Link21

Such as what? Does NOD32 require more kernel resources than most other AV products? And when would other programs need more kernel resources? How can you tell how muhch kernel resources a program is using? Is tyhere a difference between using a lot of kernel resources as opposed to other resources?

What cluberti says is news to me as well. I have tried many AV software and NOD32 seems by far the least resource hog to me. Norton, McAfee, Panda, and others all seem to hog a lot of system resources. NOD32 seemed by far the best and didn't seem to slow my system down at all. All other AV products I hve used seemed to slow my system down a lot rehardless of how fast and how fast a CPU I had and how much memory I put in my system. NOD32 also detects vrisues on the fly extremely well. It has cuaght eveyr piece of malware that tried to hit me when browsing the web. You say that all AV software has serious problems. Well, you miswell use NOD32 because it seems to have the least problems and takes up the least system resources and doesn't slow your PC like most other AV applications. And can I ask you this. Why is it that NOD32 has a separate version for Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 and Widnows 95/98/ME? But all other AV software uses the same installer and files for both the Windows 9X based OS and the Windows NT based OS? Does it have anything to do with NOD32 integrating itself into the native NT system or native Windows 9X system, and thus requires different versions because Windows 9X and Windows NT are completely different? But all other AV software runs on top of the standard WIN32 external API which is compatible with the same files and installer across both the 9X and NT platform?

I am not an NT lover. I just love NT compared to 9X because it is at least a respectable OS. I praise Linux, OS/2, Solaris, Unix variants, BSD, and Windows NT flavors. I think those are all good operating systems. I think Windows 9X is awful compared to those operating systems families I just listed above. Let DOS die already. I know so many people who hate Microsoft and think they are a selfish company who cares about nothing but extroting more money from anyone anyway they can. They hate their business practices as well. I agree with them. They admit they think Windows 2000 and XP are both decent respectable opertaing systems from a technical standpoint and htink Windows 9X is horrible junk. You see, it has nothing to do with MS sanctioned. It has do with the fact that many people realize the technical fact between Windows 9X and most other operating systems. Heck, I think any Microsoft OS prior to Windows 2000 was awfully bad. Windows NT 4.0 and prior were ok, but nothing that good. As with regards to my question about why MS wants to pretend that Windows 98 never even existed and doesn't mind prior versions of Windows NT, but does Windows 9X, I was just asking out of curiosity. But I am in no means in bed with MS. In fact, that is the only thing I agree with MS on, just like a lot of technical people who hate Windows 9X, but think Windows 2000/XP and above are ok from a technical standpoint, even though they hate MS. I disagree with and think MS is greedy and evil on almost all fronts.

If MS wanted to completely get rid of Windows 9X based operating systems, why did they release DirectX 9 for Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000/XP. Why wouldn't they have released DirectX 9 which came out in February 2003 for only Windows 2000/XP? Why does Microsoft want to completely get rid of Windows 9X based operating systems and pretend they never existed? Why are they ok with previous versions of the Windows NT family like Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) and Windows NT 4.0? But they aren't ok with the previous versions of the different OS heritage in Windows 9X? Why is that?

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!!!

Why is Microsoft obsessed with the NT kernel? It seems it has to be more than them just wanting to force people to upgrade to their newest OS. Because Windows 2000 isn't their newest OS, and yet they don't treat Windows 2000 in the same boat as Windows 98. If all they cared about was trying to force people to upgrade to the newest, they would make Windows 2000 look exactly like Windows 98 and older versions of Windows. WHile Microsoft doesn't give Windows 2000 the same attention that Windows XP gets, it is still spouted off by MS that the NT kernel based operating systems are far superior to the DOS flavors of Windows. By 2010, will Microsoft try and make it lkook like Windows 2000 never existed, or will its support only end by then? Or is it just the DOS based operating systems they want to try and pretend never existed, regardless of the support they were ever given?

Come lets see more votes to NO support for Windows 98/ME.

Cars and operating systems aren't the same thing. Firstly, you don't write software and drivers for a car. A car serves one purpose. To get you from point A to point B and so forth. Games and high end software are designed for high end good quality platforms. No game that requires a CPU of 1GHz or faster and 256MB or more RAM should EVER support junker Windows 9X. Applications designed to run as background tasks shouldn't support Windows 9X either primarily because performance is critical with background tasks as you want background tasks to take up the least resources as possible since they are running all the time. Only the most simple applications that don't run as background tasks maybe should still support Windows 9X. Applications like old school 2-D games and eductaional games for little kids that don't require many resources to run. Actually, you should have at least 1.2 ghz for Windows XP and Windows 2000. RAM is more important for Windows 2000 and Windows XP, not CPU speed. Windows 2000 takes less resources than XP. If you don't like XP, use Windows 2000.

ANother thing I thought of, if Windows NT was really more inefficient than Windows 9X, than why does the XBOX use a modified stripped down Windows 2K kernel? Do a search. It is well known that the XBOX uses the Windows 2K kernel to run the games.

Cars and operating systems aren't the same thing. Firstly, you don't write software and drivers for a car. A car serves one purpose. To get you from point A to point B and so forth. Games and high end software are designed for high end good quality platforms. No game that requires a CPU of 1GHz or faster and 256MB or more RAM should EVER support junker Windows 9X. Applications designed to run as background tasks shouldn't support Windows 9X either primarily because performance is critical with background tasks as you want background tasks to take up the least resources as possible since they are running all the time. Only the most simple applications that don't run as background tasks maybe should still support Windows 9X. Applications like old school 2-D games and eductaional games for little kids that don't require many resources to run.

It is because Windows 9X is junk. Developement should be focused on good quality operating systems like Windows NT flavors, BSD, Linux, and MAC OS X. Windows 9X should have died a long time ago because it was a horrible OS compared to others. People like you in the consumers market can use whatever they want, but it is developers that should have stopped supporting an outdated crumby OS a long tim ago. Devlopers should focus on writing software for much better and much more capable operating systems like I said above. Windows 3.1 died as soon as Windows 95 was released. There is no reason Windows 9X couldn't have died as soon as Windows XP was released, especially since Windows XP was an even bigger upgrade from Windows 9X than 95 ever was from Windows 3.1 when it comes to a system level standpoint. Windows 9X is based on an ancient kernel. You are right that newer isn't always better. When was the first GUI version of OS/2 WARP released? Before Windows 95. Guess what, OS/2 and Linux were far superior to that piece of junk called Windows 95. When was Windows ME released? A few months after Windows 2000 was released. Windows 2000 was far superior to that piece of junk Windows ME. Windows 9X isn't even a real OS. It is no more of a real OS than ancient DOS. It is a Windows manager with 32-bit extensions on top of an ancient technologically limited DOS. Devleopers should spend their time on writing stuff for good quality platforms like Linux, Windows NT flavors, BSD, and other more modernized well designed opertaing systems.

My point is all games and all other high end software should be written for Windows 2000/XP so that it runs best on Windows 2000/XP. There is a reason they made it only Windows 2000/XP compatible. It is because it took them less time to make it run well on only Windows 2000/XP than they would have had to spent to make it run well on both Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000/XP. Therefore, it was easier for them to make a good quality game by focusuing on making it only run well on Windows 2000/XP and not on garbage Windows 98/ME. That is my point. I got you on that one. I want all software to be written for Windows 2000/XP just like GTA: San Andreas was. That is why it only runs well on Windows 2000/XP but doesn't run well on Windows 98/ME. I caught you off guard on that one.

Only ignorant people think Windows XP mean low performance!! Windows XP means high solid performance with a good quality kernel. If you strip out all the bloat, Windows XP has very high performance. Linux means extremely high performance, even higher than Windows 2000/XP. Windows 98/ME means low performance. Windows 98/ME operating systems are pieces of junk compared to other 32-bit operating systems. Why do you think NVIDIA released drivers for Linux for the GeForce 7800 series video cards but not for Windows 98/ME? It isn't only economics being against Windows 98 users. If they were only trying to do a nod to Microsoft and only drive support based on economics, they would have released drivers for only Windows 2000/XP and above and no non-MS operating systems. But they also released drivers for Linux inclduing SLI support. That should tell you that they didn't release drivers for Windows 98/ME because they are bad opertaing systems that can't handle PCI-Express motherboards. And the GeForce 7800 video card is only available in PCI-Express! Economics are against you because Windows 98/ME are bad operating systems. They have a horrible core!!

Read this here/ Read the last sentence in the first paragraph. It says how many system utilities have to be written twice with one specific version for Windows NT and one for Windows 9X. http://www.noccc.org/bytes/articles/v01/414.html Also take a look at NOD32 AntiVirus program http://www.nod32.com/download/download.htm It has an excellent virus detection rate and takes up the least system resources. It is not well known and often overlooked. but it is clearly the best AV program you can get. Guess what. It has a native NT version and a native 9X version. I'm sure it uses some OS heritage specific APIs and thus why it has better performance. Pretty much every other AV pplication I have used is a resource hog.

Really? So how come GTA:San Andreas runs great on Windows 2000/XP but runs like crap on Windows 98?And developers can still write excellent software that is only 2000/XP compatible. Just because Windows 2000/XP provide more features for software writers to get lazy when writing programs, doesn't mean they will. They can still write state of the art bug free low resource-proof jewels of programming and make it even better by it being only Windows 2000/XP compatible. Just look at NOD32. It is the best AntiVirus software there and uses the least system resources. Guess what. They do support Windows 9X, but they have a separate version for the native NT based OS and a separate version for the native 9X based OS. They don't write the same verison using a standard API that is available on both opertaing systems. That is why performance is probably better with NOD32. http://www.nod32.com/download/download.htm I am an anti- Windows 9X OS person. I hate Windows 9X inclduing Windows 98. It has nothing to do with it just being Windows 98. I hate Windows 9X all flavors. Windows 9X was junk compared to other 32-bit operating systems period.

Native NT based APIs. More robust. I mean applications and games written to take advanatge of the latest hardware as far back as 2002.

I think the icon was frozen, sorry YOUR FIRED! All thanks to people like you, the dreams and hopes for the PC enthusiast to see games and applications optimized for Windows 2000/XP took way too long to become a reality. I had badly hoped to see some games and applications optimized for good quality operating systems like Windows 2000/XP as far back as 2002. But all thanks to the ignorant Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers who lived in this fantasy world where they blindly believed Windows 98SE was by far the best version of Windows ever released and would continue and use it on the latest and greatest hardware while completely ignoring the tremendous differences in the internal architecture of the OS compared to the superior architecture of Windows 2000/XP, it was never going happen. That is just sad!! Imagine how much better performance would have been since 2002 in the PC industry if Windows 98/ME support was ditched at least for high end applications and hardware a long time ago. I'd love to see Windows XP and 2000 go open source. Imagine how much better those good quality opertaing systems could be made if they were open source. The bloat could be stripped down even farther.

WHat is the best about Windows 2000 SP2? What is wrong with SP4 for Windows 2000?

What in Windows XP is it that you hate that even nlite cannot remove? What bloat are you referring to?

I hate product activation myself. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with it because I am entitled to a free legal corporate copy of Windows XP Pro from where I work. There are many more legitimate beefs against Windows 98 than just MS cutting off cirtical security pacthes soon. It is not a real 32-bit OS. It handles system resources very poorly. There is an intrinsic limit to how well the OS runs period. http://www.apptools.com/rants/resources.php Those are more than enough reason not to use Windows 98. Use whatever you want on whatever you want, but that doesn't mean it makes the most sense. You know what, the OP answered his/her own question. Use Windows 2000. You will be the most happy with it. There is no reason for the OP to run Windows 98 unless they need to run legacy softwrae that flat out won't run on Windows 2000.

I did answer why. The only reason is if you have old slow hardware that has no drivers for Windows 2000/XP and/or the need to run old applications that won't run on Windows 2000/XP. That is the only logical reason to do so. The OP asked why. And I answered my own opinion on why. And I will repeat to the OP that I think no other reasons are valid except what I said. So to the OP. There is no logical reason to run Windows 98 besides what I mentined above. Those who say differently are only 98SE diehards who refuse to switch to something better based on newer technology because they are obsessed with Windows 98SE and reluctanatly believe that anything else is better.

I have. Windows XP and 2000 were always faster. A much more effiecient kernel and file system. I want to try and mae sure that game and other software makers ditch support for piece of junk Windows 98/ME. I want all software (inclduing open source) to be written for Window 2000/XP only when it comes to the MS OS world. I want software to be written for Linux as well. That way developers will be able to focus their testing and write better performning and more stable programs by utilizing APIs in a natuve NT based OS. I am not trying to accomplish anything but ensuring manufacturers ditch Windows 98/ME support. I had badly hoped Windows 98/ME suppoirt would have been ditched a long time ago.

Run Windows 98 on old slow systems for running old legacy software that flat out won't work well in Windows 2000/XP. There is no reason to use it for anything besides that.

That is why you strip out the bloat from Windows XP or use Windows 2000. Windows 2000 isn't bloated and at least it is a good quality real 32-bit OS. We don't have less performance. Only in your dream world do XP users get less performance than Windows 98 users. Maybe that is what you think, but it doesn't mean it is true in all cases. Windows 2000/XP users get significantly better performance and stability than Windows 98/ME users could ever dream of. Keep living in your dream world where you think Windows 98 is such a great OS. Because it is not. Windows 2000/XP PWned 98/ME by far!! Audio encoding, video encoding, and 3D gaming. Those I would consider resource intensive. And don't even get me started on digital video editing. Windows 9X could never dream of handling digital video editing.

Compared to other 32-bit operating systems such as OS/2 WARP. Linux, Solairs, BSD, MAC OS X, and Windows NT/2000/XP/2003, Windows 9X is a piece of junk. That is a technical fact. Ask anyone who deals with the inner workings of these operating systems, and they will tell you that. Windows 95/98/ME were by far the laughing stock of all 32-bit operating systems. Heck Windows 95/98/ME don't even deserve to be considered a 32-bit operating system. Because by definition, they are not. They are 16-bit operating systems with 32-bit extensions. I thought we left 16-bit computing a long long time ago. It is laughable that anyone would still want to run a 16-bit OS on high end hardware for running modern software to this day. ANd syaing you had a lot more problems with Windows 2000 than you did with Windows 98SE would be like someone saying they had much more problems with MAC OS X than they did with MAC OS 9. STill doesn't make Windows 98SE a better. There are so many other factors involved. And I will be honest with you, I did try installing Windows 98SE on a relaytively high end system. I installed all every patch and the drivers were the latest and the hardware was stable. It was only stable for a long time when doing very simple single tasking. When ever I attempted anything even somewhat resource intensive, the system would be pretty fast to sh*t on itself. Bottom line is, Windows 9X is junk for resource intesnive tasks and multi tasking period. It is an OS based on old ancient technology. It doesn't matter how stable one can get it to run. There is an intrinsic limit to how well the OS runs period. Windows 98/ME should have never had any place in the PC world past the Pentium 3 era.