Originally posted by HunterZ - Heavy disk I/O causes the computer to stutter (I think it's a multitasking issue, although it could be the old HDDs)
Something I'm presently getting in XP with my DVD drive, but not in Win98SE.
- Win9x's 64KB GDI cap causes fancy-looking programs like eMule to become unstable
I said it needs less resources, not that it was more stable.
- I've heard that if my brother wants to go beyond his current 512MB of RAM, Win98SE will crash
Yes, you have to do some tweakings with Win98 if you have more than 512MB of RAM, but that has to do with limitations of the OS. The problem is that it doesn't know how to use enough of your resources, not that it needs too much.
- The OS likes to lock up a lot more and a lot more easily than XP.
Again, that's not from a lack of resources. It's do to the inherent instability of a hybrid 16Bit/32Bit (DOS/Win) OS.
FAT32 partitions more prone to fragmentation and glitches (lost chains, etc.) - this hasn't been too bad because my brother is better than most people about not skipping the scans it does when recovering from an OS crash
This is about as close to a relevant point as I could find. Even then, using NTFS "indexing" or compression" options would probably take away the speed advantage over FAT32.
- Inability to use USB mouse in safe mode (it's even a Microsoft mouse!
?? How is using a USB mouse in safe mode related to the efficient use of resources?
Also, anyone who's used both Win98SE and WinXP for more than a couple months knows that there are lots of little things in XP that make it much nicer to use
Yes, just as I discovered there are a number of things I don't like about it that make me want to use Win98. In general, reaction to my input on the Win98 side is nearly instantaneous, whereas the same input on the XP side has to go through a number of hoops to do the same thing. This is one of the grumbles of Win2K users, they're getting less performance due to OS features they aren't interested in using.
I suppose you could argue that most of my issues are small,
Or just weird, considering that most of them weren't related to performance, but stability.
...but I do think that XP is significantly better on Pentium-II or higher systems. If you turn off all the fancy stuff (graphical effects, themes, and unneeded services) it looks like Win2K and runs just as leanly.
Now let's see you convince DosFreak and Snover of this...