darrelljon

I am inclined to agree that your average Windows 98 user would use Linux if they knew the advantages. Linux has better CLI, better root user and better directory structure. I read somewhere (possibly on a OSNews comment) that many novice Windows users manage files by using File then Open. Its a shame those average 98 users can't afford broadband or a CD burner (I'd recommend buying distros). MSFN forums seem to have the most expert Windows users who may have niche requirements such as software that won't run satisfactorily under WINE.

ReactOS is a free open source operating system aiming for binary compatibility with Windows NT 5. Would it be desirable or feasible to fork it to resemble Windows 98 in speed, performance and compatibility more closely? This could be considered instead of trying to build an open-source Windows 98 clone from the ground up.

Mandrake, Red Hat and SuSE have traditionally been commercial systems but a few old isos are at LinuxQuestions.org and old boxed versions are still available at Amazon. As Ubuntu is traditionally free, old versions like Ubuntu 6 are still available from the Ubuntu website and mirrors. As for Linux being "always move on", constant upgrade, I think this doesn't always affect system requirements and in any case applies more to Microsoft Windows. Red Hat didn't claim the Linux desktop is too hard to use, only that it is too hard for them to make a profit from.

Puppy: Latest stable version: 3.01 Latest development version: 4.00; updates about twice a year Philosophy: Old hardware/speed and responsiveness with ease of use Pros: Fast Easy to use Good old hardware support Good community Cons: Single user runs as root PCLinuxOS: Latest stable version: 2008 Latest development version: ?; updates about ? a year Philosophy: Ease of use Pros: Modern up-to-date software Easy to use Good hardware support Good community Cons: RPM not quite as widespread as DEB Knoppix: Latest stable version: 5.1.1 Latest development version: ?; updates about biannually Philosophy: KDE focused Live CD Pros: Range of included applications Fairly easy to use Good hardware support Cons: Hard disk installation isn't recommended Linux Mint: Latest stable version: 4.0 Latest development version: 5.0?; updates about twice a year Philosophy: from freedom came elegance Pros: Very easy to use Great hardware support Cons: Proprietary software MEPIS: Latest stable version: 7? Latest development version: 8?; updates about once a year Philosophy: Ease of use Pros: Good software Easy to use Good hardware support Cons: Commercialism Sidux: Latest stable version: 2008 Latest development version: ?; updates about biannually Philosophy: Making Debian easy Pros: Software Compatibility Easy to use Good hardware support Cons: Support KanotiX: Latest stable version: 2007 Latest development version: ?; updates about biannually Philosophy: Installable Knoppix Pros: Easy to use Good hardware support Software range Cons: Support DSL: Latest stable version: 4.3 Latest development version: ?; updates about once a year Philosophy: Old hardware/speed and responsiveness Pros: Fast Small size Good old hardware support Cons: Support Debian Live: Latest stable version: 4 Latest development version: 5?; updates about biannually Philosophy: Stability Pros: Stable Wide range of software Cons: Slow development

LinuxAppFinder OSAlt OSLiving TheOpenDisc

Some interesting answers. I understand Visual Basic runs in WINE but don't know how much of a performance hit it takes. I remember it being bundled with a Puppy derivative called RudyPuppy (might be worth a look). I don't know about Linux being a collection of programs rather than an operating system. I stand corrected about FAT32 limitations - it seems this only applies in certain systems. I think I heard something about FAT32 fragmenting beyond certain capacities, is this an issue? I can appreciate complaints about performance since Puppy 2.17, but why not use earlier Puppies? They're still mostly newer than 9x with more features. As for the necessity of commands and manuals, I'm not sure this applies much more with modern GUI Linuxes (particularly Puppy's level of ease of use) than all the modding which seems to be done to Win 9x here. In fact a new derivative has recently been released called Pupeez designed specifically for ease-of-use.

First off, I'd like to say I've used Windows since 3.11 (in school) and 95 at home. I appreciate the speed and general responsiveness of Windows 9x as they are features I value in operating systems. Installed XP a few times, added lots of software and reinstalled XP again a few times. I discovered Linux a few years ago and Puppy Linux is one of my favourite distros. Its system requirements are roughly equivalent to Win Me, Barebones Puppy versions might even compete with Win 98. In terms of features, it really outshines 9x. For modern machines, 9x needs tweaking to handle RAM between 512Mb to 1.5Gb and above, but Puppy has no such upper limit (except 64Gb on 32-bit CPU). Mainly because of FAT32, 9x lacks HDD stability between 64Gb and stops at 137Gb, again Puppy has no upper limit. Puppy can run live (think BartPE) which is both wonderfully convenient and beefs up already good security against malware. These same advantages of Linux apply to Darn Small Linux (profanity filtered out the proper name) and SliTaz. Puppy Linux wifi support ain't bad either. In terms of applications out of the box, Puppy can open and create OOXML, ODF, DOC, XLS, PDF, ZIP, RAR and 7Z - whereas 9x can only open DOC (Wordpad) and ZIP (in Me). A tabbed web browser, photo manager, torrent client, instant messenger, optical disc authoring/burning software are all applications that Puppy includes and 9x doesn't. I see posts on here calling for Win 9x to be open-sourced, and even to build a totally open source Win9x. Well, Puppy Linux is open source and completely free now, so why struggle developing to sustain 9x? Or why struggle as a user to keep applying fixes to 9x?