It may sound a daft question to many who have already tried it, but do Operating Systems such as Win98, Win2000 and Linux, really work in a stable condition, on a system using an AthlonXP CPU?

I ask this because I plan to build my 3dfx GlideBox using a 2700+ AthonXP CPU, but only intend to install a dual boot of Win98 and Win2000 on the system for better stability and compatibility with the 3dfx GPU range.

Is there anyone who has tried this scenario, and can tell me if it works or not?

I'm sure it would, right? I just thought the architecture of the CPU had been altered to better suit WinXP.
If anybody knows the details, do they know what was changed in order to make it more suitable for the WinXP OS, as I read it somewhere ages ago, but I've forgot. ::)

Allo mate! ;)

You'll find that a LOT of us use an AthlonXP without using Windows XP. :D

I myself use WinMe in my main rig, which is an AthlonXP 2400+. ;D

Note that the 'XP' on the AthlonXP has absolutely NO RELATION to the O.S. that is being run on the machine! ::)

So, yup...those O.S.'s you listed should run NO PROBS! 8)

The whole 'athlonxp - optimized for windows xp' (and vice-versa) thing is pure marketing bullshît.

The "XP" in "AthlonXP"  = "Windows XP". ;)

And yes it's "...pure markieting B/S..." very true.

An Athlon is still to all intents and puproses an x86 clone however, and will function perfectly with Win9x/NT (Win32) and UNIX/Linux systems.  The idea about them being overheating, "pre-overclocked", unstable, "cheap copies" though, is old news, anyone that comes out with that these days is critically behind the times.  If you do go for an Athlon do avoid the Palomino and Thoroughbred A cores, they don't overclock well and the do run a bit too hot for my liking (yes sometimes, like with everything, the bas press can be partly true.)

methinks that the biggest difference between a non-XP athlon and an Athlon XP is the Quantispeed stuff that makes 'em faster at lower clock speeds

Actually, the "XP" from "Athlon XP" was from "eXtreme Performance". Some people forgot this...

Anyway, Athlon XP has some very good improvements albeit the vastly known one is solely the PR (Performance rating the "3200+" thing, not the real frequency). This has lead to many problems because both "3200+" CPU's looked the same, but the L2 was different for one of them. Both were having the same "Athlon XP 3200+" label.

And to a certain degree, I see the "XP" as a marketing sollution. However, I've heard the link between "Athlon XP" and Windows XP only as a joke. I suppose very few people belived this "rumor". But HT and Pentium 4 wasn't the same?

officially, there's no connection between the os and the cpu...officially but you all know better, don't you?  ;D and yes, pure marketing bullsh*t. but you should know (and you may know already) that the newest os offers best support for newest hardware technology. so me experienced a speed-up going from win2k to winxp, as there is better support for athlonxp's sse1 tech (called 3dnow professional) & others.
well, to the performance rating:
heard amd benches the cpus with a suite of some 20 benchmarks or so & then categorizes da crap..the name, e.g. 2400+, means the cpu is as fast as a thunderbird fsb133 (the last non-xp athlon) @ 2.4ghz. mh, sometimes right, sometimes i wonder wtf amd tries to proof w/ it.

Windows XP is using more CPU when running than Windows 2000, even without all the things set by default. The performance gain might not be that big afterall, when using Windows XP. I also expected to see a Software OpenGL (MesaGL) running faster on Windows XP, but in fact it run marginally lower than on Windows 98 SE(1 fps faster on Windows 98) on all tests.

Thus the discussion is still open whenever for the CPU alone, you get something better or not when moving from Windows 98 SE or Windows 2000 to Windows XP.

definitely, you get something better when moving from 98se to xp, no matter. well, i agree win98 might be better for not-up-to-date h/w setups, but new stuff runs better on winxp

wrote on 18.04.04 at 01:35:06:

The whole 'athlonxp - optimized for windows xp' (and vice-versa) thing is pure marketing bullshît.

Yes, I agree. These are my thoughts exactly and the reasons as to the AthlonXP's release was to coin-in on the release of Windows XP.  Pure marketing strategy.

I didn't doubt in my mind whether the CPU's would run or not with a different OS, more along the lines of the advantages and performance gains with the AthlonXP on a WinXP machine.
I also wanted to know if anyone had experienced serious software or hardware issues when running an older OS (Win98, Win2000, WinME) on the AthlonXP CPU.

I don't know the technicalality of it, but why won't Win95 run on an AthlonXP?  ???
All I've been told is, is that it won't!  ::)

wrote on 21.04.04 at 08:44:24:

definitely, you get something better when moving from 98se to xp, no matter. well, i agree win98 might be better for not-up-to-date h/w setups, but new stuff runs better on winxp

I totally agree with you here Micha, as this is the reason why I would like to run older OS' on my new AthlonXP machine.
The purpose of my 3dfx GlideBox is to run (mainly older, 3dfx-era) games and benchmarking runs for my entire collection of 3dfx cards.
It will not need to utilise any new software or hardware as the system will be running 1997-2002 age software/hardware. ;)

I just wanted to gain bacground info before starting  to install the older OS' on the new machine.

Thanks guys & gals!  8)

wrote on 21.04.04 at 14:30:22:

I also wanted to know if anyone had experienced serious software or hardware issues when running an older OS (Win98, Win2000, WinME) on the AthlonXP CPU.

i did...winxp runs my cpu (see my specs) faster than win2000. well, sometimes it even ran slower tha w/ my ol' athlon 1GHz..(there was a mainboard problem, as well..resolved by bying a new one  ;D )


wrote on 21.04.04 at 14:30:22:

I don't know the technicalality of it, but why won't Win95 run on an AthlonXP?  ??? All I've been told is, is that it won't!  ::)

it's way tooooo old. you know, the o/s must support a cpu as well, i.e. it needs some drivers (as for every other component). & win95 doesn't has these drivers...maybe M$ coders were too lazy or maybe the o/s core doesn't allow those drivers, who knows..?

wrote on 21.04.04 at 14:46:22:

The purpose of my 3dfx GlideBox is to run (mainly older, 3dfx-era) games and benchmarking runs for my entire collection of 3dfx cards. It will not need to utilise any new software or hardware as the system will be running 1997-2002 age software/hardware. ;)

well winxp is 2001 software, ya know...i suppose you do best w/ win2000+sp4

One comes to think that win95 + dx9 would run it

But you can't really slipstream anything into non-NT systems.. uhm..

bleh bugger win95, win98 pwnz it :)

Win95 was never an option anyway! You're right though, why have 95, when you can have 98?  ;)

It just puzzled me as to why some technicians I know, said Win95 wouldn't work on an AthlonXP rig, as I didn't know the details as to why, because they never said.

Someone has forgotten the CPU speed limit of AMD Processors in Windows 95, that is around 350 Mhz. If you have a faster AMD CPU, Windows 95 wouldn't start. Of course, there is a workaround, a software kit released by AMD that changes some system files, and makes it possible to run Windows 95 with an Athlon (including Athlon XP) or a Duron processor. But this workaround is not so widely known.

Quote:

well winxp is 2001 software, ya know...i suppose you do best w/ win2000+sp4

This is exactly what I intend to do!  ;)

I have heard that you use this setup and I believe you are right, in that it will be the best for what I will be using my system for too.

Although, I intend to have a dual boot too, of WIn98SE & Win2000+SP4.

What do you think? Any good?

What dual boot software would you recommend?

wrote on 23.04.04 at 13:57:32:

What dual boot software would you recommend?

win2000 does it..install it 1^st, then win98se. then open the desktop properties in win2k & check the boot options, there you can edit the dual boot properties..


Quote:

...software kit released by AMD that changes some system files, and makes it possible to run Windows 95 with an Athlon (including Athlon XP) or a Duron processor...

interesting, but what's the use for? every newer o/s has native support & runs these cpus faster..anyway, I only heard once of an amd fix provided for some issues concerning win95 & k6-2 (no boot or something like that)...


Quote:

...why have 95, when you can have 98?...

why have win98, when you can have modern nt?  ;D
;)

wrote on 23.04.04 at 17:36:45:

interesting, but what's the use for? every newer o/s has native support & runs these cpus faster..anyway, I only heard once of an amd fix provided for some issues concerning win95 & k6-2 (no boot or something like that)... why have win98, when you can have modern nt?  ;D ;)

That fix for K6-2 processors on Windows 95 is actually needed for anything faster than a K6-2. On Athlon, Duron you really need this fix to run Windows 95...

Windows NT has it's strenghts and it's drawbacks. For example, run programs (3D) in Windows 98 SE and in Windows XP. There will be some differences in perfromance, so Windows 98 is still worth in some cases, at least. 3DMark 2001 SE is one of these examples... WIndows XP has some better points at memory accessing than Windows 98 SE, but CPU load is much bigger.

Also from Win 2000 and XP, your OS consumes more to get you almost the same results... Sometimes this thing is important.

I'm running windows 98SE on my XP2400+
.. so fast I don't care anymore for the occasionnal reboot, I'm  even pleased to watch my PC do that ;D (you need to reboot for driver install and quite a bit of apps anyway)

and as for every new version of windoze, XP is more and more bloated, slow, crapware loaded and riddled with stupid annoying assistants

http://www.allfunpix.com/computer_fun/pics/dog_help.jpg

Windows XP = Windows eXPerience

Athlon XP = eXtra Performance

AMD used this naming convention to show that the chips are "designed for windows XP".  etc... it's just a "name" who cares anyway?

Win95 will throw a win protection error at you if you're trying to run it on an AMD K6-2 350 or higher CPU.  This also means all Athlons.  There is a patch.

Many earlier releases will also go t!ts up due to AGP and USB incompatibilities.  Win98/98SE is better but the Internet Explorer shell bogs it down horribly on lower end machines, and it's seriously unstable and buggy.  Remove this, and Internet Explorer with it, and replace it with the Win95 shell and do a few more optimisations such as installing in the first place in APM mode, limiting Vcache, configuring your IRQ routing table correctly, and disabling APIC when you install and you won't crash/reboot at all. ;)

"Modern NT" is a poor excuse of a not so modern Workstation OS, that really hasn't been updated half as many times as it should have been.  Put it out there directly connected to the internet, instead of hiding behind a UNIX/Linux box on a secured LAN and it'll be wormed within minutes.  The myth about this OS's stability is now being seen for what it really is.  And now they're up to version NT5.x and it's still as sh!tty as ever.  Only a complete noob would run it as a server and anyone using it for gaming should consider Win9x.  Most people use NT5.x because it's "new", brightly coloured, looks pretty and has themes.  I don't spend much time messing about with my desktop or making it look aesthetically pleasing so this doesn't appeal to me.  When I install Win9x I never change any of the colours or other things from standard, instead I spend this time actually optimising and configuring the Operating System for good stable performance.  With a win9x OS that completes a shift-reboot in 5 seconds, boots from power up in 12 seconds approx, (would be alot faster without network for dhcp running) and simply doesn't crash, I'm not doing to badly on that count.

wrote on 27.04.04 at 00:06:45:

and as for every new version of windoze, XP is more and more bloated, slow, crapware loaded and riddled with stupid annoying assistants http://www.allfunpix.com/computer_fun/pics/dog_help.jpg

So...kill them  ;D XPlite does wonders for getting rid of the extra junk. I like some of it, like the welcome screen and the start menu, so I keep them. But a lot of the "enhancements" go bye-bye, and the result is a somewhat stable OS that runs faster than even 98se optimized. Of course, my voodoo box runs 98se (lite) because the XP drivers still really suck, comparatively, but with my Radeon 9500, stuff goes much better with XP.

wrote on 27.04.04 at 19:22:16:

And now they're up to version NT5.x and it's still as sh!tty as ever.

also don't forget the very first version was called Windows NT 3.1  :D

wrote on 28.04.04 at 00:11:19:

also don't forget the very first version was called Windows NT 3.1  :D

Yea it had the Windows 3.xx program manager as well, and was as far as I'm aware the first NT version.  I think Windows 95 Explorer was added to NT in version NT4.0 but it may have been earlier. NT5.2 (Server 2003) is the latest.  But the main versions are NT3.x/NT4.x/NT5.x, collectively "NT".

Regarding OS'es the problem still remains quite unchanged: they are nowhere as fast as they could be, and you can't make them run as you "could make a lego house" (every piece could be added and extracted easily, only the base couldn't be).

Apart from that OS'es are far from being secure. If they were 99% secure, every time you would make a wrong change, the system would simply lock, and you would have to format your hard-drive. We know this is not the case. Security holes, if not too many, are needed sometimes.

Even Linux, although it's better than Windows in some aspects, it's still lacking a lot of good things. Given the last rumour that Linux could become a payed OS (even if it is a joke, it could happen somewhere in the future) things don't look so bright.

Also, there is still no Free Developer Programming Platform free language, designed from ground-up to suit year 2004-2010 period (not the old C, C++ designed in the 70's and 80's). This probably won't happend too soon, so here we go in the never-ending game: OS-Programs-CPU-Hardware, all being more or less obsolete (in design) compared to what would be needed today.

wrote on 30.04.04 at 09:47:50:

Regarding OS'es the problem still remains quite unchanged: they are nowhere as fast as they could be, and you can't make them run as you "could make a lego house" (every piece could be added and extracted easily, only the base couldn't be). Apart from that OS'es are far from being secure. If they were 99% secure, every time you would make a wrong change, the system would simply lock, and you would have to format your hard-drive. We know this is not the case. Security holes, if not too many, are needed sometimes.

Thats probably the most misinformed statement I've ever heard.  We don't need security holes, only a crazed Win32 fan could come out with that one.


wrote on 30.04.04 at 09:47:50:

Even Linux, although it's better than Windows in some aspects, it's still lacking a lot of good things. Given the last rumour that Linux could become a payed OS (even if it is a joke, it could happen somewhere in the future) things don't look so bright.

What?  Linux is better than Win32 from every aspect, it's flexible constantly updated, secure, free etc.  Linux won't become a "payed" OS.  I presume you mean proprietary software?


wrote on 30.04.04 at 09:47:50:

Also, there is still no Free Developer Programming Platform free language, designed from ground-up to suit year 2004-2010 period (not the old C, C++ designed in the 70's and 80's). This probably won't happend too soon, so here we go in the never-ending game: OS-Programs-CPU-Hardware, all being more or less obsolete (in design) compared to what would be needed today.

C has never been superceded, it is a powerful platform independent language.  UNIX/Linux and Microsoft Windows are coded in C.  There is no reason to change because C does it's job.  C is also "free", you don't have to buy expensive proprietary IDE's for C develpoment.

WHOA there! :o

Don't go all Evange-linux on our A$$ES! ::)

Remember that although Andrei's statements are quite mis-informed (many of us agree with that!), there are a LOT of us in this forum who still use MS O.S.'s! ;)

And I don't go around saying people who use Linux are loonies! ::)

Linux is better and we all know it's a fact! :D

So CHILL already! 8)

Quote:

Even Linux, although it's better than Windows in some aspects, it's still lacking a lot of good things. Given the last rumour that Linux could become a payed OS (even if it is a joke, it could happen somewhere in the future) things don't look so bright.

Some distros of linux are already paid for (aka commercial), like Red Hat Enterprise, Lindows (well, if you want to call that linux), and many others. But the core itself will most likely always be open source.

Patience is correct in that distribution and support (installation and maintenance) can be charged for, the source code, which is freely distributed, cannot be charged for.  Refer to the GNU/GPL.

@paulpsomodias: I dual boot Win9x and Linux, I didn't call all Win32 users crazed, so you seem to have misinterpreted.  I was simply stating that anyone who categorically writes that security holes are necessary and that without such exploits a system would be unusable is quite honestly making alot of excuses for the Win32 platforms shortcomings.

I've spent the last few days over vnc disabling services and "optimising" a friends XP installation.  I had to remove Welchia-B and Ms Blaster in the process along with a host of adware, spyware etc.  XP had only been clean installed on the system for about 1 hour.  Personally I don't find this acceptable for a mainstream OS that costs far too much anyway.

Since we're already Off-Off Topic again (great word ::) ) :

I've just paid for my latest Linux purchases as well :

9,99 Euro for a DVD containing
- Knoppix 3.4
- Slackware 9.1
- Fedora Linux Core 1 (AMD64)
- FreeBSD 5.2.1
- Complete Book (as pdf) Intrusion Detection for Linux Servers

Considering this DVD holds a total of maybe 50000$ or more in terms of what a comparable set of MicroSoft Products would cost, not too bad ;D
And talking OS security , I think FreeBSD alone really is about as good as it can get...

You've done well.  FreeBSD is probably one of the most secure free UNIX distributions you can get.

FreeBSD isn't UNIX, rather a clone of UNIX.

FreeBSD, NetBSD abd OpenBSD are in fact UNIX OS's that make use of the FSF's GNU code.  UNIX is a registered trademark so the name cannot be used without permission.  FreeBSD is not a GNU/Linux OS though, which is why it is referred to as a UNIX and no a "Linux".  All of these are known as "UNIX-like".  Now what that has to do with the Athlon XP I've no idea. :P

The Athlon XP should run fine on FreeBSD though... ;)

Quote:

1.1. What is FreeBSD? Briefly, FreeBSD is a UN*X-like operating system for the i386, IA-64, PC-98, Alpha/AXP, and UltraSPARC platforms based on U.C. Berkeley's ``4.4BSD-Lite'' release, with some ``4.4BSD-Lite2'' enhancements. It is also based indirectly on William Jolitz's port of U.C. Berkeley's ``Net/2'' to the i386, known as ``386BSD'', though very little of the 386BSD code remains. A fuller description of what FreeBSD is and how it can work for you may be found on the FreeBSD home page. FreeBSD is used by companies, Internet Service Providers, researchers, computer professionals, students and home users all over the world in their work, education and recreation. See some of them in the FreeBSD Gallery. For more detailed information on FreeBSD, please see the FreeBSD Handbook.

Source

Note to beta: - Yah, although I agree that I mis-interpreted your statement - the way it was written does 'imply' what I was hinting at. :P

Bah, let's drop it anyhow - we all know you were just annoyed at Andrei. ::) ;D

AAAGH  :o you said the EVIL words "Windows XP" - AAAGH! :o

Oh, and please modify your post and correct my name as it's spelled incorrectly... ::)

(trust me, it's not the WORST spelling of my surname I've ever seen, you wouldn't BELIEVE what I get on some of my snail-mail! Easiest way to get it correct is: COPY->PASTE!) :P

UNIX like = to all intents and purposes "UNIX", compared to GNU/Linux, FreeBSD is a UNIX.

FreeBSD is a UNIX system, if you want to call it UNIX-like thats fine by me. ;)

@paul: So it's spelled wrong?  People even spell my name (beta) wrong, It doesn't bother me much, I live with it.  CHILL my friend. 8);D

Thanks to patience! :-*

Crack the whip girl! ;) ;D

Well we're off-off-offtopic now. ;)

The Linux discussion was actually on topic as Linux is a "...non XP OS'?...". ;D

The correct spelling of paulpthingumopolis's nickname is clearly offtopic however.

Lock the topic quick!!! :o

Security holes (or flaws) are acceptable until a certain level. Otherwise you would have no chance in recovering data or even revovering a full system that is badly configured. All the OS'es have this system implementations.

Reffering to the Linux possible future, this was only a rumour. Until now it is only at that stage if it could become a commercial product as the rest of the OS'es, and be developed differently (as a low cost Unix). I have find out about this rumor by reading a Linux magazine (it's not a worldwide name anyway). However, giving the fact that DivX had a somehow similar evolution (in one respect at least), it is not impossible. In this decade we saw a large number of products (even some big names) going from free to commercial approach, and only a tiny part of them remaining free.

Back on topic, what limits you mostly in performance and compatibility for Athlon XP and the new motherboards and hardware devices is ultimately the drivers. It is not impossible for an Athlon XP and a Radeon 9800 XT to run in full 32 bit color on a Windows 3.11, and listen to MP3 music from an Audigy sound card. What makes this impossible are solely the drivers (of course you need MS-DOS 6.22 and a FAT 16 system).

Well here's news flash for those of ya who only care for 3dfx cards and their legacy, for which I don't blame you none.
Win2000 = winNT 5.0
WinXP = winNT 5.1
soooo, the core is the same. It's just some other c r a p M$ is shoving down our throats

I've been using win2K for 2 yrs now (since I got my 1-st and only comp pretty much). I am still to see a blue screen, although I did reinstall twice (once to remove the damage done by viruses that Norton let through, second HDD upgrade). Take a good look the next time you DL something, be it a driver or a game - there is only 1 application that i've seen that'd run on winXP and not on win2K. That program is a windows XP tweaker.

Now down to tech specs
There is no need to build separate drivers for win2K and XP, why should there be an OS-specific processor? (SPARCs aside). Why I use 2K and not other windows - it is stable, it is supported, I did not pay for it, it updates, and winXp crashed after 10 minutes on me. I guess I am the lucky one to have a corporate edition of win2K, so it doesn't even ask for serial key.  That said aside, I DO NOT WANT all the 150 "improvements" (NOTE THE BRACKETS) in XP. The firewall deserves the name of a fireHOLE based on its functionality. I HATE WHQL - early versions of XP did not allow non-WHQL certified drivers (aka betas, 3-rd part, etc, etc) to be installed. Ok, enough XP ranting

I have a friend with an AMD AXP 2500+ (Barton), 512 Mb DC Ram (DDR333), nVidia GeForce MX 440 64 mb RAM, ASUS A7-blah-blah mobo. He has both OSes - 2K and XP

advantages of 2K
less CPU/RAM/HDD hungry (166/70/800 VS 300/254/1250, RAM = how much it will take if there is 512 Mb)
much more stable (than Xp at least)
same old 98 look
apparently many corporations use them for workstations and as small servers

advantages of XP
loads nearly 2x as fast
you get a 2-3 FPS gain in games

disadvantages are the inverses of advantages for the OS compared with

We tested the system with UT2003 demo (that was back in the day), Serious Sam, Morrowind, Black and White (all settings at the highest, 1024x768x32, AA and AF full on if avaliable)

There was not any significant performance gain for winXP over 2K - the difference was under 5 FPS for all 4 games, needles to say that was about 5% difference. On the other hand I was running win2k and edonkey(a very well known application to crunch resources as carrots) for a full month before restarting (I was out of town), while my friend's machine would crash 1-2 times a day... Hope this part-rant answered the question

Oh, and BTW, can anyone check to which email account dsolom3 is registered to? It is me, I think I deleted the email with password by an accident and cannot remeber the one of many mailboxes I have that I used for this forum... Thanks

There's no need to worry janskjaer I run 18 mounths the same install of Win98SE on my AXP 2700+ Thoroughbred B with ASUS A7V333-R Rev.1.04 Bios 1017 and 3dfx Voodoo5 5500 AGP 64MB Rev.A 2500, flawlessly, and that for 1 install :)

You should be fine with Win98SE, but be sure to install the latest updates and Unofficial Service Packs, for a greater max memory capabillity and a better stabillity.

English Version:
http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html

"Microsoft has never released a service pack for Windows98 SE. But I made a Service Pack for Windows98 SE users. It contains all Windows98 SE updates from Windows Update site and more.

It is a self-extracting and self-installing pack like Microsoft's update files. Thus, you cannot choice files individually. However, the pack installs only required fixes for your system. Uninstallation is possible from Add-Remove Programs. However, I don't recommend uninstallation of the pack, if you don't have any problem.

This is only for WINDOWS 98 SECOND EDITION ENGLISH. I highly recommend that you should backup your system before installing the pack. You must have at least 32 MB of RAM.

It contains only operating system updates. It does NOT contain Internet Explorer 6, DirectX 9, Media Player 9 and their updates. "

and for other people here some links to suit thier country language:

German Version:
http://www.creopard.de/win98sp

Czech Version:
http://www.winpack.org/

Polish Version:
http://sp.up.pl/

Russian Version:
http://egorz.nm.ru/

Dutch Version:
http://wepsite.net/hp38guser

Traditional Chinese Version:
http://myweb.hinet.net/home4/atb/W98SEAUP.htm

And May The Force Be With You.

funny, still runnin'  win98? ;D i guess you aren't considering installing winnt or even winxp but here's some interesting points for the upkeepers of win98:

- win2k has a way more efficient ram managment w/ less produced datash*t.
- winxp is even better, as coming w/ improved managment for ram greater than 512mb.
- NEWER & BETTER DRIVERS

well, no real points for voodoo users, i guess..



Quote:

advantages of 2K   same old 98 look

nice.. :P you know, you can disable or change the standard-look of winxp

wrote on 21.03.05 at 20:22:30:

funny, still runnin'  win98? ;D i guess you aren't considering installing winnt or even winxp but here's some interesting points for the upkeepers of win98: - win2k has a way more efficient ram managment w/ less produced datash*t. - winxp is even better, as coming w/ improved managment for ram greater than 512mb. - NEWER & BETTER DRIVERS well, no real points for voodoo users, i guess.. nice.. :P you know, you can disable or change the standard-look of winxp

Uhm I do know what OS is the Best for Voodoo dude,

Win98SE is still the best Operating System for 3dfx cards, especially the games that only run in 98SE and not NT ;)

XP is one of the worst OS's for 3dfx cards then I rather Prefer Win2K pro to be honest.

Ohwell If you read my Post clearly, the Unofficial Service packs create a greater Ram capabillity than 512MB for Win98SE,  so 4GB ram is possible without any lockups as max mem size. 8)

3dfx Glide3.x was made for Win98SE and not XP, noway hozay  >:(

Yep, the only existing WinXP Installation I ever had (bundeled on a Notebook) will remain the only one.

It's late and I don't want to post the 4 Pages worth of Privacy and Security risks involved with WinXP, let alone the permanent "calling home" symptome, nicely enforced by MicroSoft.

In fact, I think nothing pushed the Linux world more forward, than WinXP and its "eat it or die" Style of trying to enforce unwanted Security risks onto its Users.

I have only 3 of 24 Systems left running Windows at all, in the near future it will be reduced to 2.

Win98SE was the best Gaming Platform to ever exist, superseeded only by Win2k after a while.

WinXP could have been the next, better step, but MicroSoft chose to include too many Trojan horses to enforce their monopoly, thus Win2000 SP4 will remain the last Windows OS I have ever used.

wrote on 21.03.05 at 20:22:30:

nice.. :P you know, you can disable or change the standard-look of winxp

Well I guess you can. Sorta. Took me 30 minutes, and still the f*cking "Control Panel" does not show up in "My Computer" on school's computer

*lol* what about the much more & even bigger security issues on win98se? i mean, every 11 years old boy can hack a 6 years old system..this way, xp is safer

er..as i know win98 knows bigger ram, but only supports up to 384mb - if there's more on your mobo you could as well cut it..well, you're right about the os's for 3dfx boards. but are you really still playing games like turok1 or nfs2se?? me personally decided to buy a new card when switching to winxp..i still have my voodoo5 lying around here & it's kinda sad to not being able to use it (as long as i won't build a 2^nd pc)

>>add<<
considering linux; it isn't & in my opinion won't ever be an opportunity to the retail & private market. most people won't even be able to decide which distribution to take ;D

*lol*

Well, I wasn't so much talking about the Security against external Attacks (a Patched Win98SE IMHO is by far safer than any WinXP).

With WinXP SP1 (also Win2000, regardless of Service Pack), you even just have to go online without a properly configured Firewall to catch Blaster & Co, Win9x is immune against this flaw.

The personally observed record of killing the System after going online with it fresh installed is AFAIK 3 seconds.

PS.
Win9x supports 512MB RAM without modifications, with a Patch it is currently at 1GB AFAIK (never tested it myself though)

So no, WinXP isn't safer than any other MS OS, in fact it is by far unsafer than anything existing worldwide. It is the unsafest OS to ever exist on the face of earth. Thanks to its bundeled Trojans that ship with it in the first place, it is also the biggest Privacy risk to ever exist.
It's really funny to do Port Scans and an analysis of running (wide open and useless) Services on a fresh WinXP Installation; absolutely catastrophic.

Anyone who calls WinXP "safe" IMHO has no clue what's actually running there, it is the biggest catastrophy MicroSoft ever produced.
(but to be honest, it appears that there's a well controlled System behind all this; it is not that MS can't Code properly, but having the entire world connecting to MicroSoft Servers for Updates is an excellent way to keep track of 'em)

And I have never heard of any non MicroSoft-OS to ever ship with Adware as well. On WinXP, this even has 10% of all Network bandwidth reserved to perform its espionage of User Surfing habits. That alone is a complete NoGo, but some people don't care about their Data I guess.

Linux isn't quite there yet (Retail Market), but that's basically you don't have to buy it anyway and that Games have just started to be released for Linux as well.
It's getting there, just needs about 1-2 years more IMHO.
(note : in other countries it is by far more established than in Europe or the US, with markets like China or Brazil pushing it forward quite alot, the overall Situation will improve over time over here as well)

We'll just have to wait until the next generation of Polymorph Worms go online and kill a few Million "safe" WinXP systems again. That usually is a good "wake-up" call for all those who believe their Systems are anywhere close to secure.
MacOS or Linux never had this sort of Problem and likely will never have (and not because of the widespread misunderstanding that they are merely not so attractive targets, but because those OS'es are 1000x more secure than anything MS ever released).

PPS.
Have you ever seen an OS that its maker explicitly limits to 10 concurrent TCP/UDP Connections at one time, knowing it will be infected with a Worm one day ? (WinXP SP2 does that).
Well, I haven't *lol*, that speaks for itself concerning what MicroSoft thinks themself about the "security" of their OS *rofl*

Trust me on that one, in more than 20 years of dealing with computers I have never seen anything more unsafe and untrustful than WinXP.
The only potential Candidate for breaking this negative Record is... actually Windows Longhorn *g*

----------
If you want to see how those whose Millions of Profits literally depend on a Secure OS, just see how many Routers, Hosters and Backbone Operators work with MicroSoft Products in their mission-critical Systems.
The number is laughable low, and these people's existence on the market depends on it, so I do believe they know as well I am right and trust their absolute vitals rather to Linux, Unix or BSD.

On the other hand, running critical Systems with a MicroSoft OS can lead to rather funny results.
I remember the US Navy had one of their multi-billion AEGIS Missile Cruisers emergency shutdown, and had to have it towed back into a harbour.
What happened?
One of the Crew Members inserted a Virus Infected Disk into his WinNT Workstation, causing the entire ship's Network to become infected.
When they lost control over their Weapon Computers and Propulsion, the Captain did the only thing he was left to do : order the emergency shutdown of all Command systems, rendering the ship an uncontrolled and propulsion-less floating entity on the ocean... and call for help ;)
(that's how the US Navy found out how "secure" their MicroSoft provided Systems really were)

@Falcon - where can I D/L this 1GB RAM patch for Win '98? ???

Sounds..interesting... ;D 8)

So far I've seen it integrated only in the inofficial Service Pack for Win98SE :

http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html

And don't quote me on the 1GB, I just know they lifted the 512MB limitation and thought I heard something about 1GB (might be less than that, not sure).

From the Past, I know people often got to 640 and 768MB using manual tweaks.

2 facts:
win98se is 6 years old. 4 more years & you won't get anything to support (drivers, software) this system.
everybody uses winxp, so everybody idiot hacks winxp. what do you think would happen if 90% pc's would run linux? & WHO THE F**K INSTALLS WINXP & WORKS W/ IT AS IS?

please becarefull what you are saying, there are alot of users that use WInXP as is, and there is nothing wrong with Win98SE, I run it flawlessly for about 18 mounths now.

Remember Fear, Anger, Hatred , they lead to the Dark Side.

Win98SE still can support alot of Hardware out there, the limitations aren't as extreme as some think.

I agree, in a few more years things will look alot different, but we're mostly talking legacy Gaming anyway (= accepting some limitations concerning what works and what doesn't)

WinXP is not hacked because every Joe SixPack uses it, it is hacked because it is insecure.
And looking at the great success, an amazingly lot of people is installing it "as is".
It takes a great deal of knowledge and lots of time to make it half way secure, which only a tiny fraction of Users (with WinXP rather : MicroSoft Clients) possess.

If 90% of all people would use Linux, we'd see about >89.9% less Viruses and Worms immediately.

I had to fix, Install or "make secure as possible" such countless Windows Systems, the term WinXP basically makes me shiver already. A complete and utter desaster, nothing more or less than that it is...

But then, I really don't care about it anymore.
People get what they deserve, and if they refuse to realize what Security and Privacy Risks like WinXP eventually get them, I'd rather let them have it than waste my time on securing something that was never meant to be secure in the first place (looking back at the countless stream of catastrophies, I can only assess that MicroSoft intentionally created it that way by now,  to ease espionage upon the Clients.)

sure, but i guess nobody in here uses winxp as is, right? and right, everybody who doesn't care about it will get the problems of an insecure system. and i care as less about those people as you do.

the linux thing, right, too. but what if so much people would use linux for at least a year? nobody would still care about hacking windows, when nobody uses it, that's the point. but they would try to hack into linux, that's the other point! and no matter how secure a system is, there's always a backdoor or an unsave port left in the system & that's exactly what hackers will try to find.

Quote:

there's always a backdoor or an unsave port left in the system

And that's exactly incorrect...

Backdoors would (go figure) be almost immediately spotted and removed by the OpenSource community.
Open Ports actually do mean not as much harm to Linux, as they mean to Windows.

In a standard Linux Installation, there are exactly 0 open Ports unless you configure them to be open.
And unless you choose to install the respective Services, those Ports will be closed and unaccessible as a doornail til doomsday (again, unlike Windows).
Only those are open that you choose to be open, and "open" does not mean "open for all" (like Windows), only as open as Filters, Access Restrictions and built-in Firewall permit.

You should talk to some Enhanced Security Linux or SecureBSD folks, although they'd tell you the same.

Sorry, I'm too bored and too tired to try to teach other people the utter basics of Linux security. You need to read up more. Alot more...

hey, i don't use it, i don't care. to be exact: nearly nobody uses it & nobody cares.
You should talk to some Enhanced Security Windows folks, although they'd tell you the same ;D
i don't need to talk about the many problems & restrictions of a linux system, because as users yourselves you'll mainly know them.
& guess what, who says that everbody wants to be part you this great open source (which comes close to 'yes, please hack me, here's my source code') community?
sorry, i'm too bored & too tired explaining people my thoughts when they don't want to understand and even don't think while reading but behave like they know every sh*t about things nobody else cares about. & yes, i got more necessary things to do than this here (just as stubborn as you're)
my opinion, eat or die.

Well, at least I know what I'm talking about...

I've been running and Networked Win95A, Win95OSR1, Win98, Win98SE, WinNT, Win2000, WinXP, Debian/Mandrake/SuSE/Knoppix/Fedora/Redhat Linux and Irix 6.5 to gain hands-on knowledge and argue about, IMHO that should make for a sound judgement on what those are, and what those are not.

PS.
Noone forces or urges you to be a part of the OpenSource Community. But when arguing about it with me about specific advantages or disadvantages, you better have your act and some facts together or remain silent.
I hate nothing more than people who have enough energy to fill pages of entirely bogus nonsense, yet are too complacent in their mind to check out reality at the same time. Basically those are doing nothing but wasting everybodies time having to correct their erroneous statements...
----------
But let's face it :
WinXP will continue to exist, regardless of what happens or what we discuss here; just like Linux will always be there.

that's the point i tried to tell you ::) and linux won't take over windows in the next years.
that's why i don't fill pages w/ facts, nobody's interested in & it wastes my time. as i said, you know for yourself why linux is not everybody's darling.
the reality thing, save it for the poor. you're hiding behind your pc hardware, so don't tell me about reality. computers are tools, not somebody'S f**king life.

HeHe! I just got my copy of Red Hat 9. I love it!!! It came with everthing I need (it has it's own "Office Suite") I just loaded it up this morning and was messing around with it but had to go to work.

I still have 98SE on my main machine with dual boot to XP SP2 that I rarely use but I'm sure I will use it more in the future (for work).

I think this linux stuff is pretty cool 8)

Quote:

the reality thing, save it for the poor. you're hiding behind your pc hardware, so don't tell me about reality. computers are tools, not somebody'S f**king life.

* big lol * (sorry, didn't find a suitable emoticon)

"Hiding behind first-hand knowledge", to be saved for "the poor", now that's a new one to me.

Sure, computers are tools, but only few people are aware of how powerful tools they have become.

In fact, unless you're living somewhere in the woods, your life already depends on them working as advertised ;)

But you don't sound like the type of guy who would even realize... If this Forum had something like an award for such "Quality Postings", you'd sure have won it for this month *lol*

and you don't sound like a guy who leaves his room for at least an hour a day.
sure i use computers to make my daily business easier but you should notice there are some more things in the world before your door; that was my point. but i'm sure you won't get it anyway as you're too fixed on your computer stuff.
50 years ago nobody's life depended on this crap & it doesn't by now, if you want so. i'm sure even you would be able to live a week w/o your hardware ;D
maybe you should also add an award for arrogant & ignorant postings - you're the winner!

fact: linux is a fringe development & will be at least the next decade. microsoft did much more for pc users than most other software firms (where whould pc graphics be w/o the directx releases?)

Congrats for trying to pull our little discussion off-topic to masquerade your non-existent knowledge on the issue, yet another missing Icon.

If knowledge = arrogance, I must assume you never put any effort in gaining some (at least that explains alot)

And if you're so put-off by Computers... ehm... what the hell are you doing here?
Without your own Computer, you wouldn't even be able to leave your Text here in the first place.

Go get out for some fresh air and leave the IT business to those who know something about it ;)

PS.
Long before DirectX was even thought of, OpenGL was already used for 3D... But I guess you are "not arrogant enough" to know anyway.