Going for the screenie is fun, but for anyone wanting to do more than that, I offer this observation*
As far as K6-IIIs go, on a Gold, Silver, Bronze range of stability standards, booting XP is a circle of box cardboard with "MEDUL" written on it in crayon, particularly for sub 2Ghz processors in general. For 2ghz plus it's high grade cardstock and medal is spelt correctly. Since while XP is regarded as quite highly stable for software, it tolerates a good deal of instability from hardware. 98 on the other hand isn't quite as stable as software and won't tolerate much instability. The difficulty is, there's a twilight zone in the middle between 20th century and faster 21st century CPU designs, where you can't absolutely say it's crashing because Win98 is crappy (And the hardware too fast, never designed to support etc) , or it's crashing because the hardware is crappy.. meaning poorly set up, poorly tweaked, pushed a little too far. Anyway, a couple of generations to the south of A64, I'd call ability to boot 98 a silver standard, and ability to boot XP about as basic as loading plain MSDOS. Therefore to prove stability for a range of tasks, one will have to loop prime95 and 3Dmark etc to really test it which are more gold standards.
*Basically to stop one chasing ones tail thinking booting XP is a big thing and proves something about ones CPU that it doesn't prove, and thereby keep one from fixing the stability problems one is in denial about.
Unicorn herding operations are proceeding, but all the totes of hens teeth and barrels of rocking horse poop give them plenty of hiding spots.