Link21

If you really think WIndows XP is the worst OS ever made and that being based on the NT kernel wasn't enough to save it, then what do you think of the other NT based operating systems? Do you consider Windows 2000 and Windows XP as one and the same if you claim you don't like XP and you keep saying Xp only applictaions, when what I mean is Windows 2000/XP only applications. And also because you say that saying to use Windows 2000 if you don't XP is the same thing as saying use Windows 95 if you don't like Windows 98? What I'm saying is that for everyone who hates Windows XP, WIndows 2000 is a great alternative. The reason why there is so much hate for Windows XP is because of the intrusive BS forced upon by Microsoft. Windows 2K does not have the invasive BS forced upon you MS and it is easier to get rid of IE and still have a fully usable system in 2K. WIth Windows XP if you strip out lots of the security holes like IE, you will practically break almost all functionality. With Windows 2K, it is very possible to run a lean version without breaking nearly as much functionality. An OS can be of fine quality if it is based on the NT kernel. It cannot be if it is based on a craptacular architecture like the 9X kernel, no matter how stable anyone of you claim you can het it to run. The Linux kernel, Unix variants, VMS, Mach, OS/2, in addition to NT are all good quality OS kernels. The Windows 9X kernel is NOT.

It does not. That link is full of sh*t. The information contained is not all correct. The activation in Windows XP does suck, but use Windows 2000 if you hate Windows XP activation. At least Windows 2000 is a good quality OS because it is based on a real 32-bit kernel and not some POS 640KB memory limited 16-bit DOS arhitecture that has to rely on extendfers just to even use more than 640KB of memory because it is not natively supported by that ancient turd of an OS. Linux, Windows NT flavors, Unix variants, and all other 32-bit operating systems released since 1994 natively support 4GB of RAM without relying on extenders. ANd that is nonsense about Windows 98 not having open ports. As a matter of fact, all versions of Windows prior to Windows XP SP2 have all the ports open by default because you know what, none of them come with a firewall built into the OS kernel. With a third party firewall, you can stealth all ports in any version of Windows. But without any third party firewall, every version of Windows prior to XP SP2 has all ports open. Or best of yet, use Linux. Linux is far better than anything MS ever created. But if you are going to use an OS made by MS, at least use something halfway decent like a Windows NT based OS. Don't use the worst OS arhitecture released since 1994 in the crap that Win95/98/ME was and still is. Almost every OS ever released since 1994 is far better than the piece of junk that Win95/98/ME was and still is.

@Link21 Sorry but I didn't get that what does POS stand for? Does it mean "Popular Operating Systems NO of course NOT. POS stands for PIECE OF SH*T!!

Can't send it to me because you don't know my address!! I would throw it in the waste bin if I received a copy because it is such a POS OS.

Yes there are. Its called the native Windows NT API. I have talked to many programmers and they said that the APIs in Windows 98/ME suck and that is why it is better to use the APIs only available in Windows NT based operating systems including Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Use Windows 2000 if you don't like XP. At least Windows 2000 is still a good quality OS unlike that 16-bit architecture based Windows 98.

Why do you keep saying Windows XP only games and applications. It is not Windows XP only games and applications. It is Windows 2000/XP only games and applications, thus Windows NT based operating systems only. The core of Windows XP is NOT Windows 98. The core is Windows NT. ANybody I know who has dealt with all the operating systems eaisly knows how different the operating systems are. Under the hood, they are a completely different animal that has nothing in common with each other. Windows 2000/XP are stable because they are based on the NT kernel which has separate memory space for all user land applications. So no user mode application can crash the system. It is not because they suck resources away from applications. Battlefield 2 is one of the best performing games out. It is Windows XP only. It can run on Windows 200 as well because Windows 2000 is still based on Windows NT and is not that much different from Windows XP. That game won't run at all on Windows 98/ME. If it does, it runs extremely poorly. So you tell me. Why XP and 2000 only applications and games. It is because they run so poorly or not at all in Windows 98/ME. Also, games and applications are not slower on XP/2000. Most benchmarks have shown them to be faster. NOD32 is the fstest AntiVirus application. Guess what. It has separate binaries for the Windows NT based OS and the Windows 9X based OS. It uses the same exact binaries for Windows NT4 as it does for Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP. It has completely different compiled binaries for Windows 95/98/ME. The fact that it has a native version for the Windows NT based operating systems only has really helped its performance. Performance gains may not be miraqculous, but they are certainly more than just a little. I'd say the performance gains are moderate and plenty noticeable in XP only applications. And NTFS is far more reliable than FAT32. You can easily corrupt a FAT32 partition just by hitting the reset button on your PC. With NTFS, it is unlikely that rebooting the PC without shutting down the system will corrupt it.

In your opinion it is one of the best systems. But most people would disagree including me.

This thread was started specifically by Timeless regarding me on another board. It mentioned my name, and so it drew my interest. This is not a typical thread in the Windows 95/98/98SE/ME support forums. So by making one comment to bash Windows 9X in this thread, it is not hijacking any relevent threads for users in the Windows 9X forums who want to make use of the OS. As this topic was about me being at another board started speifically be another member, I simply made a post to show that I have been at two other boards and the posts I have made that the OP was referring to by finding Link at another board.

I have never been banned here. The worst I have ever received is a simple warning. I am still here and have never been suspended nor banned. I just don't post in the Windows 95/98/98SE/ME forums. I only visit because my opinion is not wanted in the Windows 95/98/98SE/ME support forums because I hate Widnows 9X and have nothing good to say about it. I have never been downgraded from 21 to 19. Just look at my registartion date over at Anandtech Forums. It is over three years old. Look at my registration date here at MSFN. It is in January 2005, so less than 1.5 years old. I simply was of a younger age when I joined Ananadtech forums back in 2003, so I named myself with a lower number afterwards. When I joined MSFN, I was two years older, so I put 21 after my name. Look at some of my other posts over at Anandtech. It isn't new for me to bash Windows 9X over there because I can and I hate it so much and badly hoped to see native optimized Windows NT only games and applications a long long time ago. http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.as...7&enterthread=y http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.as...4&enterthread=y http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.as...8&enterthread=y http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.as...0&enterthread=y http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.as...3&enterthread=y There were much older threads at Anandtech with me bashing Windows 98/ME, but you won't find them because Anandtech erased all their old threads from before the year 2006. And Anandtech and MSFN weren't the only places I have a registered account and hate Windows 9X. I also bashed it at Hardforums. My account over there is Super Mario. I used to be a big Nintendo fan, so I choose the name Link from the Legend of Zelda for MSFN forums and Anandtech forums. I choose the name Super Mario for the Hardforums. Here are some threads with me being against Windows 98/<E at hardforums. http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=...ghlight=98%2FME (The results of the poll I made at Hardforums rocked. It was my favorite out of all the polls I ever made at any forums regarding the topic on Windows 98/ME and having them trashed. I made two polls at Anandtech forums about the same topics one in 2004 and one in 2005, but theyt are both gone by now. Both polls favored having Windows 98/ME trashed, but there were still too many voting for them to live. :( :( MSFN is the only board out of the three boards where more people voted for POS Windows 98/ME to live.) http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=...t=Longhorn+life http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=...WIndows+98%2FME http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=...WIndows+98%2FME You will see how much I really hate Windows 98/ME based on my posts at those other boards in addition to this one. I just badly dreamed of seeing at least some native Windows NT only games as far back as 2002. But all thanks to the blind and ignorant Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers, it took way too long to happen and heck, it still in some ways hasn't really happened, which is just sad. I just want Windows 9X to die. Fine, people can use whatever they want, but Windows 9X users should have been stuck using older software or forced to run Widnows 2K/XP/2003, or Linux, MAC OS X as far back as 2002 if they wanted to run the latest games and software. And that includes open source and freeware which should have been written for the native Windows NT based OS as far back as 2002 when it comes to the Microsoft OS world.

What do you mean deleted edition? Can you launch Steam with IECORE removed?

Does it work?

Tomb Raider? Then I dunno. Is it even playable on Windows XP at all? If it's Tomb Raider, then it's likely that it's compatible with Windows 98 only. Sorry. That is totally incorrect. Tomb Raider Legend is only compatible with Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Read the specifications here: http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product...=SYSTEMREQ#PROD It requires Windows 2000 or Windows XP. I don't see why it wouldn't work on Windows Server 2003. But to say it may not even run on XP and only on Windows 98 is flat out INCORRECT!! It specifically states that it requires only Windows 2000/XP, so if worse comes to worse, it won't run on any OS besides Windows 2000 or Windows XP. It may and probably should run on Windows Server 2003 because Windows Server 2003 is still based on Windows NT 5.X kernel like Windows 2K and XP. But it won't stand a chance to run on POS Windows 98/ME as they are completely different OS architectures than Windows 2000/XP/2003. Games that were written for Windows 98/ME only back in the day sometimes work on Windows 2000/XP/2003 because Windows 2000/XP/2003 has emulation support for some Windows 9X applications to work in Windows 2000/XP/2003. The reverse is not true, so Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 only games and applications can't run in Windows 9X because Windows 9X has no emulation for Windows NT based opertaing systems.

I believe this would be M$ unofficial statement: I NEED $$$ They don't ask money for service packs. This could just be an update just like MAC OS 9.1 to MAC OS 9.2. Why charge money to be updated from 5.1 to 5.2? Going from 5.1 to 5.2 isn't like going from 5.1 to 6.0.

Are you saying that Windows Server 2003 runs better as a desktop OS on that PC than XP or 2000?

This sounds pretty cool. Is everything just as compatibible? Why doesn't Microsoft just provide a patch you can download to update Windows XP to the newest NT 5.2 kernel? So that way, both the most current 32-bit workstation and server versions of their OS would use the most up to date kernel? I mean Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server both use the same kernel?

That is why WIndows 98 is so crumby, We shouldn't be using an OS based on technology that was limited to only 640KB of RAM and needed and extender to go above that amount of RAM. ALso, a 32-bit OS should be based on real 32-bit code, not some ancient 16-bit coded crap. Windows 9X is also very inefficient compared to most other operating systems. WIndows 2000/XP are so much more efficient at multi tasking and resource intensive tasks than Windows 9X could ever even dream of being.

This argument is a good one. Windows 98/ME are POS operating systems. Enough said. Imagine how much better performance would have been if games were designed for Windows 2000/XP only the last four years. It would have been so much better as NHL 2006 and NBA Live 2006 demonstrated. You can't even compare Windows 98/ME to Windows 2000/XP because Windows 2000/XP are light years better. Windows 2000/XP always were and always will be light years ahead of POS Windows 98/ME. It would not be wise to compare how Windows 98/ME were for their time to how Windows 2000/XP are for their time because Windows 2000/XP are SO MUCH MUCH BETTER EVEN for their time than POS Windows 98/ME ever were for their time!! That is because at least Windows 2000/XP are a real 32-bit OS, and not just some Window Manager on top of a 16-bit architecture with 32-bit extensions.

Nobody said you can't make a thread in the 9X forum bashing NT.

This is an NT forum. Of course it can be used to bash POS Windows 98/ME.

It is because I hate it that certain software still supports it. I want software to be native Windows NT only for better performance and stability.

Windows NT kernel is so much better than 9X you can't even compare the two. The 9X kernel is just a shell around 16-bit DOS with 32-bit extensions. The 9X kernel should have died a long long time ago. It was absolutely disgusting to see high end quality hardware like the GeForce 6XXX series video cards, the Radeon 9600 series and higher video cards, the NForce 3 chipset, and some high end games and other software support POS Windows 98/ME. This is my own thread about how bad Windows 9X is, and I thought it was completely ok to bash it as long as it was in my own thread and I did not hijack a Windows 9X thread to do it?

for xp maybe YES, but for win2k better say NO, lot's user having Virtual Memory issue on win2k (cause win2k never designed to play a game lol) but still "i lov'in it" (no Mc Donald's Advertisement here) the word "junk" is something funny, example : we all know "junk food" was and it still "eat-able" so the OS, when it is junk, doesn't mean it can't being use Both Windows 2000 and Windows XP are based on the same OS kernel, so both should run games well. Windows XP may run games better than 2K, but Windows 2K is still light years ahead of POS Windows 98/ME when it comes to modern PC gaming. I dare any of the Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers to try and find out that the EA Sports 2006 games won't stand a chance to run on junker Windows 98/ME. But, that's probably because EA is lazy. Also, EA likely put an arbitrary OS check so that it refuses to run just because of the OS version being reported! LOL! Even GTA: San Andreas reportedly can work under Windows 98 SE! There probably was just a stupid OS check in the installer for the game. If you ask me, that's retarded! Just like when some installers refuse to continue just because you don't have Internet Explorer! LOL once again! Also, with some games by Microsoft, (no major surprise) the package says that Windows XP is required! Says that it won't run even under Windows 2000! But it's likely an arbitrary OS check. It it's an arbitrary OS check, then it will run under Windows 2000 if you lie to it that the OS is Windows XP! Likely just by telling the application that the version number is 5.1. It's likely that they refuse to let you play the game just because of the OS version number being reported being less than 5.1! There are ways around the OS check. However, there is NO way any of those EA Games will run on junker Windows 98/ME because Windows 98/ME are so different from Windows 2000/XP. You can run Battlefield 2 on Windows 2000 even though it only supports Windows XP because Windows 2000 is still an NT based OS. In no way will it stand a chance to run on POS Windows 98/ME even if you circumvent the OS check because the binaries just won't run on a POS OS like Windows 98/ME.

for xp maybe YES, but for win2k better say NO, lot's user having Virtual Memory issue on win2k (cause win2k never designed to play a game lol) but still "i lov'in it" (no Mc Donald's Advertisement here) the word "junk" is something funny, example : we all know "junk food" was and it still "eat-able" so the OS, when it is junk, doesn't mean it can't being use Both Windows 2000 and Windows XP are based on the same OS kernel, so both should run games well. Windows XP may run games better than 2K, but Windows 2K is still light years ahead of POS Windows 98/ME when it comes to modern PC gaming. I dare any of the Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers to try and find out that the EA Sports 2006 games won't stand a chance to run on junker Windows 98/ME.

I bet games like Battlefield 2, NHL 2006, NBA Live 2006, Madden 2006, NFS:Most Wanted won't stand a chance to even run on junker Windows 98/ME. There is a reason those games are written for Windows 2000/XP only!! It is because Windows 2000/XP are so superior to piece of junk Windows 98/ME!!

I would rather touch Windows NT 4 RTM than POS Windows 98/ME.