I was wondering, if I end up doing a dual boot system in the future,
what is the most advanced hardware that Windows 98SE is capable of taking
advantage of? I mean what are the limits on its hard disk space, speed, ram,
video performance, sound performance, etc? I would like to have a
comprehensive list of the limits of 98SE compared to XP pro. I have not
found anything that meets my satisfaction at Microsoft's websites. Thanks in
advance for all the information.

There is such a thing as the HCL. Hardware Compatibility List.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx [all ]

http://www.microsoft.com/isapi/CTRedir.asp?type=CT&source=WWW&sPage=TS_Topic4|Top Story||Legacy%20operating%20systems%3A%20See%20the %20HCL%20text%20versions&tPage=https://winqual.microsoft.com/download/default.asp
[ legacy w9x]

http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=14201 xp Windows Catalog [
replacement for the HCL for xp, look in hdwr ]
--
Tommy McClure
toner27(removethis)@hal-pc.org
www.hal-pc.org/~toner27

"Artwilder" <Artwilder@cox.net> wrote in message
news:%23pAfwz$%23DHA.1456@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

I'm not going to try and answer your question in detail, Artwilder, but I
*will* offer this observation: If your current system runs Win98SE well, but
cannot handle XP, then get a new system for the XP machine. A new machine,
these days, is very likely to need significant tweaking to allow 98SE to run
on it, not all of it just within the SE system, but rather in the hardware
itself, which will also cripple XP performance. So keep your 98SE on the old
machine. I would certainly not limit your choices in hardware to what 98SE
can handle.

Vice-versa, if what you have now will handle XP well, then you have a
perfect dual-boot scenario. Additional super-size hard drive--no problem
with the proper management. Additional RAM, no problem with 98SE with some
minor tweaks.

Biggest dual-boot consideration is that 98SE can't read NTFS partitions--and
it's much easier to use a networked pair of machines to manage all this than
it is to have it all in one box.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Windows 9x

Artwilder wrote:

Thanks for the information. :>

"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23fkGqdC$DHA.1548@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

What's the advantage of using NTFS over FAT 32 in XP?

Alias

"Gary S. Terhune" escribió

I set up a system in the summer where several components had 98SE as the minimum, but 98SE is running fine on that system. I think we are now at a point where manufacturers' support for 98SE is being phased out, but you could probably still put together a system right now with new hardware that 98SE could handle. I guess you would have to be selective about things such as DVD-RW drives - for example some of the latest HP models do not support 98SE anymore, while the latest Plextor models still do. Similarly with scanners, printers.
As for processors, only Windows XP can take advantage of Intel's hyperthreading technology, but this doesn't mean that those processors cannot be used with 98SE.

Ivan


"Artwilder" <Artwilder@cox.net> wrote in message news:%23pAfwz$%23DHA.1456@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I was wondering, if I end up doing a dual boot system in the future,
what is the most advanced hardware that Windows 98SE is capable of taking
advantage of? I mean what are the limits on its hard disk space, speed, ram,
video performance, sound performance, etc? I would like to have a
comprehensive list of the limits of 98SE compared to XP pro. I have not
found anything that meets my satisfaction at Microsoft's websites. Thanks in
advance for all the information.

"Alias" <maskedandanonymous@hereandthere.com> wrote in message
news:c1kj7t$1jh658$1@ID-137389.news.uni-berlin.de...

Well discussed at
http://aumha.org/win5/a/ntfs.htm

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)

Thanks, very informative.

Alias

"Don Phillipson" <nospam@wanted.tnx> escribió en el mensaje
news:uGTLQPH$DHA.2308@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Thank you, Ivan. It is good to hear from you again. I always enjoy
reading your posts. :>

"Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xx> wrote in message
news:%23jzkq1F$DHA.4072@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I set up a system in the summer where several components had 98SE as the
minimum, but 98SE is running fine on that system. I think we are now at a
point where manufacturers' support for 98SE is being phased out, but you
could probably still put together a system right now with new hardware that
98SE could handle. I guess you would have to be selective about things such
as DVD-RW drives - for example some of the latest HP models do not support
98SE anymore, while the latest Plextor models still do. Similarly with
scanners, printers.
As for processors, only Windows XP can take advantage of Intel's
hyperthreading technology, but this doesn't mean that those processors cannot
be used with 98SE.

Ivan


"Artwilder" <Artwilder@cox.net> wrote in message
news:%23pAfwz$%23DHA.1456@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I was wondering, if I end up doing a dual boot system in the future,
what is the most advanced hardware that Windows 98SE is capable of taking
advantage of? I mean what are the limits on its hard disk space, speed, ram,
video performance, sound performance, etc? I would like to have a
comprehensive list of the limits of 98SE compared to XP pro. I have not
found anything that meets my satisfaction at Microsoft's websites. Thanks in
advance for all the information.

Thanks, Artwilder. I should say that there are certainly people around here who offer much more help than myself, and they all deserve lots of praise for the voluntary work that they do for others. It is also good to know that people will read your posts and answer your questions...

Ivan


"Artwilder" <Artwilder@cox.net> wrote in message news:O5VvNhK$DHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Thank you, Ivan. It is good to hear from you again. I always enjoy
reading your posts. :>

"Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xx> wrote in message
news:%23jzkq1F$DHA.4072@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I set up a system in the summer where several components had 98SE as the
minimum, but 98SE is running fine on that system. I think we are now at a
point where manufacturers' support for 98SE is being phased out, but you
could probably still put together a system right now with new hardware that
98SE could handle. I guess you would have to be selective about things such
as DVD-RW drives - for example some of the latest HP models do not support
98SE anymore, while the latest Plextor models still do. Similarly with
scanners, printers.
As for processors, only Windows XP can take advantage of Intel's
hyperthreading technology, but this doesn't mean that those processors cannot
be used with 98SE.

Ivan


"Artwilder" <Artwilder@cox.net> wrote in message
news:%23pAfwz$%23DHA.1456@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I was wondering, if I end up doing a dual boot system in the future,
what is the most advanced hardware that Windows 98SE is capable of taking
advantage of? I mean what are the limits on its hard disk space, speed, ram,
video performance, sound performance, etc? I would like to have a
comprehensive list of the limits of 98SE compared to XP pro. I have not
found anything that meets my satisfaction at Microsoft's websites. Thanks in
advance for all the information.

"Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xx> wrote in message
news:eFTxoId$DHA.1464@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Thanks, Artwilder. I should say that there are certainly people around here
who offer much more help than myself, and they all deserve lots of praise
for the voluntary work that they do for others. It is also good to know that
people will read your posts and answer your questions...

Ivan


"Artwilder" <Artwilder@cox.net> wrote in message
news:O5VvNhK$DHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Thank you, Ivan. It is good to hear from you again. I always enjoy
reading your posts. :>

"Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xx> wrote in message
news:%23jzkq1F$DHA.4072@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I set up a system in the summer where several components had 98SE as the
minimum, but 98SE is running fine on that system. I think we are now at a
point where manufacturers' support for 98SE is being phased out, but you
could probably still put together a system right now with new hardware that
98SE could handle. I guess you would have to be selective about things such
as DVD-RW drives - for example some of the latest HP models do not support
98SE anymore, while the latest Plextor models still do. Similarly with
scanners, printers.
As for processors, only Windows XP can take advantage of Intel's
hyperthreading technology, but this doesn't mean that those processors
cannot
be used with 98SE.

Ivan


"Artwilder" <Artwilder@cox.net> wrote in message
news:%23pAfwz$%23DHA.1456@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I was wondering, if I end up doing a dual boot system in the future,
what is the most advanced hardware that Windows 98SE is capable of taking
advantage of? I mean what are the limits on its hard disk space, speed,
ram,
video performance, sound performance, etc? I would like to have a
comprehensive list of the limits of 98SE compared to XP pro. I have not
found anything that meets my satisfaction at Microsoft's websites. Thanks
in
advance for all the information.

This is probably more info than you wanted, but I'll give it anyway :
http://www.osdata.com/

Any good book [ even one a couple of years old] on A+ certif studies will
have comparisons of everything o/s's ; cpu's ; sound cards: etc.


Here's a Microsoft comparison site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...eaturecomp.asp

--
Tommy McClure
toner27(removethis)@hal-pc.org
www.hal-pc.org/~toner27

"Tommy" <toner27(removethis)@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:4040bae9$0$7049$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
1. XP
pros
better stability
greater range of devices recognized [pnp]
improved tools and utilities
designed with domain network capability
cons
large, requires appx 2GB and faster cpu, more memory
large, many more choices on menu
2. W98
pros
smaller, appx 200mb
simpler, simpler tools and utilities
less learning curve to worry with
good stability
cons
smaller database of automatically recognized hardware
support will eventually fade for legacy [older] os's
fewer aids for domain administration


Hope this helps.
--
Tommy McClure
toner27(removethis)@hal-pc.org
www.hal-pc.org/~toner27

"Artwilder" <Artwilder@cox.net> wrote in message
news:#pAfwz$#DHA.1456@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
into your systemware whether you want it or not'
Its like trying to get rid of a deep rooted weed, aslo you don't need it
as you can play video with media player.
Also quicktime is slow to load, it should be called slowtime.

"half_pint" <esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:c1u01d$1ntojt$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
I refuse to have it on my computer.

Alias

Thanks, Tommy! :>
"Tommy" <toner27(removethis)@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:4040c819$0$7053$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...