The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
i have to say i bought win95, 98 and ME and i know win 95 was revolutionary compared to older windows but win 98 and ME were nothing but a waste of my money although they had some good features but i don't think it was worth £80+ it was just a little tweak here and there is win xp any different or is it just another cheap update?
Page:
i have to say i bought win95, 98 and ME and i know win 95 was revolutionary compared to older windows but win 98 and ME were nothing but a waste of my money although they had some good features but i don't think it was worth £80+ it was just a little tweak here and there is win xp any different or is it just another cheap update?
Why would anyone buy every MS OS upgrade! 95 is, and always will be fine for me!
As for XP, it is a far bigger improvment over the old versions than they were over 95... but personally, I'd wait for the 2nd edition to iron out an bugs.
Sonic
As for XP, it is a far bigger improvment over the old versions than they were over 95... but personally, I'd wait for the 2nd edition to iron out an bugs.
Sonic
SERIOUSLY...do not buy XP. Not yet anyway.
I haven't actually bought it myself anyway because I never rush out and buy new OS', but have plenty of experiance with it due to helping out a neighbour who's been having problems since getting it.
It is absoloutely MAJORLY bug-ridden. Not neccessarily on first appearance, but there are so many problems with it. For one, a LOT of hardware won't work for it without specialist drivers. That means you have to go out and find them and even then they may not exist. My neighbour spent £300 on a printer/scanner piece of equipment only to get home and find it wouldn't work. I spent 3 hours doing all manner of things and went through every possible way around the problem.
After speaking to technical help, who had no idea what they were talking about, it turns out this particular printer/scanner wasn't compatible with XP, AS IS THE CASE WITH THE MAJORITY OF HARDWARE AVAILABLE! Old hardware regularly crashes and often won't install at all.
If your an Outlook user you won't be able to use Outlook. It installs fine, but upon first opening it crashes with errors and your unable to synchronise with a PDA to bring your old Outlook settings into the system.
I've spoken to various so called 'experts' and in general the case has been "Oh yeah well this won't work..." and "that won't work..." and "well you might want to look at buying a new printer 'cos that should work!"
XP is ridden with problems, and definately isn't worth the money. Wait a while until manufacturers have got to grips with the system and you don't have to buy specialist software designed to work with XP.
I haven't actually bought it myself anyway because I never rush out and buy new OS', but have plenty of experiance with it due to helping out a neighbour who's been having problems since getting it.
It is absoloutely MAJORLY bug-ridden. Not neccessarily on first appearance, but there are so many problems with it. For one, a LOT of hardware won't work for it without specialist drivers. That means you have to go out and find them and even then they may not exist. My neighbour spent £300 on a printer/scanner piece of equipment only to get home and find it wouldn't work. I spent 3 hours doing all manner of things and went through every possible way around the problem.
After speaking to technical help, who had no idea what they were talking about, it turns out this particular printer/scanner wasn't compatible with XP, AS IS THE CASE WITH THE MAJORITY OF HARDWARE AVAILABLE! Old hardware regularly crashes and often won't install at all.
If your an Outlook user you won't be able to use Outlook. It installs fine, but upon first opening it crashes with errors and your unable to synchronise with a PDA to bring your old Outlook settings into the system.
I've spoken to various so called 'experts' and in general the case has been "Oh yeah well this won't work..." and "that won't work..." and "well you might want to look at buying a new printer 'cos that should work!"
XP is ridden with problems, and definately isn't worth the money. Wait a while until manufacturers have got to grips with the system and you don't have to buy specialist software designed to work with XP.
WHY NOT?
START UP TIMES:
WINDOWS 95: around 16-18 seconds for a 500MHZ
WINDOWS 98: around 14 seconds for a 500MHZ
WINDOWS XP: around 12 seconds for a 500MHZ
USER INTERFACE:
WINDOWS 95: very poor, the colours are very dull and support of 32bit colour was poor, if you used 24 or 32 in some machines the message boxes, e.g: error messages would be slightly yellowish.
WINDOWS 98: a vast improvement, support of 32bit is good
WINDOWS XP: fully supports 32 and high producing a vast number of different colour making the desktop more appealing.
FX:
WINDOWS 95: explorer was poor and took a long time to load and load pages, was better at the time to use netscape.
WINDOWS 98: a large improvement the icons and the loading time fo the program as well as web pages was improved.
WINDOWS XP: Icons improved and the ability to recove pages as well as a hugh drop in errors.
SPEED:
WINDOWS 95: very slow using 500MHZ
WINDOWS 98:fast
WINDOWS XP:faster
RELIABILTY:
WINDOWS 95: crashes when ever it feels like
WINDOWS 98: crashes when ever you are doing something important and haven't saved yet.
WINDOWS XP:hasn't crashed for me yet!
Windows XP is the best version of Windows that Microsoft have launched, unlike WIndows 95 which has poor graphics windows Xp fully supports 64bit as well as 32 bit colour. WIndows 98 was had many bugs, if you had ISDN you rpc would crash once every 48 hours. Windows 95 however took forever to start up. With
START UP TIMES:
WINDOWS 95: around 16-18 seconds for a 500MHZ
WINDOWS 98: around 14 seconds for a 500MHZ
WINDOWS XP: around 12 seconds for a 500MHZ
USER INTERFACE:
WINDOWS 95: very poor, the colours are very dull and support of 32bit colour was poor, if you used 24 or 32 in some machines the message boxes, e.g: error messages would be slightly yellowish.
WINDOWS 98: a vast improvement, support of 32bit is good
WINDOWS XP: fully supports 32 and high producing a vast number of different colour making the desktop more appealing.
FX:
WINDOWS 95: explorer was poor and took a long time to load and load pages, was better at the time to use netscape.
WINDOWS 98: a large improvement the icons and the loading time fo the program as well as web pages was improved.
WINDOWS XP: Icons improved and the ability to recove pages as well as a hugh drop in errors.
SPEED:
WINDOWS 95: very slow using 500MHZ
WINDOWS 98:fast
WINDOWS XP:faster
RELIABILTY:
WINDOWS 95: crashes when ever it feels like
WINDOWS 98: crashes when ever you are doing something important and haven't saved yet.
WINDOWS XP:hasn't crashed for me yet!
Windows XP is the best version of Windows that Microsoft have launched, unlike WIndows 95 which has poor graphics windows Xp fully supports 64bit as well as 32 bit colour. WIndows 98 was had many bugs, if you had ISDN you rpc would crash once every 48 hours. Windows 95 however took forever to start up. With
is it really worth a 2 second speed increase?, a few colours new colours which windows 95,98,ME can emulate using programs like windowsblind. maybe the stability is good, my windows me pc does'nt crash it might have once or twice but it was no big problem, plus alot of software and drivers are incompatible with win xp i really don't think its worth the heavy price its selling at. and beside im happy with my win me it does everything i need it to do, (play game, do work, watch movies and surf the net) win xp would not help me use my computer better.
In the long run maybe not, but there are times where you need to print something in a hurry and it would help if windows would load faster.
Also it would help if you leave your computer on all night and not have to worry that windwos might crash.
Its true that price is too high but later on it will decrease.
Also it would help if you leave your computer on all night and not have to worry that windwos might crash.
Its true that price is too high but later on it will decrease.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Once again 98 has beaten XP on another thing. This time it's those good ol' hackers. It seems a plan of microsofts to see all those illegal programs your running has backfired. Xp seems to load up all of the users ,but +1. They have a very hidden account which can and probably already has been accessed on your PC. But hackers, crackers and all the other people have found there way into it! But hey if you've got a good anti-virus, you defrag often and you don't work for MI5 or any other special service with TOP SECERET written across everything, then don't worry!
Once again 98 has beaten XP on another thing. This time it's those good ol' hackers. It seems a plan of microsofts to see all those illegal programs your running has backfired. Xp seems to load up all of the users ,but +1. They have a very hidden account which can and probably already has been accessed on your PC. But hackers, crackers and all the other people have found there way into it! But hey if you've got a good anti-virus, you defrag often and you don't work for MI5 or any other special service with TOP SECERET written across everything, then don't worry!
That's the overall point with XP. It's got some good extras and extra bells & whistles, but other than that it's just not worth the excesive amount of money.
ESPECIALLY, seeing as it doesn't work with all hardware. Some things work, quite a lot of things don't and require a lot of effort to get working.
ESPECIALLY, seeing as it doesn't work with all hardware. Some things work, quite a lot of things don't and require a lot of effort to get working.
i Managed to geta acopy of windows Xp, and i found that the installation took forever!!!!!!
My version kept crashing, but i could recover everything by pressing ctrl+alt+del
windows xp requires a powerful pc to work smoothly, a 750 is not enough, i would recommend a 1 Giga hertz pc. with al teast 256MB ram. Otherwise its not worth it, your processor would not be able to handle the work load. I couldn't enough run Red Alert 2 properly, it was so slow with windows xp.
I am sticking with windows 98 until i upgrade or get a new pc.
My version kept crashing, but i could recover everything by pressing ctrl+alt+del
windows xp requires a powerful pc to work smoothly, a 750 is not enough, i would recommend a 1 Giga hertz pc. with al teast 256MB ram. Otherwise its not worth it, your processor would not be able to handle the work load. I couldn't enough run Red Alert 2 properly, it was so slow with windows xp.
I am sticking with windows 98 until i upgrade or get a new pc.
nuwans wrote:
> i Managed to geta acopy of windows Xp, and i found that the installation took
> forever!!!!!!
My version kept crashing, but i could recover everything by
> pressing ctrl+alt+del
windows xp requires a powerful pc to work smoothly, a 750
> is not enough, i would recommend a 1 Giga hertz pc. with al teast 256MB ram.
> Otherwise its not worth it, your processor would not be able to handle the work
> load. I couldn't enough run Red Alert 2 properly, it was so slow with windows
> xp.
I am sticking with windows 98 until i upgrade or get a new pc.
'fraid to say not even getting a new PC is a way of fixing the bugs with XP. My neighbour went out and bought a brand new PC (not anything cheap either!) with XP ready-installed.
Still it suffered from a variety of problems.
It's not about the PC you use XP with, it's the fact that ths first release is bug-ridden, and hardware/software developers have yet to really get to grips with the machine.
It's a little like the time it took developers to get used to programming for the PS2, only with that we didn't have to deal with the problems.
> i Managed to geta acopy of windows Xp, and i found that the installation took
> forever!!!!!!
My version kept crashing, but i could recover everything by
> pressing ctrl+alt+del
windows xp requires a powerful pc to work smoothly, a 750
> is not enough, i would recommend a 1 Giga hertz pc. with al teast 256MB ram.
> Otherwise its not worth it, your processor would not be able to handle the work
> load. I couldn't enough run Red Alert 2 properly, it was so slow with windows
> xp.
I am sticking with windows 98 until i upgrade or get a new pc.
'fraid to say not even getting a new PC is a way of fixing the bugs with XP. My neighbour went out and bought a brand new PC (not anything cheap either!) with XP ready-installed.
Still it suffered from a variety of problems.
It's not about the PC you use XP with, it's the fact that ths first release is bug-ridden, and hardware/software developers have yet to really get to grips with the machine.
It's a little like the time it took developers to get used to programming for the PS2, only with that we didn't have to deal with the problems.
Page: