98se vs XP

[JimsPuter98]

Hello,
I am an avid 98se user who is feeling like it's time to move on.
I have been to the MS site to compare my 98SE to what I could get with XP,
but the only comparisons they give is against XP Pro. This sounds like an
apple vs a big ole juicy orange. The two have different purposes.
What I would like is an honest evaluation of XP home vs what I am currently
running with 98se.
Is XP home able to run ntfs, or would I stay with fat32?
My hardware way exceeds requirements for both OS, but would XP home be any
more stable than 98SE?
Is "online security" better with XP home?
Is it really worth it to dish out $100 to upgrade from 98se to XP home?

thanks
Jim

--

[Nicholas]

Windows XP/Windows 98 Matchup
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/wxpvswin98.a=
sp

--=20
Nicholas

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------------------

"JimsPuter98" > wrote in message:
.. .

| Hello,
| I am an avid 98se user who is feeling like it's time to move on.
| I have been to the MS site to compare my 98SE to what I could get with =
XP,
| but the only comparisons they give is against XP Pro. This sounds like =
an
| apple vs a big ole juicy orange. The two have different purposes.
| What I would like is an honest evaluation of XP home vs what I am =
currently
| running with 98se.
| Is XP home able to run ntfs, or would I stay with fat32?
| My hardware way exceeds requirements for both OS, but would XP home =
be any
| more stable than 98SE?
| Is "online security" better with XP home?
| Is it really worth it to dish out $100 to upgrade from 98se to XP =
home?
|=20
| thanks
| Jim

[Ken Blake]

In , JimsPuter98
wrote:

> Hello,
> I am an avid 98se user who is feeling like it's time to move
on.
> I have been to the MS site to compare my 98SE to what I could
get
> with XP, but the only comparisons they give is against XP Pro.
This
> sounds like an apple vs a big ole juicy orange. The two have
> different purposes.


No, it hardly matters. There are very few differences between XP
Professional and Home. The two are actually identical in all
respects, except that Professional has a few features (mostly
related to networking and security) missing from Home.

For details go to

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/whichxp.asp

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/choosing2.asp




> What I would like is an honest evaluation of XP home vs what I
am
> currently running with 98se.
> Is XP home able to run ntfs, or would I stay with fat32?


You can use either.


> My hardware way exceeds requirements for both OS, but would XP
home
> be any more stable than 98SE?


Yes, much more so. It is identical in stabilityto XP
Professional.


> Is "online security" better with XP home?


No. Online security is essentially identical. You need the same
tools--antivirus, firewall, anti-spyware--to protect you with
either.


> Is it really worth it to dish out $100 to upgrade from 98se to
XP
> home?


That's a question that only you can answer. It largely depends on
how satisfied you are with 98. Are you having problems with it?
Is there hardware or software you own or want that 98 doesn't
support? Are there features in XP you crave?

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

[Donald Link]

Just a few of the positives I have found since I was an avid 98se and held
off as long as possible was the improved internal support and stable DSL
connection. The ability to reconize drives over 137 gb (with SP1
installed). Improved stability where one program usually will not bring
down the whole system (usually). Since I have a gig of memory I think,
although I can not prove it, that xp utilizes it much more efficiently.
Plus since Mickey Mouse has stated that support will eventually be
discontinued helps also in the decision. The one negative is the activation
crap, but can be lived with. Also, a positive is USB 2.0 support since
future hardware I buy will be USB 2.0 when the prices get reasonable.
Support native EEE1395 out of the box (generally). Security is better
because Win 98 had none. You can not install xp on a fat 32 partition, but
you can have a fat 32 partition. Although if you do not need Fat32 then
why. If you have the hardware and everything will have xp support then it
is worth the 100.

If you really want a ton of information search Goggle. You can read for a
couple of days.



"JimsPuter98" > wrote in message
.. .
> Hello,
> I am an avid 98se user who is feeling like it's time to move on.
> I have been to the MS site to compare my 98SE to what I could get with XP,
> but the only comparisons they give is against XP Pro. This sounds like an
> apple vs a big ole juicy orange. The two have different purposes.
> What I would like is an honest evaluation of XP home vs what I am
currently
> running with 98se.
> Is XP home able to run ntfs, or would I stay with fat32?
> My hardware way exceeds requirements for both OS, but would XP home be
any
> more stable than 98SE?
> Is "online security" better with XP home?
> Is it really worth it to dish out $100 to upgrade from 98se to XP home?
>
> thanks
> Jim
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>

[David]

? You can not install xp on a fat 32 partition,
>>
>

This is incorrect. XP installs just fine on a Fat32 drive as long as
the drive is under a certain number of gigabytes ( 32 I believe,
though I'm probably wrong )


David

[Alex Nichol]

JimsPuter98 wrote:

>I am an avid 98se user who is feeling like it's time to move on.
>I have been to the MS site to compare my 98SE to what I could get with =
XP,
>but the only comparisons they give is against XP Pro. This sounds like =
an
>apple vs a big ole juicy orange. The two have different purposes.
>What I would like is an honest evaluation of XP home vs what I am =
currently
>running with 98se.

There is not a lot of difference. The system is the same - Pro has some
extras, aimed at corporate networks mainly; see list at
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp

>Is XP home able to run ntfs, or would I stay with fat32?

It runs NTFS just the same, but does not have some of the facilities for
access control at file/folder level. As you do not have them in 98, you
probably would not miss them

>My hardware way exceeds requirements for both OS, but would XP home be =
any
>more stable than 98SE?

Yes - and most importantly it does not have the restrictive 16 bit
'resources' which are a problem. But to gain this it does sacrifice
support for ill behaved old programs from DOS and old 16 bit windows=20

--=20
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K.

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Actually, just to pick a few nits, WinXP will even install and run
flawlessly on FAT32 partitions larger than 32 Gb, assuming said
partition has been created using a different product. WinXP, by
design, simply cannot create/format FAT32 partitions larger than 32
Gb.

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
----
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"David" > wrote in message
...
> ? You can not install xp on a fat 32 partition,
> >>
> >
>
> This is incorrect. XP installs just fine on a Fat32 drive as long as
> the drive is under a certain number of gigabytes ( 32 I believe,
> though I'm probably wrong )
>
>
> David