sc7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by sc7
-
-
Wow that's some memories. Back in 2001, a co-worker of mine got NT4 installed on a Mac. I forget which one tho. That dude was nuts. He ended up being one of those Apple Store Geniuses, iirc.
NT versions prior to 4 ran natively on PowerPC. I don't know how they messed with old world ROMs/new world ROMs, but are you sure it wasn't 3.51?
And gamehead, I didn't know that, but there's very few G3s clocked equal or faster than 700MHz
0 -
What about VirtualPC? I remember VirtualPC 7 ran WinXP halfway decent on my old iMac running OS 10.2. Hopefully it would run Win98 halfway decent?
IIRC, VirtualPC 7 (the last on Microsoft Made), only ran on a G4 or better. This machine sounds like a G3.
0 -
Yep, it's gotta be PowerPC. I ran Qemu once on a PowerPC G3 with 160mb (32 to Qemu), for 98SE. Painful can't even begin to describe the performance.
And gamehead, would it be a violation of the rules for him to sell a Mac on MSFN? Or to sell anything?
0 -
Later i bought Intel based board with 945 chipset and Pentium 4 on socket 775. I was quite stunned. CPU Performance which was measured was almost same, but the P4 got twice frequency
...The NetBurst based Pentium 4s (all P4s) are horribly inefficient per clock cycle. The PIII was a much better design, and some of that was carried over to the Core processors.
0 -
I use Windows 9x because it works!
I'm a firm believer in the golden rule: If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It.
Let's leave aside the fact that my computer isn't powerful enough to run a newer operating system. So let's leave aside the cost of having to buy a new computer in order to run that newer operating system (and the waste of money in junking an existing computer which works perfectly well).
Let's leave aside, too, the cost of junking all the expensive software which I've bought over the years that might not run on a different operating system.
Then again, why should I pay out good money on a new computer when the existing one does everything that I need it to? That would be dumb!
But, for me, it's more important to have a computer that works, rather than risk changing to some bug-ridden new one. I've read the posts on the forums by people complaining about Windows XP's faults: I remember how many bug fixes there were to get Windows 9x working properly, and I don't choose to go through that all over again!
Also, I don't see that Windows XP offers any advantage over Windows 9x to an ordinary home user. I've read how bloated and slow XP is, and I see it as a backward step: I'd be buying a new computer that's slower than my existing one. That would be *really* dumb!
I've added a PCI card with USB 2.0 and e-SATA ports. So whenever necessary I add a new (internal or external) 120 GB hard disk - either a PATA or a SATA disk - to increase my disk storage. And I use my CD-writer to save an unlimited amount of data on CD-RW discs.
Having become familiar with Windows 9x, over many years, I also know how to fix any problems that come up. Being able to get the computer going again myself (e.g. restoring a registry backup if a new piece of software hijacks some important setting) is invaluable.
To me, as a typical home user, Windows 9x is a tried and proven success: it works, does everything I need it to, and does it quickly. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
I agree with you on a lot of aspects here. Windows 9x, when properly maintained, is fine for the home user that does little to no internet. Most browsers are outdated (and I hate opera). Obviously, being a tech buff, I have two very beefy Vista/7 x64 systems, but I still do my basic tasks myself on a 9x machine. It's a familiar, much more basic operating system to get stuff done. It should play all your music files, sync with most older music players, run office well, and even be enough to check email and do basic web browsing.
If your current machine is productive, that's great, if you don't think you'd see an increase in productivity, well that's all the more reason to save your money these days. However, a newer machine, even with Vista, will be faster running Vista than almost any 9x system. (Assuming you're not running 98 on say a 3.8 GHz P4).
0 -
On that point... I bet my floppy drive still works. Haven't tried it... recently... ever...
I bet my computer would boot faster if I just disabled it in the BIOS.
Why disable it? Just push it behind the hard drive in the boot order.
0 -
Who (except for corporate or enterprise use) needs the extra baggage that NTFS gives? Permissions, user rights, files you can't delete or move around, hidden directories, root-kit compatibility, the performance hit from journalling. All for the birds. God help you if your MFT gets screwed up.
Lack of stability, and the inability to have files greater than 4GB strikes me first.
0 -
This is a board problem. It has nothing to do with Firefox.
What do you mean a board problem? I don't have the issue on IE6 on Windows 98 SE, or FF 3.5.2 on Vista x64.
0 -
I always run CCleaner on Vista before running Auslogics Disk Defrag, because it cleans up some odd 100-300 mb worth of temporary internet files that I don't need to waste time defragmenting, only to eventually delete.
The little registry things it picks up are so insignificant, but since that scan runs fairly quickly, it doesn't hurt to keep the system tidy.
As for performance gains, on older PII era 9x machines, it may make a slight difference with MUI lists and such if they're really cluttered, but on newer hardware, you'll most likely see no real benefit.
0 -
Well, here's the issue. First off, you'd never be able to run the OS from an NTFS drive, it would require far too major changes to the closed source kernel we don't have access to.
It's not very hard to write a program to read/write NTFS drives, maybe by the use of a simple virtual real mode driver.
However, when you speak of system wide NTFS support, you are talking a far more complex job. In order to natively support a different file system, and have explorer, amongst all Windows applications be able to write to NTFS as if it were nothing, you'd have to implement the support at the kernel level. Again, when you speak of file systems in the kernel, being closed source makes this a whole hell of a lot more difficult.
All of the GUI in Windows, including the applications, deal very little with the actual disk access of the operating system. How it works is that a basic write command in the code is sent (such as C++ or VB). When compiled, this code speaks to the APIs for that programming language, which are specifically written differently for each operating system to inferace with the kernel and other lower level code. It is THAT code, that then deals with the physical disk, and therefore, the file system. So the changes would have to be made at that level to pass up the benefits to all applications, and even Windows Explorer, which is just a basic Windows program, set as shell in boot.ini.
My guess as to why no one has bothered to implement this in Windows 98 is because it never really crossed paths that much when Windows NT began to rise up, and now, there's far too few Windows 98 active users where anyone would take the initiative, time, and energy required to make this undertaking.
0 -
like my computer wont stay logged in onto this website always gotta relog on its like cookies arent working or something??
Is it only in FF 3.5.2? My guess it's just an issue with KernelEX/FF. I'd probably wager that FF attempts to use a relatively newer way to ensure the saved passwords are kept secure on the disk, and that may require an NT system call on Windows that has not yet been implemented in KernelEX.
0 -
If you, like me, want just a vanilla 98SE and aren't interested in any aftermarket patches (although the community's work is much appriciated), you just need to download the IE 6 installer, and install it. Upon doing so, you can get all official updates still from the Microsoft Windows Update website. That's what I did.
0 -
I'm another generic .exe here.
0 -
I know this is going to attract a lot of flak but... I'd say Windows Me was amazing in its time. I know, I know... You guys are going to say that it was a stupid, unstable OS but I'm talking about my experiences with it. For me it ran just beautifully. Much better than even 98SE.
I ran Me for a while years ago before I had a machine that could handle Xp. For it's time, if you disabled system restore and certain other things, Me ran fine, just as stable as 98SE. Arguably the interface is a little more refined. However, I now use 98 because I can use Real-Mode DOS without hacking. That said, I didn't have bad Me experiences myself.
Anyway, I will definitely give K-Melon a shot, thanks for the suggestion.
0 -
My personal favorite is Windows 98SE, completely stock. It is compatible with the older versions of software, which, combined with Windows 98, were really the golden age of computer functionality without bloating and eye-candy. The OS was basic and out of the way, but when I needed to, thanks to the ability to boot into DOS, I really could do anything. (NT os command prompts are OK for certain things, but they don't allow close to as much direct access as DOS oses). With a DOS based OS, I could always boot from a DOS floppy and fix anything that went wrong.
For instance, 98 is so tweakable, and I really feel that it's the version of Windows most able to be customized/tweaked by the user. In addition to that, for productivity, it really is my favorite. It takes Office 97 the same time to load on a 750 MHz Celeron or 600 MHz PIII as it does Office 2007 on my 2.93 GHz Core i7 940. It has a basic interface, easy to work my way around, distraction free, and allows me to get work done.
Now don't get me wrong, for my Facebooking/Youtubing/Media/AutoCAD, Windows 7 is a great OS. It has some great improvements that help productivity, it's well built from the ground up (obviously a much better architecture than the 9x based operating systems).
I've got:
Photoshop 7
Office 97
Acrobat Reader 5
Visual Studio 6
And I prefer all these versions. I still use IE6 on those machines, because I prefer it's basic interface, and how out of the way the browser is. IMHO, it was the last web page centric browser (I do wish it had tabs). I don't do much internet on those machines, mainly basic web forums and blogs). I realize it's quickly becoming outdated and such, but I wish there was another browser out there today that I could put fullscreen on a 1024x768 monitor, use as little resources, and only have the basic functions to help me navigate the web. Again, this idea of providing only the fucntionality needed seems to be lacking from all of today's operating systems, in the case of trying to eye candy appeal to the customer.
In any case, I will continue to do as much productivity work as I can on my Win98 Desktop/Laptop, and only use my 7 Desktop and Laptop for Facebook/Youtube/Daily Browsing/AutoCAD.
0 -
I use Windows 98 for four main reasons:
A) Still remains the best interface/system/software to get my work done on
-Windows 98 plain and simple is a basic OS interface. It's basic, easy to navigate around, tweak any way I like it, and as others have said, should issues arise, much easier to fix from the DOS prompt or boot diskette. No doubt for new media and stuff, Vista/7 with newer hardware is the way to go, but for doing my work, I much prefer 98.
B) I have old games that require 98 to run
-Pretty much self explanatory. Simcopter/SC2K, RCT, etc... This will always be a reason to keep a 98 box around.
C) It runs just as well on this PIII as Vista does on my Core i7 (interface/usability wise)
-For day to day work, newer stuff leaves me no more productive, so I find myself saving my Core i7 machine for only media/engineering software.
D) I have software that was designed at the height of usability, before eye candy and other useless "enhancements" were added to newer versions of software. (ex. Office 97, does plenty for what I need in Word/Excel (I'll use PowerPoint 2007 if I need that). Photoshop 7 serves plenty more than what I need, and I also got it for much cheaper than any newer version, plus it maintains an easier interface than CS4. Outlook 98, probably the best version of Outlook Microsoft ever released if all you need is a rich POP3 client without all the other excessive features.
0
...
98FE on imac is it posible?
in Windows 9x/ME
Posted
Isn't that just an emulator with everything pre-configured? It'd be impossible to natively boot an x86 OS on a PPC, and they certainly can't port something without the source code.
It's very interesting.
And pcalvert is right, NT 4 does indeed run on PowerPC processors. I'm really giving poor answers here...