I've been thinking of upgrading. Unfortunately, I'll probably need a new MB, CPU, and RAM. What a pain...

Don't think of it as a pain. Think of it as an excuse.

It's the research and installation that's the pain. The actual getting and using wil be great.

While I'm still in househunting mode, I probably shouldn't have an excuse.

(Even so, I smell a "how about this config" thread or two coming up in Technology.)

Looking on GameStop's site, it lists one more requirement:

* Operating System: Microsoft Windows 2000/XP

CRUD. That's one more "upgrade" necessary, as I'm clinging onto 98SE for dear life.

If you've got enough cpu muscle to handle it, 2000 and XP are actually very nice. They are much more stable than the 95 derivatives. Also, XP is much more game friendly than the previous NTs.

My problem with that, and the reason that I have always been resistant to Windows upgrades, is this:

* Windows apps (other than Doom 3) that I want to run that will run under 2000/XP: all of them.
* Windows apps (other than Doom 3) that I want to run that will run under 98SE: all of them.

So I'm paying $100 to... er... run exactly the same apps that I run now, with the exception of one game. Doom 3 may be spectacular, but paying $100 for XP on top of its $54.99 list isn't on my to-do list.

I clung to WfWG 3.11 on my old PC (P-133) until absolutely everything required 9x, and still have 95 on it to this day. When I bought my current system, I specifically got 98SE instead of Me or 2000, and haven't regretted it.

Ain't it great how Microsoft takes it upon themselves to chew up any spare CPU cycles you might have? They seem to have the mentality that as CPUs grow faster, their kernel must grow proportionally. As a result, compuers never really seems to run any faster unless you run an old version of Windows on new hardware.

Worse than that, my cool joystick isn't supported under XP, as I discovered when I made the switch. :(

But, on the whole, I'm happier with XP. I don't play many joystick games.

and yet OSX manages to get faster and add new features with every major release.

Quoted for truth.

When the same program that runs fine with 128MB under 9x requires 256MB under XP to avoid chugging heavily, something's seriously wrong here.

My father-in-law has an entry-level Dell that's somewhere in the 2000s -- I think it's a 2.5Ghz P4, running XP. Since we both have 128MB of RAM, even though his is DDR and mine is PC133, my system runs almost _everything_ more efficiently than his. I'm in the process of ordering a new 256MB stick for him, which should be thoroughly unnecessary but isn't.

Don't denigrate 98's ability to fill all available cycles as well. Heck, I bet Workgroups could operate slowly on a P4, given half a chance.

I'm not saying that there's ever been an efficient version of Windows -- far from it. It would be nice to see new versions of Windows be at least _more_ efficient than those before them, however. Maybe Me->XP, but that's because Me was so horrible to begin with.

Well, I have no doubt that problems could arise in those OSes causeing them to consume excess cycles (beyond their built-in excess), but what I am talking about is "normal use." Windows XP's kernel is so crammed with excess, bloated crap that it almost oozes out of the seams on the computer case. In it's day 98 was as bad as XP in terms of what percentage of CPU cycles it ate, but my point is that the percentage should decrease, not stay flat. It's the OS.... it's supposed to just get out of the way and let me use my system.

Apple's OSX is also bloated, but at least they're moving the right direction.

I wouldn't upgrade just for a game either.

I thought there was something you didn't like about 2000 or XP. I know they require more muscle than 98. I'm willing to pay the price for the improved stability.