Windows 98 drivers for new Dell computers?

I don't see any great improvement with XP...

[theadvocate]

We purchased several 2.4ghz Dell systems and I am pretty disappointed with the speed. I know there are little tweaks you can do here and there to speed up performance, but it isn't going to be three times faster than our old 750k systems. It's a shame they always bog down new software and systems so you cant truly see the speed. Is there any way to install Win98 on a new system?

Thanks!

[curlykarl]

I cant think why you would want to go back to win98, after using xp I never could.

You can install win98 on your pc though, quite easily.

I would reformat the drive and do a fresh install of what ever o/s you prefer.

Are you sure it is configured properly?, I have recently moved up from a P2 500 with win98 to a P4 2.0 with XP, and the speed difference is amazing........whooooosh

CurlyKarl

[hutcheson]

A typical new release of a M$ OS will be a 33-50% bigger hog of system resources -- processor, memory, and disk space -- than its predecessor. XP is (by published benchmarks) near the UPPER end of that range.

Also note that processor speed is not the only (or perhaps even the most important) aspect of system performance. The size of the cache (bigger is better), the size of the "working set" (Wind 98 is an improvement on its successors in this respect), the speed of main memory and disk transfers -- all are critical. Everything else being equal, a processor three times faster can occasionally result in WORSE performances under some loads (incredible as it may seem). But of course everything isn't equal -- the newer processor has a bigger, faster cache, more (but NOT much faster) main memory, bigger (but not much faster) hard drive, MUCH slower OS. You may well find a new processor runs, say, Perl scripts 4X faster, but M$-Word macros only 1.5X faster. Or again, one Infernal Exploder window seems to run 2 or 3X faster, but three IE windows seem to bring the whole system to a standstill, or even crash it by consuming all available resources.

[nipear]

Win 98 ohh the great blue screen of death...

Why not go down to win2k? it has been solid as a rock for our company (20 computers)

I just got a pent 2.0, with 256 ram, and win2k. The sucker flys! But then again it's not much faster then my pent 3 500 with 256 ram...

[sun818]

Two suggestions:

1. Install as much RAM as you can afford. 512MB on a workstation and provides plenty of breathing room for running multiple apps and background services. I prefer the leaner Win2k over XP, but that's a personal choice.

2. If you browse the Internet a lot, your experience will dramatically improve if you use a RAMDisk. I have a "Z" drive that is a cache disk for my "Temporary Internet Files". It is amazing how fast the pages load into RAM instead of the hard disk!

[theadvocate]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

curlykarl,

I can't just wipe the drive and reinstall Win98. I would love to, but what about the drivers? I can't just install any video or modem driver, I need one compatible to that system and motherboard, correct?

Anyone else have an opinion on this.? I wipe my Dell about every 4-6 months, so it would be easy to do, provided I had compatible drivers.

[DaveN]

I have a dell laptop want i did was use norton ghost to create a copy (xp)

after finding what drivers i needed installed win98 used ghost again to create win98 copy.

it took me two weeks to revert back to XP, it's so much better, memory hungry yes but I have 1 gig ddr so it runs like a dream.

if i could use it to do design work on i would bin the PC.

DaveN

[theadvocate]

DaveN

I guess that answers that... I know others mentioned memory, but if you have actually tried the process and still went with XP, then I will go with the extra memory.

Thanks.

[richlowe]

1) Extra memory (512mb min)

2) SCSI disk controller with 15K disks (most workstations come with 5400 or 7600 RPM drives on fairly slow ATA controllers) RAID if you can afford it (3 15K disks stripped with 160mb RAID controller would give you incredible performance).

The problem is not really XP - it's the perception that more CPU speed equals more performance. Most applications, however, require memory and disk performance, which has not improved nearly as much.

By the way, I've used Macs from OS 6 to 10, CP/M, DOS, Windows 3.1, 3.51, 4.0, 98, ME and NT, Unix, Linux, FreeBSD, VMS, RSTS/E, RSX and RT11 as well as 2000 and XP. XP is by far the most stable, most feature rich and easily the best operating system of them all. It's extremely stable, and very cost effective on an ROI basis over a lifetime of 3 to 5 years.

Richard Lowe