I am currently running Win98 SE.
I have yet to find sufficient evidence to 'upgrade'.

I think it's a matter of what needs to be accomplished as well as personal preference.

Generally, discussions of OS can lead to...

Horses for courses comes to mind.

Windows has probably been responsible for introducing the masses to computers in recent years, but I don't think my dislike of it is any secret here!

A friend of mine has ME on his systems, and one thing I find annoying about it is that it no longer offers the option to reboot into plain DOS mode. You have to boot from a floppy, or set up a separate hard disk petition and use an alternate boot utility.

Good point, Thinkgood!
The old Axiom (or would it be Idiom):
"Don't Discuss Religion Or Politics"

Should be edited to include Operating Systems too!

Pinemarten;

If Win 98 SE2.xxx works fine for your needs, and does not crash constantly, then stay with that version until you come to a point that the Software you use normally will not support the Win 9X platform
(AKA will not run in any enviroment less than Windows XP or Windows 2000 without hanging up and/or crashing).

After reading this part after posting, let me edit it to say:
"If the Software Application You Need To Use Daily, Which Has Been Upgraded Or Is A Newer Version, will not run properly in Windows 98, or anything older than XP / 2000"
That should be a bit more clearer...

I am still using Windows 95!
(actual version is Win 95 OSR 2.52.sumpthin',sumpthin' )

Paul;

You are right about MS' Windows (Winders in the Southeast, Windahs in the Northeast), bringing the light of machines to the general public, and for that I am very happy!
The wide open market introduces benefits for everyone - be them nerd or non-nerd!

Had the same issue with a Friend and an M.E. driven machine!
During an "Over-The-Phone" tech rescue for a video situation, tried to get her to boot to a DOS prompt, but would go directly to Windows.
Safe Mode was achievable, and was where the video tweeking took place anyhow.
Just wanted to verify the machine would boot to a DOS prompt first (
personal reasons! ),
but got stuck trying to get to a C prompt instead of fixing the video problem first, THEN worrying about the DOS boot!

(me have one track mind at times :eek

Scott35

edited to clear the mud...hopefully!

[This message has been edited by Scott35 (edited 09-27-2003).]

I had Win 98 for many years. (I had it since it came out in Beta) I never had a problem that wouldn't get straightened out with a re-install until lately. I think there can be a problem when many programs (IE 6 for example) are newer than the OS and something goes wrong.

Long story short, I recently upgraded to Windows 2000 on my work machine. I have ME on the Laptop and XP Home Edition on a New Machine. Out of the 3 I have less problems with the 2000 OS so I'll be sticking with that as long as I can.

Bill

I have just about every OS that microsoft has put out since DOS 6.22 and I still like 98SE the best.

I am currently running win2k sp4 on one desktop and linux on the other, linux is faster, cheaper, more stable... But those folks at microsoft have all the software I need, and can't seem to find a version of autocad to run on linux.... Maybe I will switch over to all linux, after I stop world hunger, solve the whole nagging world peace issue, the list goes on.....

I still have a full boxed release of DOS 3.2 with all the manuals, and I still use DOS 3.3 on one system regularly.

If Operating Systems Were Airlines

My company has 100,000 or so workstations and just made a commitment last year to upgrade from Win95. Because our upgrade cycles are so long, we are moving to Win XP professional, the latest and greatest. I have long been happy with ME at home but will likely move to XP soon to keep work compatability. I was just tasked with reworking an application that runs happily on DOS 5 and 286 computers. We can't replace them and current fast boxes have timing issues with the compiler so its time to redo. I believe you only upgrade when there is a good reason to do so. If you can't run the software you need, you do something.

I see no need to upgrade for the sake of it. If the current configuration does everything you require of it, then why change?

The only "outside" software project I have going at the moment is for the local taxi company. It's a small outfit -- only about a dozen drivers and never more than four cars on the road at a time.

Cost was a big consideration, so I set them up with a 486 system (acquired free of charge) containing a massive 4MB of RAM and a 170MB hard disk. Small by today's standards, but perfectly adequate to run the custom software I wrote for them (compiled under Turbo Pascal 5). It's running under DOS 4.01, and I also added a basic word processor and spreadsheet package.

The whole lot takes up barely 10MB of disk space, and it runs quite fast enough for their purposes.

Upgrading might just let the system insert a new job booking in 10mS instead of 100mS, but in this application, what would it matter?

One situation with wanting “more horsepower” and “need for speed” is having different systems at home and at work. [It’s a serendipitous default that PC and software producers benefit through the normal development process.] It can work both ways—a more powerful system at home or at work will breed contempt for the less-powerful system.

It overlaps into another aspect—volunteer work. The otherwise kindhearted ‘ready and willing’ help often doesn’t want to mess with older “donated” systems and software—especially when they aren’t getting paid to do so.

I agree with 'don't upgrade unless needed'.
I went from win3.x to 95 because the internet wouldn't work.
I went from 486 to P233 because MP3s and my burner wouldn't work.
I went from 95 to 98SE because USB wouldn't work.
I went to P1.3Ghz, 768MB RAM, 64MB video, etc, because Warcraft III wouldn't work. Oink!

Our desktop at work is 95, and can't read CDs of schematics I burn at home.
Our 'new' laptop at work for PLC onlines is a hand-me-down from corporate.
A P150!
It showed up as a $1000CDN asset transfer! Our Allen Bradley PLC reps said it was common for companies to buy used laptops for $50 to uplink to numerous $2000 PLCs and load them with $5000 worth of PLC software. They keep their software 'backward-compatible' for that reason.


[This message has been edited by Pinemarten (edited 09-30-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Pinemarten (edited 09-30-2003).]

Pinemarten,
I've had Win XP for about a year now and although it does have it's downfalls, I'm pretty much happy with it.
I wouldn't upgrade my computer just for the hell of it.
BTW, is there a later version of windows than XP?, just wondering.
Unless something happens that rules out my use of XP, I don't think that I will be changing computers in the next few years, I don't need the best and fastest graphics and sound attributes.
As long as I can still access the Internet, I'll be more than happy!.

Did you upgrade to XP, or did it come with your sys?
When I buy a new sys, I specify that I don't want an os, or add-on software. I just want an EMPTY hard drive.
I will load my own stuff on, and usually they take $100-$200 off the price.

So many Microsoft OS's. There are alternatives but it depends upon your inclination to learn and tinker. I run a Linux OS in addition to Windows XP Home. The OS's are on separate HD's and the box dual boots, giving me a choice at start-up. I have nothing against Microsoft or Bill Gates. I do like to putz around on the computer and enjoy running Linux for a variety of reasons.
There are lots of applications for Linux. I find that I prefer Linux to Windows and spend probably 90% of my time running Linux apps. Check out openoffice.org for office applications that will run under Linux or Windows.
The Linux story is much larger and more important than I can describe here but if you are into pc's and have an open mind check it out.
Don

Don,
I've always maintained that Unix is an excellent operating system. It might look very daunting for a computer novice to learn, but the sheer versatility of Unix/Linux it what makes it such an excellent OS for programming and technical work.

I suppose being an ex-telephone engineer might make me just a little biased, of course!

Some links for anyone wanting to learn more


[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 10-09-2003).]

I agree with Paul. If you can deal with the limited number of applications that are available for it, Linux is bullet-proof!

i'm using windows xp professional.

before used OS'
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 95
Windows 98&SE
XP home
SuSE Linux

My XP is running fine and i will keép using it. you have to do some security updates, what the hell. linux isnt that SUPER SUPERsafe it's said....

Pinemarten,
Yeah WinXP came with this system.
I had a system with WinME and had no end of problems, it used to crash quite frequently.
Anyone else ever had problems with this version of Windows?.
Oddly enough, I don't think it sold too well either, I might have been the only one that bought it!.

I think the future for desktop computing will get better now that NOVELL, IBM and a number of other software consortiums are LINUX oiented.
http://www.itworld.ca/V.aspx?i=26aa478ca9a846fdbe8a248b98726138&s=44633

NOVELL has acquired a company that is has an extensive presence in Europe (??). IBM and pothers are funding legal defence for the upcoming copywrite court battle re:LINUX

Any how, Microsoft has announced they are going to support WIN98 and WIN98SE for another 2 or more years. This in thanks to the user community that went orbital when Redmont said "....thats it for WIN 95/98/SE support as of early 2004." (Power to the people, eh Billy?)

My take is that the best OS/GUI is one that doesn't have to be tweeked all the time and
the catastorhic failure rate is zero.

A user of a desktop should be able to concentrate on the project at hand. The OS should be "invisible". If I am running LOTUS or ACAD or WORD I am most productive at the end-user position. Too much emphases is placed on WINDOWS and not enough on the reason one buys a computer. To COMPUTE. Not play with the GUI. That's why large organisations provide IT staff to look after the computer software/applications so staff can do what they have been hired to do....provide results and output.

Holey Cow did I say that????


Doug....et al

[This message has been edited by DGT (edited 01-15-2004).]

I've discovered the the entire network of computers in the British Dept. of Social Security runs Windows.

That could explain a lot.....

Which came first, Social Security or Windows??

Just a little Canuck joke, eh? or should I say eh wot?

Anyway what do you make of this...Whilst running WIN95 I noticed a lot of hysteresis dust gathering around the A drive. Not used to this I wonder if there are too much gauss sticking to the diskette?

Anyway I got a NEC update to WIN98 and it seems to have corrected the problem. But you never know.

You can always tell a system has a problem when 100% of the working population is supported by the taxes on earned income from 49% of the non-government working part of the population. As in the UK, Canada is getting to a point where there are more government employees than civilian employees. Any comments that are informative are welcome.

Doug....et al