Link21

I agree close this thread!!!

Whatever the heck you want to call it, it does not matter!! A volume licensed copy can be referred to as a corporate copy. You can legally obtain one under certain circumstances. Just becuase I refered to it as a corporate copy does not mean I was referring to something that doesn't exist and/or is pirated!! You are pretty fast to accuse someone of something just because they happened to use different termonology!! SO ZIP IT and stop being picking over the use of terminology!!! I always knew it was a Volume licensed copy, I was just calling it a corporate copy!! I have a legit volume license copy of Windows XP Pro from my workplace!!. I used the exact MS correct terminology, so now are you satisfied??

All thanks to people like you, those piece of junk opertaing systems have still been supported by hardware and software manufacturers for way TOO LONG!!! Trash piece of junk Windows 98/ME already. It is a Windows NT and Linux world from now on!! No games produced as far back as 2003 had any purpose supporting POS Windows 98/ME!!

You are crazy. You all of a sudden jump to the conclusion that someone who is using a corporate edition must be pirating it? You are crazy!!! There are legal ways to get it. I so happen to be entitled to a free, yes legal copy from where I work. You can also legally buy Windows XP and bypass the activation. You still payed for the license, and as long as you don't install it on more than one PC, you can crack the activation without comprimising your morals. It is a pirated copy only if it is not a valid licensed copied. A valid licensed WIndows XP and cracking it just to avoid stupid PIA activation does not automatiucally mean it is pirated. If you copy that same license to multiple PCs without obtaining a legal license for each new PC you install it on, then it is pirated. It is one thing not to be able to afford to upgrade your OS, but if you can't afford to pay for an inexpensive upgrade to XP or 2000, you also can't afford to upgrade your hardware much at all if ever. So you can easily use Windows 2000 or XP on newer hardware upgraded once in a while without compromising your morals because Windows 2000 or XP are not that expensive to buy legit online. A decent piece of hardware such as a video card, motherboard, or RAM is almost always more expensive than the cost of XP Home or a 2000 Pro upgrade OS. Look over here: http://www.9software.com/Windows_2000_Prof....htm&Click=5673 WIndows 2000 Pro upgrade is only $84.00. Anyone who can afford to upgrade hardware every now, even to just Athlon Xp, Sempron CPUs and only 512MB of RAM, can eaisly afford to upgrade to at least a decent OS.

Compromise morals? There are legit ways to avoid activation. You can also buy Windows 2000 and use it. It isn't that much anymore. You can legally buy Windows XP and crack the activation, as long as you don't install it on more than one computer. You are licensed to use it one computer, so it shouldn't matter if you crack the activation or not, as long as you only install it on a single computer.

You don't have to use WGA to get updates. There are alternative sources to download updates from. Also, WGA isn't required for the security updates. I make sure I slipstream all the updates on my installation disc before I install Windows XP. Also, if you are behind a hardware firewall, you don't have to worry about these things on a clean install when connected to the Internet. I don't use Windows Update, even though I have a legit corporate version of Windows XP Pro which I am entitled to from where I work. I don't use it simply because I don't trust Microsoft very much. I manually download all of my updates and install them. I also strip out the vulnerable components from XP with my nlite.

I have made a poll about this at some oither boards, and the resulst have always been in favoring of trashing Windows 98/ME. This is the only forums where the poll results favored keeping Windows 98/ME around.

You don't have to use activation to use Windows XP. That is what the corporate edition is for. Also, there are easy ways around the activation, but such discussion is not allowed in these forums.

HECK NO!! You WON'T here me saying that because I still respect Windows XP and think it is good OS. Do you here me saying "drop this 2000 piece of junk, use XP"?? NO because I think Windows 2000 is still a good OS!! It is Windows 9X that is a piece of junk!! WIndows 9X inclduing 98 uSP2 or not, sucks compared to the NT flavors of Windows and Linux. ENough said. If Windows 2000 was unsupported very fast after Windows XP first came out, people using it would have a right to complain because Windows 2000 was still a very good OS. However, anyone running Windows 98/ME who insisted they should be able to continue and use them on the latest hardware for the latest softwrae right after Windows XP came out had NO right to complain about them not being supported because Windows 98/ME were POS operating systems!! They should have been forced to upgrade to at least Windows 2000, or be stuck with the only option of using Windows 98/ME for running old software on their older hardware until they were willing to use Windows 2000 or XP. However, Windows XP and even 2000 still should and deserved be supported for a long long time after Vista is released because Windows 2000/XP are still good operating systems!!!

AMEN!! Couldn't have said it any better!! Come over to http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=44398&st=100. This poll needs your help. Lets make sure Windows 98/ME are trashed already. People can use what they want, but all new software and hardware should have trashed support for them at least two years ago!!

Software shouldn't require IE just to run. They can make it NT only and not require IE to run. Software should be written for real operating systems, not Windows 9X which is just an MS-DOS 7.1 and MS-DOS 8.0 GUI application, just like Windows 3.1 was a GUI application for MS-DOS 6.22. MS-DOS is dead. The future of PCs is in Linux, and Windows NT falvored operating systems.

ANother vote towards the bad poll option stating support for junker Windows 98/ME Come on lets see some more votes for no support for junker Windows 98/ME. The results of this poll so far are extremely discouraging!! Trash Windows 98/ME already!!! Zip it!!! I didn't ask for your opinion. I want to see more people vote to trash Windows 98/ME. Unfortunately its people like you that have caused software performance to suffer the past 5 years because developers have had to retain backwards compatibility with piece of junk operating systems like Windows 98/ME. Because people like you are Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers that live in this fantasy world where they blindly believe Windows 98SE is the best version of Windows ever made, even when it is not. It is called the tremednous differences in the OS architecture and the kernel! They think that Windows XP and Windows 2000 are just newer operatng systems based on Windows 98SE. That is completely untrue though. Windows NT is a whole differnet based OS and has nothing to do with Windows 98/ME! All applications written for Microsoft made operating systems should have been for NT only at least the past 2 years. A lot of applications written for the Microsoft made operating systems should have been NT only for at least the past four years.

I refer to junker as a shortened way of saying piece of junk. The bottom line is, Windows 9X is junk compared to other 32-bit operating systems. Running Windows 98/ME on a relatively modern computer for the sole purpose of running software produced in the last four years would be like using your 25 year old pickup truck that was on its last legs and leaked oil, hogged gas, and ran poorly to two your brand new 40 foot trailer. It may work, but it wouldn't be reliable at all.

Because Microsoft wants you to be able to run legacy programs on the newer opertaing systems because they want to trash junker Windows 98/ME.

Come on, we need more votes that say to trash Windows 98/ME already!!

Try Battlefield 2. I bet it won't run at all on junker Windows 98/ME. Only in your imagination does GTA: San Andreas run better on 98SE than any NT based OS. AT best, it runs the same. AT worst, it runs a heck of a lot worse!! GTA: San Andreas runs awesome on my stripped down nlited Windows XP system.

How do I check paged kernel resources for each process? And what should be the norm for paged kernel resources for background applications?

I have talked to some expert programmers I know personally. They tell me that performance can and often is better if a program is written specifically for only Windows 2000/XP, especially when the program calls to lower level APIs. I am not going to tell you who they are because that would be giving out personal information. I will not give out anyone's personal information of people I know in my private life on an online chat forums, even in PMs. The low level APIs of each OS is so different that it would seem like applications would be much better if all applications were written for the NT based OS only. But really, now that I think of it, it probably doesn't matter that much because WIN32 was ported to both platforms designed to be compatible with programs written using the same files and installer. So performance has probably already suffered for the past decade because of Microsoft's domination and porting the same API to two distinctly different operating system platforms. But guess what now. Lets not have Windows 9X stick around any longer and when extremely skilled programmers have the chance to use the known aspects of the native NT API, they should do so.

How do I check that in Task Manager? On the processes tab, which column do I need to select to be displayed in order to see the paged kernel resources? BTW: I just displayed Page faults, and NOD32 shows 135813, far more than any other running process. The process that displays the second most page faults is explorer.exe which reads 50034. Is it bad to have that many page faults for one process?

Ok, forget about that application. It was written in Java which is meant to be cross platform compatible. How about other applications that aren't written in Java and are supposed to be more OS specific? They should be for only Windows 2000/XP when it comes to the Microsoft OS world. I hate DRM just as much as all you Windows 98SE lovers. Look at the QuickTime ALternative Codec v. 1.68. It is for Windows 2000/XP only. http://www.free-codecs.com/QuickTime_Alter...ve_download.htm And all the codecs at that site are made by contributing memebers of the free codecs community. So supporting Windows 2000/XP only doesn't mean it must utilize some DRM, or otherwise, there is no reason it can't run on Windows 98/ME as well. The fact that only Windows 2000/XP are supported is because they are so much better quality operating systems from a technical standpoint. My praising of Windows 2000/XP and bahsing of Windows 98/ME has all to do with the technical perspective of both opertaing systems. It has nothing to do with supporting DRM. Take my word for that. DRM is EVIL!! Windows 98/ME are just 16-bit DOS with a 32-bit GUI shell around it. Windows 2000/XP are actually real operating systems. I wish they went openSOurce so it would be easy for the community to make them even better. But the heck with junker Windows 98/ME which is only ancient technologically limited DOS with a DOS extender that it depends on to make it 32-bit compatible. Let DOS die already!

It was a big mistake by the OpenOffice developers to make it compatible with junker Windows 98/ME. OpenOffice should have been for Linux, MAC OS X, Solaris, and Windows 2000/XP only!! In no way should it have supported Windows 98/ME. I will be honest with you. I prefer many OpenSource softwares over commercial ones as well. However, I want OpenSource software to be written for the native Windows 2000/XP only when it comes to OpenSource software written for MS made operating systems. Of course Linux support is desired as well. I wish Thunderbird and Firefox didn't run on junker Windows 98/ME. They would probbably be fatser and less buggy if they were designed for good quality opertaing systems only like Windows 2000/XP when it comes to the MS OS world. Of course Linux support is great as well. But in NO way should they have supported junker Windows 98/ME!! Not all games written for only Windows 2000/XP will run on 98. You were lucky with GTA: San Andreas, but try Battlefield 2. Bet it won't work. Actually Battlefield 2 is for Windows XP only, but it does run on Windows 2000. It was just not tested on Windows 2000. But I bet it won't run on junker Windows 98/ME!! You see, there is reasons for developing software for Windows 2000/XP only. It is called being optimized for the native Windows NT based OS. Otherwise, every single program that was written for only Windows 2000/XP would always run on Windows 98 as well. But not all programs do. So that has to tell you something about writing programs for Windows 2000/XP only.

That is no reason to keep DOS on life support. Windows 98/ME shouldn't be supported by any new games, software, nor hardware!!! The Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers should be left on their own when it comes to support! All software written for Microsoft made operating systems only should be written only for the Windows NT based platform. This is inclduing Freeware and Open Source software as well. Did you ever think you would here someone who thinks freeware and open source stuff is great from an MS supporter?? HECK NO!! I think that because Windows 9X is a junk operating system and I want software written for good quality operating systems like Windows 2000/XP/2003 and Linux.

It is the differences in the kernel and core OS technology. Windows 9X depends on ancient DOS just to function. Windows XP uses the NT kernel which is so much more advanced and wasn't natively limited. I wish Microsoft didn't integrate IE into Windows XP the way they did, so then there wouldn't be near the amount of malware probelsm there are. Windows 98/ME use a POS core and are based on inferior technology. That is why Windows XP is superior to WIndows 98.

Stop with trying to tell me that BS. I make sure that I strip all of that stuff out. Windows 2000 doesn't have any snoop features, so use that if you don't like Windows XP and feel like having to strip out bloat. At least Windows 2000 is a good quality OS, unlike junker Windows 9X. It is Windows 9X that stinks, not anything besides Windows 2000/XP!! Use Windows 2000 if you don't like Windows XP. I take my privacy very seirously, ut I will also make sure I use a good quality OS. You can have both. I use Windows XP and make sure I strip out any snoop features so Bill Gates can't see what I do when using Windows XP.

Say no to almost all software support to Windows 98!! The only exception should be proprietary software that is specifically designed for old anicent systems out there. But for eveyrone else, Windows 98/ME needs to die for good!! Games and other software shouldn't support Windows 98/ME at all!! The only exception should be low end old school educational games that can run on a low end 8-9 year old PC.