I'm debating on building a maxed-out, old Windows 98 machine for gaming. Please help spec it out.

[a3quit4s | 4,124]

3 minutes ago, Link said:

Idk, yeah it definitely has been quite a while. I used to do it twenty times a day though. Is that way too much time, or too little?

I made that comment and now im not sure because it would definitely take longer than a SSD but the drive sizes are much smaller so maybe you are right. 

[phart010 | 1,708]

3 hours ago, Link said:

When you finish installing everything, use Ghost to clone your image to another hard drive. Something goes sideways, clone it back. Boot, give it two commands, wait ten minutes. Reboot and you're back in business. 

Yea I agree, if there’s an easy way to clone an image of your system at major steps along the way and equally easy way to re-image the system if things go wrong, then I’d go with whatever Windows version gives you that nostalgia trip. 
 

I mean if your gonna put in all the effort to get the hardware right, might as well get the software to match it. While it would provide more convenience, XP is a year 200X’s OS. I was personally using XP up till around 2011-12-ish and only reluctantly upgraded to Windows 7 when Microsoft basically forced us to stop using it. 

If the intent is to relive the 90’s then maybe give your personal Windows flavor a try.

This thread just got me thinking back to the early 2000’s. I was a beast with troubleshooting and diagnosing pc problems. I can’t believe how many hours I put into that kind of stuff. Haha. I don’t think I’d have the patience to do even 1/10th of the things I used to do back then

[Brickman | 4,012]

3 hours ago, Link said:

When you finish installing everything, use Ghost to clone your image to another hard drive. Something goes sideways, clone it back. Boot, give it two commands, wait ten minutes. Reboot and you're back in business. 

Oh wow Ghost, that brings back memories haha.

I reckon you should maybe look at Windows ME as well. That wasn’t too bad and will help you avoid some of 98’s “features”.

If it was me I’d actually do what Phart said and run XP and use compatibility mode. I think there are some settings for XP that give the 98 feel from memory.

[Link | 2,726]

2 hours ago, Brickman said:

I reckon you should maybe look at Windows ME as well. That wasn’t too bad and will help you avoid some of 98’s “features”.

[Brickman | 4,012]

1 hour ago, Link said:

I’m in the minority then? Haha 

[RH | 4,965]

4 hours ago, Brickman said:

I’m in the minority then? Haha 

You must have had a machine that was built for them to test ME on. ME is considered the worth version of Windows after Vista.

That said, you are also international so, maybe, there’s a chance they ironed out a bunch of Win98 bugs for internationalizing their OS then… maybe.

[Tulpa | 3,534]

ME at least in the US was worse than 98 in terms of crashes. Which is saying a lot. As much as I rag on 98, you could get it somewhat stable if you're patient and know what you're doing, Especially 98SE. ME was a lost cause.

Vista was stable, but had tons of other issues. At least it looked pretty.

The other not so well received Windows release was Windows 8. Which isn't bad from a stability or technical standpoint, it was just a bad idea for Microsoft to ape their phone OS that nobody used.

Edited October 2, 2022 by Tulpa

[phart010 | 1,708]

2 hours ago, Tulpa said:

ME at least in the US was worse than 98 in terms of crashes. Which is saying a lot. As much as I rag on 98, you could get it somewhat stable if you're patient and know what you're doing, Especially 98SE. ME was a lost cause.

Vista was stable, but had tons of other issues. At least it looked pretty.

The other not so well received Windows release was Windows 8. Which isn't bad from a stability or technical standpoint, it was just a bad idea for Microsoft to ape their phone OS that nobody used.

I believe XP was just a consumer edition of Windows 2000. ME was built off the older Windows framework and they ditched it once they realized that they wanted to move forward with the new framework. So ME was abandoned and I don’t think in it’s short lifespan there was ever enough time devoted to optimizing it.

[Tulpa | 3,534]

Yeah, XP and 2000 were part of the NT business product line, and they probably should have adopted that framework sooner. NT was a pretty good OS for its time, despite a few shortcomings. Pretty much every Windows OS since XP has direct roots in NT.

ME was clearly a rush job to capitalize on Millennium Fever, and to have Microsoft put out something consumer oriented. But I don't know if they could ever optimize that bug-riddled mess.

 

[phart010 | 1,708]

13 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

ME was clearly a rush job to capitalize on Millennium Fever, and to have Microsoft put out something consumer oriented.

 

When is it ever NOT a rush job?

[Tulpa | 3,534]

 Vista took its sweet time coming out. Of course, it probably should have stayed in development given how much it sucked.

[Brickman | 4,012]

6 hours ago, RH said:

You must have had a machine that was built for them to test ME on. ME is considered the worth version of Windows after Vista.

That said, you are also international so, maybe, there’s a chance they ironed out a bunch of Win98 bugs for internationalizing their OS then… maybe.

Actually I was thinking of Windows 2000 now that I look into it more. I used it in one of my first jobs which now makes sense because it was more of a business OS apparently.