I've been using windows 98 for since it came out! Now I'm in situation
to decided to upgrade Windows XP or nor. I ask myself this question: do I need
windows xp? This is what I've know about windows XP:
1) XP system seems run slower than windows 98 because of the
running multimedia files unnecessarily.
2) XP system starting and booting suck! It takes more time
to starting up XP than Windows 98
3) has to do activate to MS which I hate it
4) I can't control XP system that I use control over windows 98
5) can't access MS-DOS.


I don't know why I need Windows XP. BEcause bunch of computer geeks are using
it????

In article , mmdir2002
@yahoo.co.uk says...
I've been using windows 98 for since it came out! Now I'm in situation
to decided to upgrade Windows XP or nor. I ask myself this question: do I need
windows xp? This is what I've know about windows XP:
1) XP system seems run slower than windows 98 because of the
running multimedia files unnecessarily.
2) XP system starting and booting suck! It takes more time
to starting up XP than Windows 98
3) has to do activate to MS which I hate it
4) I can't control XP system that I use control over windows 98
5) can't access MS-DOS.


1) Wrong, no it doesn't.
2) That's because it does a proper check during startup
3) Unless you're thieving software, it's not a problem
4) Yes you can.
5) Yes you can.

In addition, XP has a better memory manager than Win98 so after you've
opened IE a few times it won't grind to a halt.
When an app crashes you can usually recover without a reboot.
When you install drivers/software and something goes wrong, you can
rollback instead of having to re-install.

etc etc etc.


--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

(Red Cloud) :
I've been using windows 98 for since it came out! Now I'm in situation
to decided to upgrade Windows XP or nor. I ask myself this question: do I need
windows xp? This is what I've know about windows XP:
1) XP system seems run slower than windows 98 because of the
running multimedia files unnecessarily.
2) XP system starting and booting suck! It takes more time
to starting up XP than Windows 98
3) has to do activate to MS which I hate it
4) I can't control XP system that I use control over windows 98
5) can't access MS-DOS.


I don't know why I need Windows XP. BEcause bunch of computer geeks are using
it????


there is no reason why you caould not dual boot to windows 98 and windows
xp (and DOS if you really wanted to).

But, if you are questioning why you would need to upgrade -- you dont need
to upgrade.

On 26 Dec 2003 00:08:29 -0800, (Red Cloud)
wrote:

I've been using windows 98 for since it came out! Now I'm in situation
to decided to upgrade Windows XP or nor. I ask myself this question: do I need
windows xp? This is what I've know about windows XP:
1) XP system seems run slower than windows 98 because of the
running multimedia files unnecessarily.
2) XP system starting and booting suck! It takes more time
to starting up XP than Windows 98
3) has to do activate to MS which I hate it
4) I can't control XP system that I use control over windows 98
5) can't access MS-DOS.


I don't know why I need Windows XP. BEcause bunch of computer geeks are using
it????

Windows XP needs and uses more power. It won't run on a slow machine,
but Windows 98 will. I would not select Windows 98 for a fast
machine, though.

Bootup time has to do with what is loaded, no matter which O/S is
selected.

Activation can be a pain if you are swapping hardware a lot. There
are guidelines to minimize this, however. I do not like activation
either, that's why I bought TaxCut rather than TurboTax last year.

Windows XP is just as configurable as Windows 98.

Not sure about this, but there is a DOS emulation in XP.

Bottom line. If your system works fine with Windows 98, stick with
it. But, eventually you may want hardware/software that requires XP.
My biggest gripe with XP is that it is way too expensive. Linux is an
excellent alternative, and it worries Microsoft (a small
concern/threat).

In article ,
says...

Windows XP needs and uses more power. It won't run on a slow machine,
but Windows 98 will.

cough BULL**** cough.

I've got a mate running it on a P166MMX with 128MB RAM.


--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

Windows NT/2000/XP has always run faster on the same hardware as Windows
98 did, at least for me.

When all is said and done, what's most important to me is stability. I
have personally found Windows XP to be unstable on my hardware. Always
crashing and rebooting spontaneously.

When I built a new system a couple of months ago, I figured it was time
to try XP again, so I installed it. I installed all of the latest
service packs and security patches, but still it crashed on me often.

A couple of weeks ago, I got fed up, completely reformatted my hard
drive and installed Windows 2000. Hasn't crashed yet.

I have yet to install Windows XP on a machine and not have problems.
However, I have purchased a laptop and two computers which had Windows
XP pre-installed and they run nearly as flawlessly as Win2k does on my
own home-built computer.

That tells me that the key to getting Windows XP to run well is in
matching up the right hardware.

In article , mmdir2002
@yahoo.co.uk says...
I've been using windows 98 for since it came out! Now I'm in situation
to decided to upgrade Windows XP or nor. I ask myself this question: do I need
windows xp? This is what I've know about windows XP:
1) XP system seems run slower than windows 98 because of the
running multimedia files unnecessarily.
2) XP system starting and booting suck! It takes more time
to starting up XP than Windows 98
3) has to do activate to MS which I hate it
4) I can't control XP system that I use control over windows 98
5) can't access MS-DOS.


I don't know why I need Windows XP. BEcause bunch of computer geeks are using
it????

-
Conor stood up at show-n-tell, in
, and said:

In article ,
says...

Windows XP needs and uses more power. It won't run on a slow
machine, but Windows 98 will.

cough BULL**** cough.

I've got a mate running it on a P166MMX with 128MB RAM.

I ran XP on an Athlon 550 and maxed out the memory at 576Mb. Ran, slick as
****.

--
Strontium

"And, all of your lies weren't enough to keep me....here."

- Goo Goo Dolls

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:58:26 -0000, Conor
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Windows XP needs and uses more power. It won't run on a slow machine,
but Windows 98 will.

cough BULL**** cough.

I've got a mate running it on a P166MMX with 128MB RAM.



300 MHz recommended, 233 MHz required for XP, or your computer will
cough. See...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...on/sysreqs.asp

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:58:26 -0000, Conor
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Windows XP needs and uses more power. It won't run on a slow machine,
but Windows 98 will.

cough BULL**** cough.

I've got a mate running it on a P166MMX with 128MB RAM.



300 MHz recommended, 233 MHz required for XP, or your computer will
cough. See...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...on/sysreqs.asp

CPU speed is less relevent than the amount of RAM.

--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"