Minimum Windows 98 requirements

[AndrewGK]

I have a friend who is running Windows 95, and she needs Windows 98 to run certain programs, however I'm not sure if her old computer can handle Windows 98. Does anyone know where I can find the minimum requirements for Win98 as far as processor speed, RAM, and so forth?

[Foosinho]

What requires Win98 that won't run on 95?

Better yet, what are her system specs, and what software is she trying to run? Give us the whole enchilada, and let's see what we can come up with.

[otterulz]

Damn Foos. If I ever have any problems with my dangfangled contraption, I'm coming straight to you.

[AndrewGK]

Originally posted by Foosinho
What requires Win98 that won't run on 95?

Better yet, what are her system specs, and what software is she trying to run? Give us the whole enchilada, and let's see what we can come up with.

She wants to use Internet Explorer 6.0 with 128 bit encryption so she can go online with her bank, and her current version of IE 5 only has 40 bit encryption. And .... IE 6.0 does NOT run on Windows 95.

There are also other programs that require Win98 that she may wish to use in the future.

And... since Windows 95 sucks in general (no way to run msconfig), I was wanting to upgrade her to Win98.

Here are her system specs:

Compaq Presario 4504
200 mhz processor
66mhz bus
32 MB RAM (I am going to try to upgrade her to 48MB)
1.45 GB free space on her HD

Yes, she has a very old slow computer. She got it free from someone, and unfortunately she is not able to get anything better, so I'm trying to get this one running as best as I can.

Thanks in advance for your time and effort on this matter! :)

[Foosinho]

Originally posted by SoccerAndy5
She wants to use Internet Explorer 6.0 with 128 bit encryption so she can go online with her bank

Bingo! I figured this might be the reason. Are you sure 6.0 will run on 98? Additionally, you don't need 6.0 to get 128-bit encryption - 5.5 was the first browser to come with it standard, but there are patches for older browsers: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/recommended/128bit/default.asp

I would recommend trying one of those first - because the system as configured will be a total POS with 98. Especially if it's relatively stable now.

Compaq Presario 4504
200 mhz processor [i][ed. Pentium]
66mhz bus
32 MB RAM (I am going to try to upgrade her to 48MB)
1.45 GB free space on her HD

OK, 98 should run on this system. It'll be slow; it might be crash-prone. Personally, I hate 98, but that thing sure as hell won't run 2000.

Get that RAM as high as you can. If the system can handle 64MB, push it that high. Win98 eats RAM for breakfast compared to 95.

[Foosinho]

Originally posted by otterulz
Damn Foos. If I ever have any problems with my dangfangled contraption, I'm coming straight to you.

What can I say? I've been building my own PCs for years. I don't waste a single clock cycle (http://www.guilfoos.com/brian/gallery/task_manager.jpg). (Yes, that's the steady-state of my CPU.)

Oh, before I forget, there may be some alternative browsers to Explorer that offer 128-bit encryption that would work on 98. Another alternative.

[AndrewGK]

You know, I didn't know that there was a section of Microsoft's website devoted to high encryption upgrades of IE. I will get that upgrade for my friend and tell her to stick with Win95.

Why, do you ask?

Because according to the computer specs I got for her machine, the maximum RAM is 48MB :eek: and Win98 will totally eat that up.

Foos, thanks for the tips! :)

[otterulz]

Originally posted by Foosinho
What can I say? I've been building my own PCs for years. I don't waste a single clock cycle (http://www.guilfoos.com/brian/gallery/task_manager.jpg). (Yes, that's the steady-state of my CPU.)
Good lord. I'm running at 62% right now and that's just with AIM signed on and playing some mp3's.

You mentioned Win 98 eats up lots of RAM which is what I'm running (and get hell from my roomates for). If I were to install XP, am I prone to crashes? I've read reviews online that when XP first came out, some people had lots of problems with it when they installed it over their previous OS.

[zpjohnstone]

If you want stability and performance, 2000 is a much better choice than XP . . . . .

[Foosinho]

I run XP at work 2000 at home, and both OSes are TREMENDOUS improvements over 98. Much more stable.

I would advise a clean install, however. Back up data you want to keep, and wipe the old OS and start from scratch. That will give you the best performance.

I would be careful about updating if you have a slow processor, tho. And XP takes some RAM as well. You may not be happy with how slow it runs, if your system sucks.

I'm running 2000 on an Athlon 750MHz, 256 MB RAM. My bootup/login is slow (much slower than my wife's) because I run a gazillion apps on launch (ICQ, Norton, PersonalBrain, Folding@Home, Money Express, ZoneAlarm, CatNip, PGP, etc etc), but it runs fine after login.

[otterulz]

Originally posted by Foosinho
I run XP at work 2000 at home, and both OSes are TREMENDOUS improvements over 98. Much more stable.

I would advise a clean install, however. Back up data you want to keep, and wipe the old OS and start from scratch. That will give you the best performance.

I would be careful about updating if you have a slow processor, tho. And XP takes some RAM as well. You may not be happy with how slow it runs, if your system sucks.

I'm running 2000 on an Athlon 750MHz, 256 MB RAM. My bootup/login is slow (much slower than my wife's) because I run a gazillion apps on launch (ICQ, Norton, PersonalBrain, Folding@Home, Money Express, ZoneAlarm, CatNip, PGP, etc etc), but it runs fine after login.
Crap. I gotta back everything up and my burner isn't working. Looks like I'll have to wait this one out.

I got a 750mhz Pentium and 128mb RAM. Plus I don't have as many apps running as you do, so should this be enough to run either OS smoothly?

[Foosinho]

Probably. You should know that there is no real benefit to XP IMO. It's a nice OS, but so is 2000.

[zpjohnstone]

Originally posted by otterulz
Crap. I gotta back everything up and my burner isn't working. Looks like I'll have to wait this one out.

I got a 750mhz Pentium and 128mb RAM. Plus I don't have as many apps running as you do, so should this be enough to run either OS smoothly?

Yes, you are well provisioned to run either OS- I run 2000 on a 233 with 64MB RAM, and it runs well. Both XP and 2000 still have issues with memory leaks, though not nearly as bad.

Does your burner not work and you're using XP? Because that was the first problem most of the people I knew had with it- XP doesn't like the most popular drivers (right now, the exact names are slipping my mind) and burning software (It likes nero, and wmp) whose name I can't remember as well, because I practically never use home computers.

[otterulz]

Originally posted by Foosinho
Probably. You should know that there is no real benefit to XP IMO. It's a nice OS, but so is 2000.
Interesting. Does ME fall into the 2000 category or is that a whole different OS?
Originally posted by zpjohnstone
Yes, you are well provisioned to run either OS- I run 2000 on a 233 with 64MB RAM, and it runs well. Both XP and 2000 still have issues with memory leaks, though not nearly as bad.

Does your burner not work and you're using XP? Because that was the first problem most of the people I knew had with it- XP doesn't like the most popular drivers (right now, the exact names are slipping my mind) and burning software (It likes nero, and wmp) whose name I can't remember as well, because I practically never use home computers.
Ahh, so I guess I won't have much of a problem.

No, I'm still running 98 and my burner doesn't work. I'm not sure but I think my burner is broken. When I try to burn cd's, the driver can't read the disc for some reason. Even if I put in a working cd, it still won't read it. I checked the device status and it says it's running properly. I was gonna go bring it to a store to have it checked out, but the fastest it can burn cd's is only 8x, so I figured it was time to get a faster one anyway.

[Foosinho]

Originally posted by otterulz
Interesting. Does ME fall into the 2000 category or is that a whole different OS?

ME sucks. 2000 was the first "real" home OS Microsoft produced.

[Eggy]

ME is just like 98. 2000 is an NT based OS.

Windows 2000 is great but alot of your normal home users don't need it and can't handle it.

I don't know how many people I've spoken to who can't uninstall something because they don't have admin rights and have no clue what the admin password is, much less that there was ever an Administrator account made when they installed it.

Andy, tell her to buy a new damn computer.

[Premium Hamatachi redded]

2000 rocks me sucks. i had me before and when i tried to restore the system, it destroyed everything instead.

[otterulz]

Ok, it's getting a little confusing now. What's a good OS I can run for home use if I had to choose between 2000 and XP?

[Foosinho]

Either. Don't feel compelled to get XP, tho as Eggy notes it does have some features that make it easier for people who aren't used to multi-user environments to adapt (fast switching, welcome screen, etc).

[Eggy]

Just stick with XP home edition. You'll be ok.