digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at techtalk.pcpitstop.com

Windows 98 Turns 70 In Dog Years

techtalk.pcpitstop.com — Which is really faster, Windows 98, Vista, or XP. Surprising results.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rodeosmurf, on 07/08/2008, -15/+63It's pretty ridiculous for them to "expect" Vista to run better than 98 or XP. XP does a little better because it improved on the underlying core of the OS, but Vista is a newer OS with new features built on that same core, so it was made with the expectation that it would be running on newer hardware.

    If you ran Mac OS 9 on a new Macbook, I doubt anyone would be impressed that it runs really well.

    I still don't like Vista, but they're not really offering some shocking revelation here.
    • malechite, on 07/08/2008, -2/+17Too bad OS9 wont run on anything newer than an earlier G4 :)
    • indian24, on 07/09/2008, -1/+25Vista isn't a bad OS. It had some bugs, but most of them have been ironed out. The Vista hating does not make you cool. Vista haters are like the people who followed the popular kids in high school like they were the all in all.
      • werries, on 07/09/2008, -10/+3I just wish Microsoft would clean the core a bit more. I saw on a forum somewhere:
        Windows, a 32 bit extension for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

        Fits quite well.
      • Zempz, on 07/09/2008, -2/+11i'm real confused by the vista hating...maybe i havent been using it long enough...but after like 3 months of vista on a laptop...i don't see any problems with it..? what exactly do people say is currently wrong with it?
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3@Zempz

        The people who hated Vista were people who installed it on crappy machines and people who really hate to get used to new interfaces.

        I had it months before sp1 and the only problem I ever had with it is that sleep mode wouldn't work, turned out to be a BIOS setting problem.

        Every person I encountered claiming they had problems with Vista had ridiculous rigs (like a 1ghz p4 with 512 mb of ram) or just complained about not finding things at the same place they used to be.
      • s0nicfreak, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Zempz, my problem with vista is that it requires ridiculous specs to run (but if you enjoy needing a gig of ram to just check your email, good for you), and companies are selling it on machines that don't meet those specs.
    • Berrex, on 07/09/2008, -7/+1the question isnt were they

      its wha were they dling at the time

      personally i hink its uber leet teenyboppers that haaxed there dadz compzorz and intrigued da pronfish

      rofl
    • etcimon, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4The test is biased, they don't even sell 512mb of ram anymore! ... thanks for your relevant benchmarks pcpitstop. of course vista doesn't perform with 512mb ram, the same way you can't install a 2008 corvette motor in a '78 model.
      • PhishTahko, on 07/09/2008, -5/+0Funny. I bought 2 512 modules for my laptop a month back and they still had 128mb mods on the price list. I must be a ***** idiot then.
    • Smills, on 07/09/2008, -0/+10This is a sort of silly comparison. 512mb of ram will seriously bottleneck Vista, whilst for the other OS's it will leave heaps of head-room. He really should have tested with 2 gigs of RAM. Additionally, you would expect Vista to be slower, it has more features and a new GUI. If you have a decent computer it runs very quickly anyway.

      No-one in their right mind will be upgrading to Vista with a 4 year old machine.
      • s0nicfreak, on 07/09/2008, -4/+1Windows users are mostly not in their right minds.
    • InfiniteNothing, on 07/09/2008, -5/+2If you don't like the comparison, do your own.
    • Niallgriff, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4umm XP runs on a different kernel than 98.....
    • ADulin, on 07/09/2008, -3/+0What exactly are those "new features" that you speak of? How would those enhance the average user's experience? I don't know about other people, but for someone like me, who uses my PC to surf the net whilst listening to music, watch movies downloaded off itunes, light gaming and the occasional work brought home from the office, Vista merely sacrifices speed for eye candy.
      • PhishTahko, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3So Superfetch is a waste of time then? Vista runs fine with Aero enabled with an Intel on-board video card, it's no slower for the use you describe than an XP box. The negative comments about it are made by people who haven't used it, ie uninformed idiots like you.
      • djgreedo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4Vista is far more stable and secure than any previous Windows version. My computers simply don't crash any more, and I have had only one instance of malware in close to 2 years running 2 Vista machines, and that's primarily because I disabled the firewall and UAC. Under XP crashing was a common occurence, under 98 it was a very common occurence.

        Vista also has lots of small but great changes to the UI, such as editing MP3 tags from a folder view, little tweaks here and there that reduce mouse clicks, more intuitive UI in general.

        If you are happy with what you have, great, but don't be offended that some people prefer to upgrade to something they prefer. Though you obviously haven't used Vista, don't dismiss it as pointless.

        FWIW I hate using any OS other than Vista. I use XP at work, and while XP is great, it just feels clunky and inefficient compared to Vista. I had to install XP on an old PC to sell it recently and I also recently had to spend time fixing a friend's XP PC due to a virus...and in both cases I was reminded dozens of times of how those little changes in Vista make life so much easier.
    • deadmoo, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Your analysis is flawed, because these benchmarks are not using any of those new features. And if those new features are interfering with the performance of old features, that is the OS's fault not the user's. It is slower because of its inefficient design and implementation.
  • AussieCynic, on 07/08/2008, -21/+19I have heard Vista is rubbish.. all fluff and tickle with no real substance..
    I am running xp and 2000 and seriously would have no problem with 98 it was and is a great OS..
    nice competition and the results even with what I have been told where shocking.... I thought it would be closer than that...
    well done
    • DeathJux, on 07/09/2008, -5/+5Dugg for fluff and tickle.
    • f4nt0m4s, on 07/09/2008, -2/+35Seriously? You would take 98 over Vista? That alone proves that you are an idiot. The place that I am currently doing an engineering internship for the summer has some old computers running Windows 95 and 98. It's a total piece of antique crap by modern OS standards (and by "modern OS standars I mean Windows 2000). It's unstable, it can't handle memory/process distribution, it's just crap. Windows hit perfection with 2000/XP. Those two OSes are rock solid. I've never had Internet Explorer give me a blue screen of death in 2000/XP. I have in 98 and 95. You're so high on your "it's cool to hate Vista" you said something incredibly moronic. But it's okay. You can run Windows 98, I'll run Vista. Vista is like XP/2000. It's also rock solid. It has a slightly bigger footprint, but considering the fact that a good computer with a dual core processor and 3gigs of RAM costs next to nothing these days, it's not that big of a deal.
      • 10scott10, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1I liked 98 becuase it was stable. but you know what else i like.
        plug and play.

        that alone made it obsolete.
      • polywaffle, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4windows 98 is anything but stable.
      • scb0825, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4I agree. My main machine is a Q6600/4gb RAM and Vista runs quite well. In fact, it is actually faster than my wifes machine which is also a Q6600/4gb RAM that has XP SP3.
      • AussieCynic, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1never had a problem with 95 or 98.... but I do agree that XP and 2000 are the better OS... I dont use vista on my machine but have seen it on friends machine... many of them have had problems... before I update my OS to Vista i am going to wait for the debugging. Second release is much better than first... i'll leave it to the idiots who have all the problems with first version to fix them, remove the gremlins then I'll purchase a copy.. but never on first release.. besides XP and 2000 work fine, the updates and plugins are all there...
        and changing over for the sake of changing is just not worth the effort when its to a second rate OS....
      • djgreedo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1@ AussieCynic

        The second release of Vista is already available if you mean SP1. It has fixed some of the wrinkles Vista suffered from.

        But I would recommend checking that your hardware it compatible and up to speed before upgrading to Vista. In fact, you're safer waiting until you buy a new PC and buy one with Vista preinstalled.

        Almost all problems people have had with Vista have been hardware driver issues (hardware vendors dropped the ball, especially nVidia).

        You're right about not changing for the sake of it. That's what many Digg morons don't get. They feel they are in some way being forced to change to Vista. It's your choice. Don't upgrade unless you need to or want to. If your XP machine crashes occasionally it will almost certainly crash less with Vista though.
    • SwedishNinja, on 07/09/2008, -1/+19You "have heard". I use Vista on my laptop and it runs great.
    • tama00, on 07/09/2008, -1/+13You sir have extremely low standards or your drunk.
    • KMartSheriff, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Um, let's try that test again with more than 512 RAM. I can tell you right now it would be in Vista/XP's favor (and if you added 4 or even 8 GB Vista would way outperform them all).
    • brad016, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1with Wing-It Software
  • malechite, on 07/08/2008, -1/+54This doesn't suprise me. I installed windows 3.1 the other day on a 400mhz computer for fun. lets just say that boot time to a usable OS was almost instantaneous... i should benchmark that against the other versions of windows
    • ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -3/+8with CPUs running 100x faster today, it shows you all the junk is loaded during startup.
      • bejayel, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5In Windows, all the junk is loaded during LOG IN, while in others, all the junk generally starts during boot up. It makes me wonder what the ***** takes so long for windows to get to a log in screen.
      • frostw, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Services are started prior to login. Only user specific stuff is started after.
  • nahsrocketeer75, on 07/08/2008, -12/+7Headline made me LOL ... and I'm a difficult LOL..
  • hep2djive, on 07/08/2008, -1/+19Almost made me choke on my Viagra.
  • Pvisi111, on 07/08/2008, -13/+14I'm personally not a fan of Vista either. XP was easily the best OS that Windows created. Its a shame because they were improving with each new release (although I heard NT wasn't that great) and than Vista was released and it completely sucked. I'm actually considering buying a Mac because of Vista (I've heard a lot of people are doing this also).
    • FuckXboxx, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2Steve Balmer read this comment and said: BOB SAGET!!!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQrdxcBuQIs
    • BlakeEM, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5I think you're thinking of Windows ME not Windows NT.
      • Fubarepublic, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3ME. Fark! I had that POS installed 5 times over 1.4 years. It always screwed up.
      • KMartSheriff, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Fark? You mean *****? It's ok, we won't tell your mom.
    • f4nt0m4s, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9Way to give into peer pressure. I propose an alternate solution; build a computer and install one of the many Linux distributions. If you are that against Vista, why not tread the cheaper path and avoid being tied down to Apple's proprietary software/OS. Computer components have gone wayyyyyyy down in price, so unless you are buying a video card, you can build a really nice computer for under 500, easily.
      • PhishTahko, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Linux is nowhere close to being usable for normal people. I installed Ubuntu a couple of days ago. Biggest pain in the ass ever. Go to the command line to install a ***** driver? I think not. Until the Linux community sorts out the e-penis wagging and decide on some goddamn standards for installers and the like it's going nowhere fast. Use Linux if you want a totally customizable OS, or use Windows/OSX if you actually want to get out of the house once in a while.
      • GrantTLC, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1PhishTahko, you've tried ONE distro and have decided the whole of Linux is not usable for normal people? That's like trying Cornflakes, not liking it, and deciding all breakfast cereal is bad.

        Many people don't like Cornflakes, but find that Rice Krispies taste great. You never know 'til you try.
    • indian24, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4Hate to break it to you but Vista > OSX. It's definitely more secure
      http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/ ...
      .
    • petard, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Whats bad about Vista? It runs great on my modern computer!
    • KMartSheriff, on 07/09/2008, -1/+8As a Mac user who also has Vista 64 running in bootcamp, no, Vista is not "slower". It was, say, 2-3 years ago when it was first released, but then again so was XP. It's funny how people forget that. XP inhaled so much ***** when it first came out too (up until SP2, when people started excepting it). Now people are using Vista and they're finding it's pretty nice after all. History is just repeating itself.

      Anyway, Vista 64 is awesome. Granted I only use it for games, and Leopard for everything else, but still, don't bash it if you haven't even tried it yet.
    • caupolixan, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3digg you up for saying how much people felt the same way about xp when it just came out. XP did not come on its own until the service packs came into effect, just saying...
  • chestyle, on 07/08/2008, -15/+3Bah, Love The Blue screen of Death on the 98. Unstable as Hell. No Offense but Windows completely sucks, Use Linux. Love my Ubuntu.
    • pjpereira, on 07/09/2008, -3/+0I like Gentoo better. It´s because of rolling updates. I just have always an updated machine :)
      • chestyle, on 07/09/2008, -2/+0Ubuntu's update system is ain't so bad either. 1 click, take a walk and your system and all of the applications are up to date. ^^
    • bullox, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6I like Ubuntu, and you make me not like liking it. Quit being a douche.
    • bdbr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Yes, '98 was very unstable. This might come as a surprise to you now, but about seven years ago Microsoft replaced Windows 98 with a very stable operating system.
    • chestyle, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Ok, NT is stable, stop the holywar. End of story.
  • michaels73, on 07/08/2008, -1/+23Long live Windows 98 and all who crashed in her ;-)
    • bs0l, on 07/09/2008, -0/+43It is now safe to turn off your computer.
    • Loxias, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7Viva la 98SE!
      • afx1, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5now with internet connection sharing
      • LeviTheSmith, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3And now Universal Serial Bus 2.0 Support.
    • f4nt0m4s, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11EVERYTHING crashes Windows 98. I spent many a day power cycling when ctrl+alt+delete failed me.
    • bdbr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Actually it is now safe to leave your computer ON.

      With Win '95, I was doing good to go a day without a blue-screen. With '98, I was doing good to go a week without a blue-screen. With XP, I get a blue-screen maybe a couple times a year.
      • gmoney1, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1I never used to have problems with win 98. I found that it was really stable. XP was ok for me, but 98 was just way better.
    • TheWindBlows, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1good luck with the memory leaks.
  • WantToPlay, on 07/09/2008, -5/+1I don't want to have to get used to a new OS, I just got used to my XP from Win 98...lol
  • pjpereira, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3so 95 is almost over a century and 3.1 is like ancient history ;)
  • RKDN, on 07/09/2008, -0/+19How is this surprising? Did anyone find this surprising? Anyone?
    • thebrain1288, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5No. No they didn't.
    • KMartSheriff, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10Vista on 512 RAM? Hell no I wasn't surprised by those results. Try it again with 2GB of RAM and I can guarantee the outcome will be different.
      • jamesdew, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2im not so sure it would be but yes I would like to see the results on vista with more memory.
  • freak3295, on 07/09/2008, -0/+58but its not a dog
  • bs0l, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6Interesting, but Vista does require better PC components due to all of the new features, like widgets and the updated visuals.

    I'd like to see each OS with components that are proportionate to each, though that would be extremely difficult to figure out. Maybe just the recommended requirements for each OS, then see how they do?
    • djgreedo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Exactly. Running Windows 98 on what would have been a $10,000 computer in 1998 and running Vista on the same computer, which would cost $20 used in a pawn shop in 2008 is just stupid. Run the test on mid-range or low-range PCs that cost an equivalent amount in the year of each OS's release and the tests will probably show that Vista is an improvement (certainly over XP, since Vita really doesn't need much more power than XP comparative to how much cheaper and more powerful computers have become since 2001).

      I remember using Windows 95 and 98 and XP...on pretty pricey systems in the day. Vista runs well on a $500 system, which is not expensive. I probably spent $1000 on the last PC I built with XP in mind 5 years ago, and that system ran XP well, but not as well as my new PC runs Vista.
  • FuckXboxx, on 07/09/2008, -11/+3Let me find my surprised hat for those results....

    And people say Vista doesn't suck a ***** mutated donkey with a jagged glass ***** for running games.

    I get 12,000 3dmarks with my system in 06 with XP....9500 with Vista. Those numbers might not matter but Crysis sure does look a hell of a lot better at 40 fps on High in XP than at 20 fps on Very High in Vista.
    • GT35R, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5do you think maybe it because you are running it on very high ?
      • FuckXboxx, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1What use does Vista have besides DX10 for Crysis? Besides that it's XP...and XP actually has most of what Vista has to offer and at better framerates...at least when it comes to Crysis.

        I dropped $160 for that turd and after six months of using it, I've flushed it never to be seen again. I need to get unlazy and fix my boot.ini to point to XP first and not call it "an earlier version of windows." I won't uninstall Vista...just incase Microsoft ever decides to make it worth using. I should have just been smart about it and checked the pirate bay for a Vista/DX10 OS.
      • Niallgriff, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5Dude you're name is "*****" you're clearly an anti-MS fanboy who cant afford a better computer.
      • FuckXboxx, on 07/09/2008, -4/+0AMD X2 5600 @ 3.2ghz
        8800GTX (no need for overclocking this glorious chunk of plastic and metal)
        2 gigs of DDR2 800 RAM OC'd to something like 900mhz....If only I cared about my knowing my HT multiplier....

        This ***** runs great...in XP.

        Either that or Vista wastes about 20% of your gaming budget....

        I seriously thought my hardware was a ripoff until I reinstalled XP and realized what a gaming anchor Vista is.
      • Niallgriff, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Sonn, when no new games go XP, you will be sad and *GASP* forced to spend 50 bucks on ram. ***** 8 megs used to cost more than that.....
  • ExperiMETAL, on 07/09/2008, -0/+107It also turned 10 in normal ***** years.
  • vinceislegend, on 07/09/2008, -1/+20When you said "Surprising results", I expected Vista to come out on top.

    You let me down.
    • bdbr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I think the surprise was that the (much larger) XP ran as fast as '98.
    • TheMidnight, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1You gave me up.
      • Lewie, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Don't worry, I'm never gonna give you up.
  • VSKBadCRC, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11But can it run Crysis?
    • VyPR, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9Only a Pixar render farm could run it WELL.
      • KMartSheriff, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2I'd let it render my farm any day.
    • computerguydk, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4Oh, please. I have a computer that costs under $1000 that can run Crysis just fine on high settings. Core 2 Duo e6420 @ 3.2, 4GB DDR2 800, 8800GT. Now, what about a render farm running Crysis?
      • tama00, on 07/09/2008, -3/+9You dont have to lie to impress us.
      • Lewie, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8I can run Crysis on high with x8 AA on my TI-89.
      • Zempz, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3my nokia tracphone runs it on high too
      • ThirdPrize, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4I got it running on my 3G iPhone as well.
      • Rulex, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2I run it on high with my intellivision.
    • tcpip4lyfe, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Ohh, please.
  • hellahyphy, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2seriously! lame
  • zakatov, on 07/09/2008, -2/+44Come on, half a gig of RAM in Vista? Of course it's gonna be slow. He should've at least used the recommended sys requirements for the OSs or used computers that would've cost the same amount of $$$ in 98, 2001 and 2007(6?). Or at least put in 2GB in the Vista just for comparison.
    • bejayel, on 07/09/2008, -10/+2But that would defeat the purpose of doing the benchmarks on the same machine would it not? Part of the moral here is that you shouldent NEED $3000 worth of hardware to get comparable benchmarking speeds on the same test when almost every other OS continually shows improvements, or slight drop offs. Vista was worse than 75% of XP and 98 in some tests for christ sakes.
      • f4nt0m4s, on 07/09/2008, -1/+8I don't know where you've been, but you don't need 3000 dollars worth of hardware to run Vista or build a pretty kick ass computer these days. Negating the GPU, you can build a really solid machine with a good mobo, decent dual core processor, and 2-3gigs of ram, for under 500. Your price may vary if you invest in a GPU, but for just running Vista for day-to-day tasks, and even for playing movies, you can probably get by with a super cheap GPU.

        In fact, if you do some research, the cost of buying computer components is cheaper now than it was back when Windows 95 and 98 were out. So if this benchmark test comparing the OSes took price into consideration, you could probably build a machine better suited to run Vista than you could to run Windows 98.

        It's true...when I got a Dell back in the day with Windows 98, it was like 3000. Computers have come way down in price.
      • JeffD, on 07/09/2008, -1/+62gigs of ram goes for about $32 now (http://www.ncixus.com/products/19337/OCZ2P800R22GK ... you don't need a $3000 computer to meet vistas system requirements.
      • tcpip4lyfe, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4A $3000 computer is also known as a mac.
    • Gizza, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6I would've like him to put in 2Gb of RAM just to see if that evened the scores up at all, to prove that Vista simply needs more RAM.
      • fokov, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Of course it needs more ram, it has more stuff running and using resources than any other previous Microsoft OS. One of the funniest things I did at my previous job was to install XP, 2003, Vista, and 2008 on a machine. After Install I checked to see the ram usage of each one. Gotta love XP x64 (2003 code base) and 2003. After installing IIS and other things necessary OS-wise, they took about 256 megs of ram. Vista took up a gig. I think 2008 was up there as well, but they finally did something right with that OS. It is installed with almost no addons/functionality.
      • djgreedo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2@fokov

        Are you aware that Vista will preload stuff into RAM if the computer isn't using the RAM for anything else? So Vista will always use as much RAM as it can. This doesn't mean Vista's features are using the RAM as such. It's thinking ahead to what you might load and preloading it to improve performance.

        Really, benchmarking and measuring stats is not a good way to compare operating systems. Just use the damn things and see which one you can get your work/play done quicker and easier. I find Vista much more intuitive (maybe not at first - a few things changed) and I get things done quicker with it. Not to mention the lack of crashing lets me compute more.
    • dagnome1984, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Hell 512MB of ram in XP is even a bitch considering if you run a few programs the memory is used up in no time.
  • devila2208, on 07/09/2008, -2/+14Was that website designed in '98?
  • devila2208, on 07/09/2008, -6/+1oh no..double post :(
  • lead2thehead, on 07/09/2008, -6/+5Why is this surprising? Microsoft is always coming up with new and innovative ways to make your computer run slow.
  • Nysul, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Vista for me takes forever to load (so I just put it in sleep instead of shutting down) but once it does general use seems faster than XP for me. Apps load almost instantly and explorer seems faster. The only downside I see is sucky game support (using integrated intel) and slow network transfer speed. I do have a decent laptop though: core 2 duo, 2gb ram, 7200rpm hardrive, good battery life (fujitsu t4220). I don't know why vista sucks so much in bechmarks.
    • Nick535i, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1The T4220 is a nice laptop. I work on them a lot and see very few issues. I'd highly recommend them for an all around mid-small size laptop/tablet.
    • sjaxso, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1Do you know you need to tell it to use both processors to boot? Vista boots by default just using one. I don't know why, and forgot where the setting is, but google it.

      How many processors do i have?
      vista: 2!
      How many are we booting with?
      vista:1
      Why?
      *ftzzzz*
    • djgreedo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0You're using an integrated Intel graphics processor and can't work out why games aren't running very well?

      It's the Intel graphics processor. Most games need a decent graphics card. My previous laptop had a similar graphics processor (i.e. a crap integrated one). I have just upgraded to a new laptop with a built-in nVidia 8600 and games run a lot better in high detail levels.

      Then again, I only play RTS games, so your results may vary.
  • Khanvalescent, on 07/09/2008, -0/+21"When I bought my first computer it came with Windows XP...".

    How old is this author?

    Also, installing more ram would probably increase the vista results more than it would the other two. 512 seems a bit low when compared to the other components of the test computer.
    • bejayel, on 07/09/2008, -6/+1when i bought my first computer it came with Windows XP and i am 22, so i would venture to guess he is around his early to mid 20's
      • Epistaxis, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8I am 22 and my first computer had MS-DOS 5.
    • twiztidsinz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6My first computer was DOS/Windows 3.11 and I'm 25..
      Age really doesn't have anything to do with it.
      But yeah... having your first computer being an XP machine kinda gives some doubt to the validity of the article.

      Also, you are dead on with the 512 being low for Vista.
      I would have loved to see the scores if they bumped up all three machines to 1 or 2GB.

      And here's another example of how this really isn't a balanced test:
      "None of the installs used firewalls, anti virus, or protection software of any sort. All update, and unnecessary background programs were disabled."
      He probably had the last version of Windows 98 (included most updates) and Windows XP SP2 (again, includes many updates) and Windows Vista release (no updates).
    • herrshuster, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Seriously, he must not know a whole lot about computers. I'm 17 and my first computer I used was MS-DOS, then 95, my first purchase was 98SE, then XP and now vista. For the record, I love Vista.
  • artfuldodga, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9really? this made the front page...
    if i could i'd bury this more than once
  • waydee, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10Whats the point of this? of course Vista is going to run like ***** with 512mb ram and no ***** that Windows 98 screams along on a semi-modern PC.

    Buried as lame.
  • warringgael, on 07/09/2008, -7/+198 SE was the most stable offering, IME
  • Myztry, on 07/09/2008, -5/+270 Dog Years! That's the same time it took Microsoft to catch up to the 1985 Commodore Amiga and introduce 'Modern Computing' functionallity into Windows like pre-emptive multi-tasking, native 2 button mouse support, hardware video acceleration, 32 bit compiled OS, etc, etc..
  • UltraDavid, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Is that the most random thumbnail in Digg's history? It's in the running.
  • Nick535i, on 07/09/2008, -8/+7This "Fair" test is a complete joke. The test should've been done with the recommended system requirements for each OS at it's launch.

    Microsoft designs their OS's while keeping in mind current (and future) hardware trends. People gawked when Vista came out and 4GB of ram was A LOT. Just a few months later 4GB is the norm and I see MANY computers running 8GB.

    And come-on, SERIOUSLY WHO HAD A 2.8GHZ CPU IN 1998?!?!?!?! Win 98 was designed to run on a CPU 1/10th that fast, so of course it's gonna run bat-***** crazy fast on this test comp.

    Hey, why not throw MSDOS in there too? I bet it'd run REAL FAST on my old overclocked 3.6GHZ Pentium D.

    This has to be the stupidest, most baseless M$ bash ever. C'mon Apple fan-boys, you need to start doing better.

    Linux is gonna pwn both M$ and Apple in the next decade anyways. It's already starting.
    • Niallgriff, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3I was with you until the Linux comment. I can use Linux, you can use linux, fine, but the average computer user can not even come close to competently running a Linux distro. Those other factors, such as almost no viruses and other security stuff, is simply put; security by obscurity. If Linux really took over, all spyware, worms and virii would be aimed at it and you'd go running back to a MS box, talking about how Windows will (sic) "pwn" in the future.
    • bipolarruledout, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2The Decade of Linux is upon us? Linux might make small inroads on niche devices but Windows will be for PC's for the forseeable future. Linux is cool and all but too many enthusiasts discount the fact that it is a COMPLETELY differant paradigm from Windows which is very well entrenched.

      People will also warm up to Vista and find out it's really pretty nifty and forget about all the bitching they did. Just like what happened with Windows 98 and XP when they were released. /Just call me Devorak.
    • epiphonegibson, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1I find it interesting that Apple's Quartz extreme renders the same fast and fancy graphics and transitions on an Intel GMA 950 (64 mb Shared) with 1 gig of memory better than Vista can run on a 512mb graphics (PCI-e) card with 4 gigs of ram. It'll beat it on the start too. Don't get me wrong, I use both Mac and Windows. They have their strengths and weaknesses. I think Microsoft could have done a better job on their hardware requirements for aero and the like. As of right now, I think Apple (Mac OS X having a good 8-9 years headstart on Vista) has the better performance/hardware ratio. It has better backwards compatibility with older systems than Vista right now (sans Leopard). It's just an experience thing I suppose.
  • buddypriefert, on 07/09/2008, -4/+1Burried for not easily labeling whether the high or low benchmark numbers are better. Have to take too much time to read.
    • Lachlan91, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Buried for your comment taking too much time to read.
      • buddypriefert, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0Burried for making my curiosity force me to read what replies I had, only to find that the comment had more diggs than mine.
  • doshindude, on 07/09/2008, -7/+1I find it hilarious that a 10 year old OS outperformed Vista. Just pathetic.
    • petard, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2An OS running on hardware way past its time beat an OS running on hardware way before its time? say it ain't so!
    • KMartSheriff, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2You're an idiot and clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
    • frostw, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2You are easily amused.
  • pedepy, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3lame .. "I think it's fair to say that most people would have expected or at least hoped for the latest version of windows to dominate a competition like this." .....

    who thinks like that ?
    • bipolarruledout, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2If speed were more important than usability the Mac never would have been invented.
  • BlackJackJester, on 07/09/2008, -0/+298 was also less than half the size
  • nolt, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4why is it surprising that operating systems designed to run on arcane computers run faster than current operating systems on any given computer with compatibility?

    sorry i kno im being redundant but i felt like posting.

    also i must mention that the dog:human 1:7 thing is not really that accurate at all. its really not that linear, and breed specific at that.
    • bipolarruledout, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Welcome to the x86 architecture. Sit back and relax in our AMD or Intel dining room while you enjoy our vintage collection of DOS, Windows and OS/2 or our spicy new Linux and OS X entrees. Customizations and substitutions are welcome at no extra charge.
  • Jammerdelray, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3crummy article
  • caponumen, on 07/09/2008, -3/+3Buried ........ lame!
    98 was total dog crap, may it rest in 5.25" floppy pieces, where it belongs........
  • asmith1243, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3burried for ***** computer build.
  • ja660k, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1doesnt surprise me at all, Vista is all hype plenty of flashy cool things but is a huge waste of space....
    win 98 was the best os windoze ever made...
    if u wanna compare windoze vista to something compare it to OSX 10.5
  • blackmesa, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I'm writing this from Win98SE! It's fast and light, but it's surprisingly unstable compared with xp (i.e. more unstable than I remembered it as). I've been using it for the last 6 months or so, and it gets all 'general internet' stuff done pretty much perfectly. It's a little slow rendering stuff that's video or flash intensive, but not so much it's crippled.

    That said, I'm keen to get back on XP
  • DraxusD, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Buried. Stupid title, hideous website, and a worthless test with predictable results. Does anyone care how Vista performs with 512mb RAM? How much RAM could you get today for the price of 512mb circa '98? I don't feel like looking it up but it's a ***** lot.
  • jo21, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1hell lets all use windows 98 if speed its a problem
  • bipolarruledout, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Surprising results... if your an idiot.
  • saketome, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1Windows 95/98 FTW. I can recall many a session of 'Quake' and 'Quake II' under those. Ahh the good old days :)

    I used XP as my main OS for a few years, and any love I once had for it has gone since I made the switch to Linux, which is much more of a pleasure to use in pretty much all aspects even on my 'old' hardware. Not to mention it's much nicer aesthetically ;)
  • greatcaffeine, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2I'd rather not use FAT32. Thanks though.
  • perot9296, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Windows 98 was a piece of ***** we all tolerated. 95 and 98 are the OSes that got me to switch to Netscape because of the crashes I got with IE would take down the entire operating system with it 90% of the time. Everyone complained about XP's candy graphics when it launched, but I thought it looked a hell of a lot better than the ugly ass 256 color hard pixel edge no antialiasing design that 95/98 had. I still dont plan to use Vista though, not because of something stupid like how it looks, but because it requires more resources than it should, if Linux and Macs can run high end graphics with less memory and ram, then Windows should. That and many of the new features were cut out of the Vista in order to get it out the door. Plus I still dont know if they fixed that bug that if u listen to a MP3 your network speed is cut down to 10%. Maybe Windows 7 will be good, but all I know is Apple still wont release their OS for use on any computer and Linux still requires the command prompt and asking lots of questions on forums to get things installed and working properly (sorry I dont have time to learn all the commands or code behind a OS, I just want to use the damn thing to get things done).
  • lshogan, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0The hardware has to be the same if you are comparing systems. Good comparison.
  • gkiltz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2So what is that in Cat years? about 50-55!
    Poor analogy!
    Just keep in mind how revolutionary Win 95 was when it first came out!
    Most desktop boxes could not even run it!
    It was into it's second version, Win 95b, before there was such thing as a laptop that could run it!
    That's how far we've come in just a few years!
  • Heafers, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0They should have tested each OS on comparable amounts of memory for the time they were out, preferably 98 with 512, xp with 2GB and vista with 3GB. To be honest I know no one personally who's had a problem with vista in the past 6 months. Most of the issues with it are over, being an IT guy it's the same crap every time a new OS comes out. It runs slower or isn't compatible with older software, they say this for 3 months, pass it on like they know anything about computers and every idiot that hears it spews it to the next person in line. It was the same thing with xp. When my brother was going to college in '03 my parents called me and told me to find a computer with windows 98 because they didn't want this xp thingy. Because that's what they had at home and it was better, like they actually knew anything. Just last year my Grandma upgraded from 98 to Vista and my Mom from xp to vista, I set them downloaded the updates and so forth and haven't had but one call from Grandma because she didn't know how to set up her older printer, which was a 5 year old hp that works just fine now. So get with the program and stop being scared of the new. It is better, it's more stable, it is more secure, and let's be honest some of the built in programs are worth a ***** now, such as movie maker and media center
  • specialK16, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Really now??
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.