i have heard win 98 is better than win xp and win 2000,because both win xp and 2000 are prone to more crashes...
your opinion....
2006-07-12 11:30:17 · 5 answers · asked by infinity 2 in Computers & Internet ➔ Other - Computers
98 is much more prone to crashes, so you've got it exactly backwards.
XP is resource heavy, in that it takes much more hd space and ram to run. XP is also a lot more PnP friendly as you don't need to plug in, install drivers, reboot, retry etc... simply plug in and go.
If you don't need 100% stability and want a more chipper performance, I'd go for 98 personally. XP looks nice, just chews too much memory.
2006-07-12 11:34:04 · answer #1 · answered by p_rutherford2003 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Windows XP and 2000 are fare better than 98 Win 98 crashed all the time as where 2000 was considerably stable and included features to make it more secure. now there are faults with any operating system but Microsoft windows 2000 and XP are huge improvements, and faster too
2006-07-12 11:35:16 · answer #2 · answered by Mieog 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
98 has no security. 2000 and XP have much more built in security, starting with the file system itself (FAT32 vs. NTFS). XP is basically 2000 with the ME interface on top and a lot more tools and utilities thrown in. By the way, support for 95, 98, and ME as well as most support for 2000 is now over. XP is the current standard but Vista will be here soon.
2006-07-12 11:43:04 · answer #3 · answered by EG345 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
98 is better in the sense that the kinks of 3.1 and 95 were fixed but if you ask about the functionality it is way below xp or 2000. 98 is the first and probably the least problematic windows version ever, that is why a lot of people are still using it. it doesn't use a lot of your resources and rarely crash - bottom line it is the most stable windows OS. i'd used all windows versions
2006-07-12 11:32:31 · answer #4 · answered by bitter and twisted 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yol
2006-07-12 11:33:25 · answer #5 · answered by **lov v **child** 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋