Atmosphere XG

As far as I remember, Creative Audigy SE will not install without installing the Creative Audigy drivers. That is of course, if you are using the old 96 kHz/24-bit version. Even with the newer versions of Windows (2000, XP, Vista, & 7), the Creative Audigy SE soundcard will not install without the Creative Audigy drivers.

The Link works with Opera version 10. That is the highest Opera browser that I have on my PC

If you’ve read the news from various websites including the ones listed above, the majority of the responses have been negative to wards Facebook buying Opera. Since I never had nor plan to create an account with Facebook, I too am watching what will be the outcome on this acquisition. Hopefully my version of Opera is too old for it to be affected on what Facebook plans to do if they leave the bargaining table with Opera’s Portfolio. Only time will tell. This reply was made using Opera 8.5

Hi. If your question is based on speed, Windows 2000 is faster than Windows 98 FE, which is faster than Windows 98 SE. That is based on my analysis after years of using Windows 98 FE then moving to Windows 98 SE for a short time period then upgrading to Windows 2000. My experience with Windows 98 SE is it (Windows 98 SE) offered a lag time in terms of response compared to Windows 98 FE & Windows 2000. Of course, some may beg to differ. It really depends on what you are using your operating system as.

Oh no! I'm sworn not to touch Opera ever again and I mean it. I did try a few versions over the years and could never find the experience I needed. It's been quite a pain to switch from SlimBrowser to K-Meleon, then briefly to Firefox and finally to SeaMonkey and I've had just about enough of switching browsers just because of a bunch of [...] that changed standards so that more and more advertising could be shoved down our throats. Fair enough! I am very content using Opera and, rarely use anything else for the past 7 years. Previous to Opera I was a Netscape 7 user. I would imagine our surfing habits differ greatly why our primary choice of browser are not the same.

I suggested Pale moon in my earlier posts however it appears no one on Windows 98 has given it a try. Pale moon is a scaled-down version Firefox (in appearance) that performs well on Windows 2000. Like all Mozilla platforms, Pale moon takes some time to load the first time, which, speeds up the second, third, and fourth time around. If you like the simplicity of the older Firefox ( 2.0 – 1.5 ) you will find Pale moon offering similar results.

With the amount of animation you do not want, you should try an old version of Opera. I've used Opera 8.5 for the exact reasons you listed above.

I never stopped using Opera 8.54 when it was no longer the latest browser. Since I only frequent message boards that use vbulletin in addition to visiting sites that do not rely heavily on Java script in order to work, there was no reason to make the newer versions of Opera my primary browser. Palemoon is there if I need to view a technical video on youtube or view a flash oriented website. I generally choose between Paelemoon and an Alpha version of Opera 10. It is amazing how computing has moved from a learning experience to a flashy visual (eye candy) experience. If you had the opportunity to try Windows Developer, it is plain to see computing is not aimed for the computer geek anymore. I guess the warning was there when Microsoft discontinued Encarta.

I stopped using Java script, Java, in addition to Flash when I used Windows 98 from 2000 - 2007. I used Windows 98 from 1998 - 2007. At the time, Opera 8.5 was the best alternative to Internet Explorer 6 and Firefox. Opera has changed so much after 9.1 it is more like Firefox these days which, I can't stand. I’m sure older Opera users will understand what I mean. K-meleon may be the only thing left. You can try Palemoon. It is a Firefox alternative, which I use on Windows 2000. It may just work on Windows 98. http://www.palemoon.org/ It may be best to use a current operating system for the Internet and Windows 98 for whatever needs you choose to use it. The majority of the hardcore Windows 98 members that were capable of creating remedies to dilemmas are not around anymore.

You are mistaken for the example is based on using the same onboard sound card embedded on the on the same motherboard. Since there is a difference in performance by stepping up the operating system to use the latest drivers, it answers the question Offler posed. In regards to the M-Audio 2496 it is limited 96 kHz, 24-Bit since it was designed to perform on Windows 95. It is not tied in to direct X like sound blaster cards (which is what soundmax is) or AC 97. I would know for I own M-Audio 2496, AC 97, & Soundblaster cards. So you won't gain anything stepping up your operating system if you use the M-Audio 2496. I could have easily used RME but that would not answer Offler’s question since he/she based it on soundblaster cards on different operating systems. If you were referring to better in terms of ASIO drivers, yes, the 2496 would be better under those conditions. But, since the 2496 is 16-year old sound card, it is outdated in the professional audio market in this day in age and, considered a budget soundcard for those who are just getting in to the world of professional audio.

Here are the audio results using a dual-boot system (Windows 2000/Windows 7). This is what to expect using Windows 98 Windows 2000 This is what to expect using Windows XP Service Pack II and above. Windows 7 If you are looking for the best audio quality, you will need to put down Windows 98. I held on it for as long as I could for audio. The newer operating systems exceed Windows 98 using the same on board hardware in terms of audio. Higher sample rates, higher bit rates, in addition to, a lower noise floor was the reason I had to retire Windows 98 for professional audio. If I remember correctly Windows 98 does not offer 32 bit for Audio purposes like Windows 2000.