SPX

I personally use a Roku to watch Netflix. But if I'm having problems with it, I stream it to my TV from my computer. I also have a friend who watches a lot of Netflix on her laptop.

I'm with you on Facebook and Twitter. And I don't play a lot of real serious computer games, but I do enjoy a bit of casual gaming. I watch a lot of Netflix, though. I also enjoy a good game of pool.

I enjoy computers. They're interesting. I even have made a living repairing them. But I long ago gave up on understanding everything about them or really keeping up on every latest development. I also have other interests that are important and that take up a lot of time. I understand that perfectly. I guess what I was trying to figure out is if there's a way for people who DO want to watch Netflix to do it on Win 98. Well my interest in archaic PC technology mostly comes from nostalgia, as I previously said. I do think it's interesting from that perspective. It's the same reason I loaded 3.11 on a machine (for about a day) even though XP was Microsoft's current OS. And the same reason I bought a 13 year old Toshiba Libretto a few years ago and spent an entire day using a combination of floppy disks and an IR connection to upgrade it from Win 95 to 98. Tablet's are interesting, and I wouldn't mind having one, but not an iPad. I don't do Apple products. Right now I have a desktop, which I built and which I use as my primary machine to get "real" work done (video editing, for instance), and I have my new Win 8 laptop for sitting on the couch or going to the coffee shop. Also, I don't know about any alarmist posts. Seems like there's a lot of sensitivity around here. Do people come in here and make fun of y'all a lot or something? I don't get it.

THAT, sir, is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, now is it? You're a strange person, man. Why? Other people seem to want to talk to me. So you want to deny them that? This is how Internet forums work: A person posts a topic. If people want to respond, they will. If they don't, they won't. You're acting like you--and everyone else who has responded--is somehow being forced to do so. If you don't want to be a part of this conversation, then it's simple: Don't.

I agree with this: "As long as it gets the job done, why replace it." I think if your current computer actually does everything you want it to do then there's really no need to replace it just for the the sake of doing so. I guess what I'm trying to gather from people is whether or not it actually does everything you want it to do. You said, "If it didn't have the limitations though, I'd use Windows 98 on every computer I own." Does that mean you have other computers running other OSes? As for Windows 7, while I've typically sung its praises, I might actually have to agree with you. I have a Win 7 machine and it's been having a lot of issues lately, especially browser-related. While the jury is still out, to be honest, I am starting to come around on Windows 8. I just recently picked up an 8.1 machine. I didn't like it at first, but now that I'm really starting get the hang of it I actually don't think it's too bad and it's probably an improvement over Vista/7 (but probably not XP). is ludicrous. How many people can afford to purchase a new computer? Every single one of mine are castaways that I DIY-upgrade, except for one that's a Purchased ($150) Refurbish that I had to save up to get.This is incorrect, AFAICT. You've at every post argued against its use.SO glad you can afford to buy a new PC and Upgrade to a newer OS, however I see no point in castigating others for their use of said OS on older (and newer) hardware. I say BROWSE around MSFN and see the points that have already been made. But we repeat ourselves at your instigation. @AnyMod - is there a real point to this Topic (been discussed many times over)? Indeed, XP at EOS "The sky is falling! Upgrade!" I don't know your situation. Maybe you're on disability or on a fixed income or something along those lines. But you could build a brand new, well-powered desktop for $500 or less. If that was my price point, and I only upgraded once every five years, I would only have to save up $100 a year to build this new computer. You're telling me you can't put away $100 a year? As for "castigating" anybody, I think you're the only one who feels castigated. Does anyone else feel castigated? Speak up if you do. I suspect not. Only in Inconceivable's world is asking well-meaning questions "arguing" and "castigating." The truth is that I've been considering putting together a Win 98 machine, more for the nostalgia than anything else, but it has raised the question in my mind: Could I use it as my one and only computer? So I ask questions: I'm a film student and do a lot of HD video editing. Is there any way to do this with a Win 98 machine? I like to view Flash content. Can I do this? I like to watch Netflix. Can I do this? I have a Blu-Ray collection. Could I watch them on a 98 machine? etc. . . These are called questions. I'm asking other people why they use 9x a. because I'm curious and b. because I'd like to know if their uses for their computer are similar to my own. Relax.

You're right, it will apply, but I really don't see a problem with buying a new computer every five years or so, which is my usual cycle. When you say you "do quite a bit" with 9x, can you give some examples? What advanced tasks do you perform that generally are regarded as things that can only be done on newer computers running newer OSes? You use a streaming media player that doesn't use Flash to play Flash vids? I guess I don't understand how that works. Are 9x enthusiasts hard at work trying to figure out how to make newer versions of Flash work with their systems? Because soon enough no Flash content at all is going to work. What then? As for Silverlight, a lot of people like watching Netflix on their laptops so I'm not sure what you mean by "not much point" to it. Certain friends of mine consider this to be an essential function of their computers. Not sure what you mean by "emulation isn't serious." When YouTube stops supporting Flash 10, what then? I'm not sure what you mean by Netflix "is an unpleasant online technology, which in principle locks the user into an upgrade cycle, and into sort of dependancy from it. Neither yor computer, nor any single operating system will permanently work with that evil system." You lost me there. When you say Win 9x can play full quality movies, you mean HD files? If so, from what you say, it sounds like I'd need to rip the files from my existing Blu-Rays on another system rather than playing them directly on a 9x machine. I regard this as a very time-sensitive issue. The reasoning--or at least exact reasons--may be different now for users here than they were five years ago or two years ago or even six months ago. It could be that 9x users who were perfectly comfortable using the OS this time last year are now finally thinking about moving on to a newer OS. I'm sure that this thread itself will be mostly irrelevant five years from now because times will have changed even more and people's reasons for using 9x (if indeed anyone here still will be) and their thoughts on the subject will have evolved accordingly. I'm trying to generate a present-day dialogue and be part of that dialogue.

Let me put it another way. I use my computer a lot, for the few/minimal needs I require of it.How is Windows ME really that bad? I can burn audio CD's. I can manage and organize my photography. I can use it as a glorified typewriter. And I can do basic web surfing with it. If I was a windows XP owner, I would be sort of irritated right now. Basically, the only reason people are being forced to upgrade is because there are criminals out there. Not because the computer itself is worthless. But simply because of criminal activity. Sole reason for throwing away a perfectly good computer. I've decided not to worry about what criminal may or may not do to my computer. Instead, I'm going to enjoy it and not worry about it. Sure, I'll do what I can to prevent that... but throwing it away and spending money for something else isn't at the top of my list of options. What I'm starting to gather, I think, is that if you want to do basic things on your computer--the same things you were doing 15 years ago--then a Win 9x machine (with a few tweaks and mods) can be used to suit your needs. But if you want to do things that require modern computing resources--watching Netflix, high-end video editing (or related video tasks like post-processing), watching Blu-Rays, playing the newest games, etc--then you really need a newer computer running a new OS. As for XP, I don't the whole thing about Microsoft cutting off support for it. Who cares? When I had an XP machine and I turned off Windows updates and didn't even run an anti-virus/Internet security suite and there were no problems. No one is being forced to upgrade and just because Microsoft is no longer supporting the OS doesn't mean XP computers are going to stop working. As long as you're careful, you should be fine.

It's alright, no problems. Opera 12.02 and latest Flash if you have KernelEx + KexStubs installed. So you could easily play YouTube vids or Flash games? What about Java issues? Any way to play Netflix? I'm assuming not because no Silverlight.

Thanks, I'll definitely look through that. 1. Performance just because it doesn't require much in terms of system resources? 2. What kind of hardware projects require Win 9x? 3. How is it more customizable/tweakable than modern versions of Windows? 4. Doesn't spy on how you? 5. What do you mean it's impossible to take down remotely? I grew up on it. I like it. Still works. No hidden spyware. Greater control thanks to DOS. Me is similar to XP. Faster than nt. Less dependence on M$. Less vulnerabilities. Light on resources. Me is my primary along Vista How is ME similar to XP? I certainly never got that vibe from it. It just seemed like 98 with some 2000-inspired icons and a lot of bugginess. What do you use more, ME or Vista? Why run both? And here's another question: What's it like to get on the Internet with a 9x system? Are there even any modern browsers that still support it? What about Flash? So essentially you just don't use your computer for much and it suits your needs?

Why are you guys still running 9x? I mean, hey, I grew up on it (as well as a bit of 3.11), and there are times when I feel inspired to build an old 98 system just for the nostalgia factor, but reading through these topics it looks like there are still some guys here who use 9x as their primary OS and who are seriously developing new stuff for it. So the question is why? What drives you? What's the point? And how many of you really do use a 9x OS on your primary machine?

I definitely agree with this. Like you say, most of the advances have been made on the Internet. Games also look better, though the state of PC gaming right now is kind of sad. Most of the big multi-platform console games used to come to the PC too, but alas, this is no longer the case. But beyond that, not much is different. Office 97 really did more than enough to satisfy the vast majority of user's needs in terms of office apps. XP, in my opinion, was a big step up in terms of stability (at least out of the box), but Vista and 7 don't really do anything special for me that XP didn't do.

That makes sense. I think it could be broken down into stages, with each stage listing those things that are essential, and those which are optional, with a description of what they all do. Obviously it would take some patient and kind soul to take the time to do it, but it doesn't seem like an insurmountable obstacle. You see, that seems like an issue to me, because a P4-class mobo means you have to run a P4-class processor, and that just seems insufficient to me for CPU-intensive tasks like video editing. In any case, my interest in 98 is primarily aimed at continuing to nostalgically play with older computers and to see what I can make them do. When I bought my Libretto a few years ago, I had to go through quite a bit to get it up and running. There was no CD drive, so I had to create a floppy disk set of Win 95 installation disks (in fact, I had to go buy some floppies just to do it . . . don't think I had touched a floppy disk in 5 years or more), load Win 95 via floppy, then use an infrared connection between the Libretto and another laptop I had to transfer the Win 98 installation files for the upgrade. (This was the ONLY time I have ever used an infrared connection and just got lucky that I happened to have a laptop that had the capability.) From there, I installed 98 and was able to get a wi-fi adapter to work (not really reliably, though), and then downloaded a virtual disc app so that I could load an ISO and play . . . The 7th Guest! (Remember that game?) That was a lot of fun. There was no real purpose behind it other than just to do it, but I got a kick out of going through the process. It really is a shame that soon after I killed the Libretto with a soldering iron when I tried to overclock the CPU from 166 MHz to 233. That's interesting. So how does that happen? I mean, are people hacking the Yahoo and Google servers and uploading little files to infect people's machines?

That's troubling, but I don't doubt it. I remember the first time Malwarebytes found something on my dad's PC that McAfee didn't find. It was like some paradigm shift for him. He just couldn't imagine how a free program could be better at detection than something he pays for. As for legitimate sites being compromised, I've heard about such cases, but life is not without risk. I've never picked up a virus by going to Google or reading the news on MSN, so I just don't worry about it. One thing I wonder is where everyone finds the TIME. I assume most people here have jobs, maybe families or at least a significant other, interests beyond computing, and--I would assume--computing projects that are more contemporary in their focus. So how does anyone find the time to develop stuff for Windows 98?

I think that what should be done is a sticky should be made for people who have just obtained/setup a 9x machine that lays out step-by-step exactly what they would need to do to take the machine from a factory installation to stable, secure and robust with the various patches and applications that have been developed, and this guide should be updated as new patches and applications are released. Because honestly, if I were to put 98 on my machine right now, I wouldn't have a clue about where to start with all these third-party mods that have been released. I don't know what all is out there or what it does or where to get it, and going through this forum thread by thread is impractical. I am curious, though. The issue I have with this argument is that most of those problems don't come from Windows, but rather from all the crap that manufacturers load up onto the system before they ship it out the door. I installed a fresh copy of Win 7 on my machine and did very little in the way of tweaking and it runs quite well. If people leave all the factory apps on their system, and run Norton, and download everything that tries to download onto their machine, and accept every toolbar that wants to attach itself to IE, then yes it will run terribly. But I don't blame that on Windows. What are some of the compatible apps that you would suggest in these categories? Also, something like video editing requires a good bit of RAM. How can you get 98 to utilize, say, 4 gigs? And how does 98 respond to modern CPUs? I don't disagree with this. It seems that there are a lot of applications now that don't do much more than apps in the past did, but for some reason the system requirements are so much greater. I don't get this at all. And I also agree that some apps now are simply too complicated. There is such a thing as feature overload. It can be overwhelming.

Lots of responses here, so I'll just add a few general points. . . 1. I've seen a lot of comments like, "Well if you're not [insert task here] then what does it matter?" The problem is that a lot of people DO play games, edit video, use their PC as a sound recording studio, etc. And 98 is not really suitable to these types of tasks, if for no other reason than that it often can't support the kind of hardware that is necessary to do these tasks comfortably and it doesn't support the applications that are best suited for these tasks. LoneCrusader mentioned going to Linux instead of XP/Vista/7. But Linux also is not suitable for these things, because the applications just aren't available. Most games, for instance, are not written for the OS. And I can tell you from experience that, while there are some video editing apps that have been developed for Linux, there's nothing on the platform that could be reliably used for professional level work. On Windows you have access to Adobe Premiere and Sony Vegas. (Disclaimer: The last I checked Cinlelerra was making some headway, but lacked features and was buggy. Maybe it's a lot better these days.) 2. I know this is going to sound strange, but security is just not a huge concern of mine. I don't even run an anti-virus and I haven't for years. My efforts to secure my system involve being careful. I don't download strange e-mail attachments, I don't visit questionable sites, and I only download torrents from trusted users. This strategy has served me pretty well for the last 15 years. I also try to keep everything backed up externally so if my machine does get a virus that crashes it then I can just reinstall and set everything back up (though this has never happened). Beyond that, if I undergo an attack, then I'll just cross that bridge when I get there. So basically what I'm saying is that whether Windows 98 is, or is not, more secure than XP/Vista/7 is pretty far below functionality when it comes down to me making a decision as to what OS I'm going to use. I'll sacrifice a little security for the ability to run the programs that I need to run without a lot of hassle. 3. There's no question that, out of the box at least, anything NT-based is more stable than 9x. To refer back to the story of the Libretto that I purchased not too long to, I first had to put Windows 95 on it, and then upgrade that to Windows 98. (It's a long story as to why.) Within 5 minutes--literally--of putting 95 on it I was receiving errors. I had not installed any applications or configured it in any way and it was already giving me problems. Now 98, of course, was more stable, but still problematic. From what I understand, reading around the board here, there are independently developed patches and various applications and whatnot that will allow you to take a 98 system and stabilize it to pretty high level. I think that's cool. But I didn't have to do any of that with my Win 7 machine and I rarely have any problems out of it, with the exception of Firefox randomly freezing, which I chalk up to being a Firefox problem instead of a Windows problem. It is simply generally stable as-is. Furthermore, the level of technical knowledge of many of the users here far exceeds even that of most computer hobbyists. I'm A+ certified, have worked as a tech for several years, and certainly consider myself smarter than the average bear when it comes to computers. But I have no idea what many of y'all are talking about half the time. So if it takes such a high level of knowledge and understanding to bring a 9x machine to--or beyond--an XP-level of stability, then it sounds to me like it has less to do with 9x's inherent stability and more to do with your extensive ability to modify it.