Windows 98/ME support for hardware and software

[Link21]

Do you think Windows 98/ME should still be supported by hardware and software manufacturers? Why or why not. Share your views on this topic.

My opinion is that Windows 98/ME are piece of junk operating systems and should no longer be supported by hardware and software manufacturers. It ought to be a Windows 2000/XP/2003 only world by now when it comes to Microsoft operating systems. I think support for those piece of junk operating systems in Windows 98/ME should have been ditched 2 years ago!!! I CANNOT believe thatr to this day most high end games support those piece of junk operating systems!! Maybe Windows 98/ME should still be supported, but it should be minimal at the maximum, and IN NO WAY should modern games and somewhat complex applications support those TURD operating systems.

The whole IT industry would get a boost by dumping those operating systems for the most part!! Applications would probably be easier to write and would have better perofrmance if they were written to run only on an NT based platform when it comes to Microsoft OSes. Of course other non-Microsoft operating system should be allowed and deserve just as muhc of a chance. It's just that Windows 98/ME are falt out pieces ok junk and they should be wiped out all together, or at least for the most part!!

What do you think?

[Bâshrat the Sneaky]

I don't use any of them, but IMO drivers should be 'universal', i.e. useable on all Windows versions. Even better would be if they would also be completely cross-platform: also useable on Linux, Mac OS X and others. But then I'm living in a dreamworld.

Well, let's face facts: drivers are NOT universal and ... time is money

[Link21]

I don't use any of them, but IMO drivers should be 'universal', i.e. useable on all Windows versions. Even better would be if they would also be completely cross-platform: also useable on Linux, Mac OS X and others. But then I'm living in a dreamworld.

Well, let's face facts: drivers are NOT universal and ... time is money

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't use any of what? It would be nice if drivers were universal, but it would probably take developers too much time to have to write drivers for all opertaing systems because all operating systems are so much different. I think hardware and software developers should start looking to make things compatible with Linux, rather than continuing to support such POS operating systems like WIN98/ME!! WIN 98/ME are dead utter horse manure and should be wiped out all together!!

[azagahl]

I prefer 98 SE to XP. Admittedly I havent' used ME or 2000 much.

So I'm fine with the manufacturers dropping support for XP.

[indianarchie]

I voted yes. there are a fair number of people still using 98/me.

[Link21]

I voted yes. there are a fair number of people still using 98/me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But I bet most of the people using Windows 98/ME have computers with a CPU of 600MHz or slower. Do you think high end software and games that require a 1GHz or faster CPU and 256MB or more RAM should still support Windows 98/ME? I don't think so!!!

Maybe they should still be supported, but the support for them should be minimal at most. Like only simple programs should still support them. But in no way should even somewhat complex programs support them that are written today!

[Subcodec]

I'm sure many other software/hardware developers ask themselves questions like these everyday when developing/releasing new applications/drivers. Like someone previously mentioned, much is due to the large portion of users that still use Win9x, even in businesses. This doesn't necessarily mean that they have slow systems either. On my system (3200+, 1 gig RAM, etc), Win9x can run very fast and stable without all the extra bloat that XP has with it. Yes, it may not be quite as stable and not have the support and features that XP does, but it still can serve a very useful purpose.

Also, keep in mind that many applications and some drivers are extensions to previously released products that already supported Win9x. So when they are updated/released, it just makes sense to keep that compatibility. There are also enough similarities between XP and 9x where many applications don't require much extra time to add compatibility between them and it's worth that little extra time with the already large install base for 9x.

From your posts, I would say you definately do not like the 9x series, but just try to remember that many users used these OS's exclusively for over 5 years. If they were that bad, Microsoft would definately not have the market like they do now. Windows XP was a huge improvement, but it has its faults too. Until we get to the day where the 9x series is totally outdated, will we not see to much available for it anymore. By that time though, someone will probably be writing a post very similar to this asking the same thing but with XP.

[Link21]

I'm sure many other software/hardware developers ask themselves questions like these everyday when developing/releasing new applications/drivers. Like someone previously mentioned, much is due to the large portion of users that still use Win9x, even in businesses. This doesn't necessarily mean that they have slow systems either. On my system (3200+, 1 gig RAM, etc), Win9x can run very fast and stable without all the extra bloat that XP has with it. Yes, it may not be quite as stable and not have the support and features that XP does, but it still can serve a very useful purpose.

Also, keep in mind that many applications and some drivers are extensions to previously released products that already supported Win9x. So when they are updated/released, it just makes sense to keep that compatibility. There are also enough similarities between XP and 9x where many applications don't require much extra time to add compatibility between them and it's worth that little extra time with the already large install base for 9x.

From your posts, I would say you definately do not like the 9x series, but just try to remember that many users used these OS's exclusively for over 5 years. If they were that bad, Microsoft would definately not have the market like they do now. Windows XP was a huge improvement, but it has its faults too. Until we get to the day where the 9x series is totally outdated, will we not see to much available for it anymore. By that time though, someone will probably be writing a post very similar to this asking the same thing but with XP.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I won't be writing a post like this in the futre about XP. WIndows 9X has always been a complete and utter POS, even in it's heyday. Maybe it was good enough to do what most people needed to do, but it was a completely unnacceptable OS compared to what we could of and should have had had it not been for Microsoft's anti-competitive practices that gained their monopoly. Microsoft is NOT ahead because there products were superior, they are ahead because they had a superior marketting strategy. Windows 9X arte based on old DOS code and aren't even true 32-bit operating systems. Had Microsoft not unfairly dominated the OS desktop market, we would have been running real 32-bit operating systems for the last 10 years on the home PC. Only because of MS, did we have to deal with such POS opertaing systems that constantly crashed and forced you to reboot your PC 10 times a day. Windows NT was a fine OS back in it's day and still is today in many ways. Windows 9X is NOT!!

I have a hard time believing your running Windows 9X stable on an Athlon 3200 with 1GB of RAM. Windows 9X can't even address more than 512MB of RAM. So how in the heck are you running Windows 9X on a system with more than 512MB of RAM. And Windows XP may be bloated, but use Windows 2000 if you hate XP and think it's bloated. Windows 2000 is still a qaulity OS as it is based on real 32-bit code, and not some piece of junk emulating 32-bit GUI on top of a DOS shell. That is why I think Windows 9X and 2K/XP are completely different. Developers shouldn't have to spend the extra effort ensuring compatibility with both OSes.

[MDGx]

Actually Windows 98SE + ME support:

* up to 4 GB RAM with the "right" patches, all found in MSFN forums.

BTW: which MSFN forum do u think is the most active? Hint: Unofficial 98SE Service Pack

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showforum=91

* HDs > 137 GB up to 2 TB.

* Intel P4 > 3 GHz + newest AMD [with VIA 4-in-1, of course] CPUs.

* WiFi, FireWire, USB 2.0, UPnP.

* newest NVidia [not SLI, at least not yet ] + ATI cards.

* Doom 3 was "rigged" before the day it was officially released to allow installing on 98SE + ME, and guess what... works just fine.

* Some of the newest system files [not unicode, of course] released with Win2003 SP1 RTM + WinXP SP2 work perfect with 98SE + ME.

Should I go on?

* I've created a script to install WMP10 on 98SE [also on MSFN]:

http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=35997...ndpost&p=256708

and works flawlessly.

* WMP9 from XP SP2 [and other XP SP2 system files] can also be installed on 98SE successfully:

http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#KRM9S

* USB 2.0 external devices native drivers for 98SE MSFN forum:

http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=43605

* 98SE Service Pack 2.0 allows > 1 GB RAM:

http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=43080

* Updated Intel microcode recognizes newest P4 CPUs:

http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=44388

Besides, we can't forget the millions who still use these OSes on a daily basis, no matter how old/new their computers are.

Different people use Win9x OSes for different purposes: business, internet, gaming, tweaking, fun etc.

Example: a good friend of mine is a gamer. I just upgraded his PC to a 3.4 GHz P4 CPU + ASUS SATA RAID mobo, 2 GB DDR400 RAM, GeForce 6800 Fx 256MB DDR2 AGPx8, Seagate 120 GB ATA133, FireWire, WiFi, USB 2.0, NIC, AC3 [Dolby Digital] sound, etc, you name it, the works. And can you guess which OS is he using?

Windows 98 SE, with all the "right" patches. I asked him about installing XP Pro on his PC. He said no way!

He now plays Doom 3, SimCity 4, Call Of Duty + expansion, NOLF2, and many other games I don't even remember.

And all the 98SE/ME PCs I've maintained/upgraded/repaired recognize > 1 GB RAM and HDs > 137 GB.

I'm not bashing XP or Longhorn, I am perfectly aware of the superiority of the WinNT5 kernel, NTFS5 + SMP [more than 1 CPU], I'm just saying we shouldn't bash others only because they still use 98SE or ME.

I'm sure they have their own good reasons for doing so: can't afford new CPUs or WinXP, hate XP mainly because activation, hate change, don't care, etc.

But I'm also aware of the advantages of running Linux kernel 2.4.6 on a Hyperthreading P4 dual core.

And I run all these OSes [fully patched] on a 3.4 GHz P4 + 2 GB RAM + two 120 GB RAID HDs, Audigy2, GeForce 6800 computer:

- 98SE with SP 2.0 + 98SE2ME + USB 2.0 + P4 microcode

- ME

- 2000 Server SP4

- XP Pro SP2

- 2003 Server SP1

- Knoppix Linux 3.4b

- Mandrake [sorry... Mandriva ] Enterprise Linux 9.3

- MS-DOS 6.22

- MS Windows for WorkGroups 3.11 [those were the best days... LOL]

- BeOS 5.0 Personal Edition

Last year finally deleted Windows 95C OSR 2.5.

To each his own.

[Link21]

Actually, I think the nlite forum is the most active out of all the MSFN forums!! Nlite is a great program, and yet it only supports Windows 2000/XP2003. What do you think that says.

[Subcodec]

Of course Nlite only supports XP/2003. It is to help build an unattended installation. Win9x never had that kind of capability built into it because it was never intended for larger businesses that would want to do installations over a network or over many computers where XP/2003 would. The best way to patch 9x is with one of the "service packs" and to remove parts of 9x, there are a few applications that do a great job with that.

Again, I do understand your opinion that 9x is quickly getting outdated, but like it has been mentioned a couple times, 9x is still installed on many computers that are being used everyday. So unless you would like to come up with a way to fund the upgrade to all them computers to XP (and possibly the hardware to handle XP), companies have a very good reason to provide backwards compatibility. It only makes business sense to do so.

There isn't many, but there are just a few programs and hardware out there that have no support for 9x. I'm sure in the next 2-3 years, that number will grow significantly. For now, the average user can easily use a simple 9x machine to surf the internet, check their email, and play just about any game off the shelf from your local Wal-Mart.

Ya know, the more I think about it, I don't understand why someone would argue over this. This compatibility isn't making your software and hardware any more expensive than it already is. Nor is it making your system unstable. So how exactly does this directly affect you?

[Link21]

Of course Nlite only supports XP/2003. It is to help build an unattended installation. Win9x never had that kind of capability built into it because it was never intended for larger businesses that would want to do installations over a network or over many computers where XP/2003 would. The best way to patch 9x is with one of the "service packs" and to remove parts of 9x, there are a few applications that do a great job with that.

Again, I do understand your opinion that 9x is quickly getting outdated, but like it has been mentioned a couple times, 9x is still installed on many computers that are being used everyday. So unless you would like to come up with a way to fund the upgrade to all them computers to XP (and possibly the hardware to handle XP), companies have a very good reason to provide backwards compatibility. It only makes business sense to do so.

There isn't many, but there are just a few programs and hardware out there that have no support for 9x. I'm sure in the next 2-3 years, that number will grow significantly. For now, the average user can easily use a simple 9x machine to surf the internet, check their email, and play just about any game off the shelf from your local Wal-Mart.

Ya know, the more I think about it, I don't understand why someone would argue over this. This compatibility isn't making your software and hardware any more expensive than it already is. Nor is it making your system unstable. So how exactly does this directly affect you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, aren't Windows 2000/XP completely different internally than Windows 98/ME. If that were the case, it would seem programs would probably run better if they were written for 2K/XP only. And they would be more stable. That is why I argue over this.

Again, I know there are a lot of machines out there that use Windows 98/ME, but they are probably older machines. So therefore, high end games and applications should NBOT support those POS operating systems!! Only programs that aren't even somewhat resource intensive or complex should support Windows 98/ME!!

[Jeremy]

I think Windows 98/ME should be put into the ground. Technology moves so fast and for people to be using Win98 in the year 2005 = 7 years old OS. ME is the crappiest OS ever made. It was basically an incomplete state of XP driven onto the market due to high consumer complaints so M$ had to give in whether or not their OS was ready.

Anyway, I hate XP only because of all the bloat on it. They made it an automated installer and put so much garbage on it so everyone who would ever use a PC for any reason would find a way for it in XP. But eventually, people become more advanced with PCs and want to loosen things up. And that's why if I am ever to install XP on my PC or anyone else's... I'm using nLite. Someday nLite will go massively public and many people will know about it. It'll slim down Longhorn once that bloat comes out too. XP is actually a great OS once you trim the fat off it.

[Link21]

I think Windows 98/ME should be put into the ground. Technology moves so fast and for people to be using Win98 in the year 2005 = 7 years old OS. ME is the crappiest OS ever made. It was basically an incomplete state of XP driven onto the market due to high consumer complaints so M$ had to give in whether or not their OS was ready.

Anyway, I hate XP only because of all the bloat on it. They made it an automated installer and put so much garbage on it so everyone who would ever use a PC for any reason would find a way for it in XP. But eventually, people become more advanced with PCs and want to loosen things up. And that's why if I am ever to install XP on my PC or anyone else's... I'm using nLite. Someday nLite will go massively public and many people will know about it. It'll slim down Longhorn once that bloat comes out too. XP is actually a great OS once you trim the fat off it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very well said!

[Link21]

BUMP