Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Blah!

Windows 98

Recommended Posts

Is it just me or does Windows 98 crash more than 95? I think its because Microsoft wanted to include IE right into the OS. I say that because everytimes Windows crashes its *ALWAYS* Explorer! I swear to god if I see the blue screen of death again today I''ll go mad >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You''re right about that. Win98 crashes loads more than 95.

Also, I''ve found it''s slower to start up, and uses a lot more memory. I only installed it because my graphics card refused to work in its native mode with 95. I guess Microsoft are so rich they can afford to make their operating systems worse with every subsequent release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I''ve no doubt about that...

I''ve used both of them, and I know what I''m saying: the only difference between them it''s that Windows 98 uses much more memory, is slowly, crashes 5 times more... to have an ideia, one day at night it crashed 6 times in 30 minutes! (no joking)... But of course, it does have on advantage: you can now place shortcuts in your taskbar! WOW! Now that''s feature!
I noticed something VERY interesting also: one of the "features" of Win98 is the "revolutionary" FAT32... you can convert your FAT16 to FAT32 normally, but to convert it back, you have to FORMAT your HD!
I didn''t install Linux yet because I don''t want to format my HD, but as soon as I get a new HD, Windows 98 will go to hell! I''ll install Windows 95 for games, and use Linux for every other thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Win98 is way better than Win95 as long as you "take care" of your system, i.e. don''t install a lot of heavy programs on the same computer. IE5, Visual Studio 6 and those big guys often don''t get along very well. That''s the bad thing about Win98. But if you are careful of what you install, it doesn''t crash often at all.

============================
Daniel Netz, Sentinel Design
"I'm not stupid, I'm from Sweden" - Unknown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious...are you sure that it is IE crashing, and not just the explorer interface? That is what always seems to crash my 98 system.....unless it just freezes......curses!

"Why am I the only one on the away team with a red shirt!?"

BASSOFeeSH
><>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spiff - you''re probably right, but the user should be able to put anything on the machine that he has the physical resources for without wondering whether the flaky excuse for an OS is gonna choke on it.

BASSOFeeSH - in Win98, the explorer interface is quite tightly attached to IE anyway. As far as I know they moved a lot of the functionality to DLLs shared by the OS and IE to give the appearance that it''s all one application and that IE is part of the actual OS. (Of course, this is reversible if you know how.) It means little annoyances such as when IE crashes, it has to restart your desktop (ever seen that?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

Shure Windows crashes often specialy when doing heavy PRogrmming, but for me Win98 runs more Stable than Win95. There is this one big advantage, when the IExplorer crashes (which it does often) it doesn''t shoot down the Standard Explorer too. The only Problem is the high Memory use, but it definitly runs more stable on my System than 95.
(But i don''t have those heavyweight Systemkillers like VisualStudio or the Office Packet installed !)

Lars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

Try Win NT 4 !!!
I use this OS for 2 years, and if you don''t try the hot plug&play with the video card, it run more stable than 95 and 98. Win9x have a very bad process managment : to many deadlock... And W98 more than W95 !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Windows 98 uses more memory than Windows 95 but I require it to perform better 32 bit programming for my employee. I find it to be more stable than 95. I''ve been running it at work for the last 3 months and I''ve only managed to crash it three times. (Not that I''ve really been trying). Having said I have used it also at home and found that it can crash three times in 10 minutes. It''s easier to bugger up the registry in 98 than 95 (or maybe I''ve learnt to do it better )

As to it being explorer I find that Netscape was the usual suspect if it opened to many windows. I presume you know but if you don''t try running IE in a seperate process. That should stop you system from bombing out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Hmm...

This kind of post seems to crop up every so often and it kinda makes me wonder what I am doing wrong? Why don''t I get to have Win98 crashing 3 times in 10 minutes?

I feel so left out...

Win98 has been very stable for me. I run the "big guys" daily...Developer Studio (I regularly use pretty much all the tools), IE, and Office and don''t have any trouble except for the fact that its slow...but thats partly my fault...you see, I am running Win98 on a P133 with only 32MB RAM (no, don''t need your pity..my work machine is a dream machine).

The only time(s) I have had to reboot during a session is when I have been doing a little DirectX programming and I goof and do something stupid which causes the app to crash.

Still, it doesn''t hang the whole system, just after something like that I can''t re-initialize DirectX until I have rebooted..(funny, this doesn''t happen with OGL)

Other than that, its been pretty solid...

-mordell


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to agree with mordell, my experience with Win98 SE has been much more stable than my experience with Win95. I also have no trouble installing the "big guys". Maybe you guys should defrag and scan disk more often?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There''s no good reason why your disk needs to be defragmented if your operating system works. That should be a speed issue, not a stability issue. The fact is, Windows is full of holes - not everyone finds those holes, but they are certainly there. Whether it is the OS itself (known to have bugs and memory leaks), the drivers distributed with the OS, or buggy programs like IE (Netscape has been found to run a lot more stably on a system with IE totally removed - go figure), there are issues there that are the fault of bad programming, not the fault of the user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing that has happened to me in Win98 is the words would get blurry and unreadable. That has happened about 10 times.

Win95 crashed WAY more than Win98. It would always come up with the blue screen and say "Press any key to continue," then I would, and everything was black!

I don''t know why your computers are crashing.

See ya...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Win98 allowed me to install all my drivers. Win95 would blue screen a /lot/, not recognise hardware, and generally get confused, during installation.

10 minutes as opposed to over an hour and a half, and the end result a (reasonably, barring IE5) stable system.

Then I installed Win2K. I couldn''t help but be impressed. Not even IE5 has managed to kill it yet, after several weeks.

One minor point of concern is that the supposed improved hardware setup in Win2K decides that /all/ my PCI devices appreciate being stuck on IRQ 9. GeForce DDR, TV card (audio and video components), SBLive!, network, and anything else I have (we''re talking, like, 8-10 devices, all on the same IRQ).

Strange thing is, nothing complains. Ever. No conflicts reported, no crashes, and plenty of speed. Although this might explain why I can''t install the GeForce 5.13 Detonator leaked beta properly. Bah.

TheTwistedOne
http://www.angrycake.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven''t been able to confirm this myself, but it seems like Windows 2000 is a very stable OS, especially for running what mordell called the "big guys" applications and developing software, since it''s got a lot of NT4 code in it. But developing games (especially in NT4) is not a good idea, since NT4 only supports up to DirectX 3, but Win2000 should be fine.

I''m even more intrested in getting a system that doesn''t need rebooting than most people, since my CPU won''t restart unless it''s cooler than 34 degrees Celcius (about 90 F I think) due to some motherboard error. (No, it''s not overclocked)

Side note: I heard a few months ago about the MacOSx system that was under development at that time, and the development team said that MacOSx couldn''t be crashed. Really? Any Mac people here that can tell us more?

============================
Daniel Netz, Sentinel Design
"I'm not stupid, I'm from Sweden" - Unknown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites