Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43

Thread: Win 98se vs Win ME

  1. #21
    Banana (Level 7) fahlim003's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The sinking old sanctuary
    Posts
    1,507
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrSparkle View Post
    google "virtualization" you can run both operating systems on a more modern computer/operating system in virtual machines allowing you the ability to play both modern and classic games without needing multiple computers to get around driver issues.
    This is good to a certain point since 3D acceleration is limited in virtual machine booting, at least it was last I checked. So long as the majority of the games aren't graphics hogs a virtual machine is a good idea.

    As for NTFS vs FAT32 in Windows 98, I've recalled that you can install drivers to allow 98 to use/see NTFS without significant issue. It's been years since I've done it but if you look around, you should be able to find some information concerning this.
    For example: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/...driver/1047598

    Even then if you would rather format back to FAT32, that too is an option. The bottom line is that Windows 98 SE is not a bad choice.
    Whaddya mean invalid parameters?!

    9,000 gigs of ram and it still can't answer a simple question!

  2. #22
    Pretzel (Level 4) LaughingMAN.S9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Vatican
    Posts
    996
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Xbox LIVE
    MILKnoCrackerz
    PSN
    ElPrivon

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrSparkle View Post
    google "virtualization" you can run both operating systems on a more modern computer/operating system in virtual machines allowing you the ability to play both modern and classic games without needing multiple computers to get around driver issues.

    the thing is, i recently swapped out my hd on my laptop for a 32gig solid state drive, after windows installation i was left with only 5 gigs left, even after optimzation and getting rid of things i didnt need, i only have around 11 gigs left, so going the route you mentioned still wouldnt be to my benefit
    "Kidnap the presidents wife without a plan..."

  3. #23
    Red (Level 21) Jorpho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    We're all mad here
    Posts
    13,537
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zing View Post
    I have absolutely no idea why people claim Windows ME was "horrible". It was significantly more stable and refined than Win98.
    The System Restore stnank was pretty bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by fahlim003 View Post
    This is good to a certain point since 3D acceleration is limited in virtual machine booting, at least it was last I checked.
    VMware has 3D acceleration, but only in virtual installations of Windows XP or later. Apparently you can also get 3D acceleration in VirtualBox, and can even use Windows 2000. However, at this time the only way to get 3D acceleration in any kind of virtualized Win9x installation is to use a special build of DOSBox; it's completely unsupported and doesn't work very well, however.

    As for NTFS vs FAT32 in Windows 98, I've recalled that you can install drivers to allow 98 to use/see NTFS without significant issue. It's been years since I've done it but if you look around, you should be able to find some information concerning this.
    For example: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/...driver/1047598
    While it might still be available somewhere through unofficial channels, Sysinternals stopped offering their Win98 NTFS driver when they were bought by Microsoft. Paragon still offers something, though:
    http://www.paragon-software.com/home/ntfs-win98/

    Nonetheless, while it will let you access an NTFS partition, it won't let you boot Windows 98 from an NTFS partition.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaughingMAN.S9 View Post
    the thing is, i recently swapped out my hd on my laptop for a 32gig solid state drive, after windows installation i was left with only 5 gigs left, even after optimzation and getting rid of things i didnt need, i only have around 11 gigs left, so going the route you mentioned still wouldnt be to my benefit
    Even a single gigabyte would be plenty for a Win98 installation, virtual or otherwise. You could even run it off a USB flash drive.
    "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." --Bertrand Russel (attributed)

  4. #24
    Banana (Level 7) fahlim003's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The sinking old sanctuary
    Posts
    1,507
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J'orfeaux View Post
    VMware has 3D acceleration, but only in virtual installations of Windows XP or later. Apparently you can also get 3D acceleration in VirtualBox, and can even use Windows 2000. However, at this time the only way to get 3D acceleration in any kind of virtualized Win9x installation is to use a special build of DOSBox; it's completely unsupported and doesn't work very well, however.
    Yeah, I had heard about that DOSBox version but never followed through given the limited use it has.

    Quote Originally Posted by J'orfeaux View Post
    While it might still be available somewhere through unofficial channels, Sysinternals stopped offering their Win98 NTFS driver when they were bought by Microsoft. Paragon still offers something, though:
    http://www.paragon-software.com/home/ntfs-win98/

    Nonetheless, while it will let you access an NTFS partition, it won't let you boot Windows 98 from an NTFS partition.

    Even a single gigabyte would be plenty for a Win98 installation, virtual or otherwise. You could even run it off a USB flash drive.
    Thanks for the reminder. When I had used those drivers in the past it was for my D drive, not C as mentioned since it isn't possible in 98 no matter what. I'll try and find my original install but for now I managed to locate another version for anyone interested: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CWWPGNFP
    Last edited by fahlim003; 09-03-2011 at 11:50 AM.
    Whaddya mean invalid parameters?!

    9,000 gigs of ram and it still can't answer a simple question!

  5. #25
    ServBot (Level 11) Edmond Dantes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    16
    Thanked in
    16 Posts

    Default

    IIRC, the big hard drive is only a problem if your BIOS doesn't recognize it--Windows 98 itself doesn't care.

  6. #26
    Banana (Level 7) Zing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,491
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    If you format the drive outside of the Windows setup, Win98SE should be able to use up to 137GB via FAT32. Windows setup, or more specifically, the version of fdisk included, was limited to something lower (32GB?).

  7. #27
    Red (Level 21) Jorpho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    We're all mad here
    Posts
    13,537
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    I posted http://www.dewassoc.com/kbase/hard_d...e_barriers.htm in an earlier thread. Win9x scandisk stops working properly at 127 GB, and partitions larger than 64 GB cannot be made with the default version of fdisk; the 32 GB limitation in Windows 2K/XP/etc is artificially-imposed, simply because large FAT32-formatted drives are not such a good idea.

    But that said, http://toastytech.com/guis/miscb2.html has a screenshot of Windows 95 running on a 500 GB drive.
    "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." --Bertrand Russel (attributed)

  8. #28
    Banana (Level 7) Zing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,491
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    And to lock you into using NTFS to discourage using another platform.

  9. #29
    ServBot (Level 11) kedawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,429
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beigemore View Post
    I've used a few WinME computers that ran unbelievably well. I think the problem most people had was with their hardware not being powerful enough to handle it.
    My first brand new PC was a Dell running WinME that I bought for college back in 2001, just before XP came out.
    I never had any real problems with it, and it ran great, especially after I upgraded to 512MB of RAM.
    My friends who held out for XP had nothing but problems until SP1 came out. People sometimes forget what an absolute dud XP was when it first launched. There was no reason to choose it over Win2K at all, and that didn't change for several years.

  10. #30
    Great Puma (Level 12) heybtbm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Deep underground, looking for diamonds.
    Posts
    4,337
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Xbox LIVE
    The Shamemaker
    PSN
    heybtbm

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kedawa View Post
    People sometimes forget what an absolute dud XP was when it first launched. There was no reason to choose it over Win2K at all, and that didn't change for several years.
    XP being a "dud" it's first year was certainly the minority opinion at the time. To most people, XP was light years ahead of ME or 2000. It also looked gorgeous back in 2001/2002.

    Anyway, I'm loving this topic since I was going to post the exact question the same day this one was started. I have full installs of just about every Windows version since 95. This thread (and other forums) seem to indicate Win98SE is the best OS for mid/late '90's games. DOS-based games anyway.

    The question is how do I trick my Pentium III running XP (SP3) to install Win98SE? Would a HD format + reboot with the Win98SE disc work? Would it really be that simple?




    My Collection
    My Room of Doom

    "One of the ways I gauge a DS game is by recharges. "...Tycho (Penny Arcade)

  11. #31
    Red (Level 21) Jorpho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    We're all mad here
    Posts
    13,537
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heybtbm View Post
    The question is how do I trick my Pentium III running XP (SP3) to install Win98SE? Would a HD format + reboot with the Win98SE disc work? Would it really be that simple?
    What makes you think otherwise? A PIII is sufficiently old that there are unlikely to be serious hardware issues.

    Actually, I have a PIII that dual-boots XP and Win98SE using Grub4DOS. (Technically, it triple-boots XP and two separate installations of 98SE, for no particularly good reason.) You'd have to resize your XP partition to do that, of course.

    mdgx.com has a good number of links to projects on the MSFN forums that are useful for new 98SE installations, including unofficial service packs.
    "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." --Bertrand Russel (attributed)

  12. #32
    Insert Coin (Level 0)
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    83
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kedawa View Post
    My first brand new PC was a Dell running WinME that I bought for college back in 2001, just before XP came out.
    I never had any real problems with it, and it ran great, especially after I upgraded to 512MB of RAM.
    My friends who held out for XP had nothing but problems until SP1 came out. People sometimes forget what an absolute dud XP was when it first launched. There was no reason to choose it over Win2K at all, and that didn't change for several years.
    Was that the Inspiron 8000 "desktop replacement" notebook by any chance? I got one in 2001, 900MHz Pentium III, 128MB of memory, on the basis that it was "for college" although I didn't go to college until 2002. I also upgraded the RAM to 256MB, it was the first major purchase I ever made on my credit card. It also ran horribly with Windows ME, XP was WORLDS better, memory upgrade or not. I still have it sitting out in a dead computer parts box in the garage, no hard drive (it was louder than every fan in my current PC combined), but I wonder if it will boot...

  13. #33
    Banana (Level 7) Zing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,491
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kedawa View Post
    People sometimes forget what an absolute dud XP was when it first launched. There was no reason to choose it over Win2K at all, and that didn't change for several years.
    This is the total opposite of my experience. I started using Windows XP with RC1 and it served me very well for my PC gaming needs. This was a stark contrast to Windows 2000, which had inferior DirectX hardware support.

  14. #34
    Banana (Level 7) Zing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,491
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heybtbm View Post
    The question is how do I trick my Pentium III running XP (SP3) to install Win98SE? Would a HD format + reboot with the Win98SE disc work? Would it really be that simple?
    Yes, assuming your motherboard uses an Intel chipset. A P3 with a BX chipset board is pretty much the best Win98 machine you could ask for.

  15. #35
    ServBot (Level 11) MarioMania's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3,499
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    ME Sucks...My friend had it, Nothing but trouble ...I went from Win 95 to XP

  16. #36
    Insert Coin (Level 0)
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    8
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    I've worked on some ME machines that were stable as hell. ME gets a bad rap because it was generally sold with hardware that wasn't powerful enough to really handle it. It's kind of like how Vista was thrown on computers with only 512mb ram with those same people wanting to get their 15 year old printers to work with it, then complaining when they have issues. I use to hate on ME, but it can run very well if it has the hardware to support it.

  17. #37
    Insert Coin (Level 0)
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    89
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    I had a P3 800mhz machine with 1gb of ram that came installed with ME and performance on it was really slow. The worst part about my experience with ME was the longer I let the machine run, the slower it would get. Apparently ME had a "memory leak", it would grab RAM for the OS and never let go of it even when it wasn't needed. I'm sure it would run better on machine that had better than my did at the time, but it wasn't a good first impression. With all that said, I would definitely go with WIN98 for a 90's pc. It just works, and all games released in that era should run with no issues.

  18. #38
    Red (Level 21) Jorpho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    We're all mad here
    Posts
    13,537
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Running any of the Win9x operating systems continuously without restarting on occasion is generally not a good idea.
    "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." --Bertrand Russel (attributed)

  19. #39
    Peach (Level 3) PC-ENGINE HELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    679
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    For personal use, I favor Me for any 3DFX build I will do for myself that does not need Dos command prompt support. Me seems to favor 256-512 megs as its sweet spot, and I have honestly never had any issues with Me on stable hardware. If you need the ability to boot into DOS at start up or leaving Windows for Dos games though, it is best to go with 98.

  20. #40
    Apple (Level 5) Emuaust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,161
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    I actually have an ME box setup, I prefer it for Win9x gaming as it supports more ram then 98 along with networking a little easier, for Dos gaming I use dos box and it works fine for me.

    What I want to know though, what games are worth playing from that era that have issues on later hardware, I have the obvious games, thief 2, SShock 2. Anyone have any ideas?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •