Link21

How about 1GB of RAM and above. Windows 98 will be slower than Windows 2000/XP with 1Gb or more RAM!

Exactly!! I totally agree!! The kernel is the OS. Everything else runs on top of the kernel. And the kernel is completely different in Windows 98/ME than it is in Windows 2000/XP.

Only true on computers with very little physical RAM. On computers with lots of RAM, Windows 2000 and XP are faster.

I doubt it. Windows 98SE and Windows ME are already in the extended support phase and the extended support phase I believe ends in June 2006. Windows 98SE and Windows ME I think have been in the extended support phase since mid 2002. The extended support phase was originally going to end in 2004, but Microsoft extended it because of customer needs. Now here is what I don't get. I thought all Microsoft operating systems in the extended support phase only received critical security hotfixes. I have noticed that .NET framework 2.0 is supported on Windows 2000 and even on Windows 98/ME. And .NET framework was released only a month ago and Windows 2000 has been in the extended support phase for 5 months prior to that and Windows 98/ME were in the extended support phase for 3+ years prior to November 2005. I thought the extended support phase meant no new features from MS would be supported by the OS, and only critical security hotfixes. But it seems that isn't always true especially with .NET framework and DirectX 9. (aka DirectX 9.0 supported Windows 98/ME even after they entered the extended support phase)? WHat is the reality regarding the MS extended support phase?

I have heard that Vista is behind schedule and still very early in the beta stage. Yet, everyone is talking about it being released by the Fall of 2006. If it is really early in the beta stage, do you really think it will make it out to final release in a year or less from now? Or do you think sometime in 2007 will be a more realistic estimated time when it is released? Is there any scheduled date yet on the release of Vista? Or is it all just speculation and hype?

I only see two valid reasons. One reason is if you want and/or have a need to run leagcy games and applications that flat out won't work and/or run very poorly in Windows 2000/XP regardless of what you do to try and make them run well in Windows 2000/XP. But Windows 98SE should only be used strictly for those purposes on modern hardware and be dual booted with Windows 2000/XP/2003 for running more modern applications on modern hardware. Another reason is if you have really old hardware that you will use just for running really old applications or simple modern applications designed to run on just about anything produced the last 10 years. So to sum it up, the only logical reason I see to run it is for legacy hardware and software produced in the year 2000 and prior.

Anyone know the anser to my question regarding the NT 5.2 kernel being better than the NT 5.1 kernel because it has a higher version number?

Here is a question I am interested in asking. Is there any advanatge of Windows Server 2003 over Windows XP because it uses the NT 5.2 kernel where as Windows XP uses the NT 5.1 kernel? Another words, is it true that Windows Server 2003 uses a newer and improved kernel because it uses NT 5.2 where Windows XP uses only NT 5.1? Can you read to much into that version number when deciding which OS is more up to date? For instance, why would you use the Linux 2.6.4 kernel when the 2.6.8 kernel is the most up to date? and fully tested to be perfectly stable? If that is the case that NT 5.2 is indeed a more up to date version of the NT kernel than NT 5.1, why doesn't Microsoft just apply the NT 5.2 kernel to Windows XP so that way both the server and workstation OS both use the most up to date NT kernel? Because Windows XP is suited for workstation use and Windows Server 2003 is suited for server use, so why not slap the most up to date NT kernel onto both of the products? I mean both Windows 2000 Pro and 2000 Server both used the NT 5.0 kernel and were both designed for different purposes with one being for a desktop and one being for a server. Why does the server and desktop version of Microsoft's next OS use a different kernel version? Why don't they both use the most up to date NT kernel?

I can't believe it. It is almost the year 2006. Who now thinks that Windows 98/ME should still be supported? I mean, there is no question that by now with Vista approaching and all, that Windows 98/ME are by far dead and obsolete!! I think they should have been 3 or more years ago. Come on, lets see some more votes that say NO support for POS Windows 98/ME. It should be an all NT, Unix, and Linux OS world by now!!

I meant no chipset drivers for the newest and latest chipsets like the NVIDIA NForce 4 and Intel 9XX chipsets and above. There were Windows 98 drivers for the NVIDIA NForce 3 and below and the Intel 875P chipset and below. As for video cards, there were drivers all the way up to the NVIDIA GeForce 6800 series video cards and the ATI Radeon 9800 series video cards (X300 maybe?). I think Windows 9X drivers stopped after those video cards? Correct me if I am wrong.

You can try and run it on anything you want, but the question is, will it always suceed? There are no 9X drivers for the latest chipsets and video cards. Sure you can installk it, but how will you be able to utilize them if there are no drivers? As for games written for 2K/XP only, it will depend on the game and why it won't install on Windows 98 to determine whether it is possible or not to modify it to make it work on Wndows 98. This is not a flame or a bashing of 9X, but rather a quation as to how the community will be able to do it for the latest hardware (chipsets and video cards) if there are no 9X drivers for them? Can it be done?

I didn't exactly say that. What I meant by legacy are games made in 2000 and earlier designed to run on a mid Pentium III or lower class computer. Windows NT core was by far better as systems got faster. That is why Windows 9X should have been dropped all together once systems got fast enough. So when I say legacy, I meant games designed to take advantage of the latest hardware at the time when the best hardware was mid end Pentium III or less. Windows 3.1 couldn't take advanatge of any hardware past a Pentium I. Windows 9X has evolved and I suppose can run some of the later games maybe even well. But still, the NT based OS is far better and more appropriate for all hardware and resource intensive programs produced in the last few years.

I doubt going from Windows XP to Vista will be the same as going from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. I hope Windows XP/2000 stay around a long time after Vista is released. Heck, why would Microsoft have released a 64-bit version of Windows XP only earlier this year if it would be phased out so fast after Vista was released? I don't see how much better Vista is going to be than XP other than a super bloated pretty GUI. I think the jump from anything Windows 9X to Windows 2000/XP was far bigger and more necessary than moving from XP to Vista will ever be. There were 32-bit extensions to Windows 3.1 that made it able to run some 32-bit Windows 95 applications. People can do what they want and all Windows 9X supporters. What I want to bash is the fact hardware and software vendors who supported Windows 98/ME for way to long on high end hardware and software. Let Windows 9X/ME be used for what they were intended for which is legacy games and applications. They should have never had a place for high end software and hardware ever since Windows 2000 came about. I had badly hoped and dreamed of seeing Windows 2000/XP only and optimized high quality games as far back as when Windows XP was first released. Let Windows 9X be used for what it was made for. That is running old and legacy software by today's standards. Hardware and software makers should have taken that path three or more years ago when it comes to resource intensive hardware and software.

Whatever!! What a jerk to say something like that. I simplied asked about Windows 3.1 and the if there is a will there is a way would apply to almost anything. So just STFU while you are at it!!

So, if there is a will, there is a way. What about the fan base of Windows 3.1 that wants to run new games released only for 2K/XP on Windows 3.1? Are you telling me that they will make it possible as well? If there is a will, there has to be a way right? So why hasn't it happened with Windows 3.1? Since it hasn't happened with Windows 3.1 except maybe for so very old and early Windows 95 only applications, it means that it won't always be possible to run 2K/XP only games on 9X no matter how hard the fan base and large number of users from the community try to make it happen. So, can DirectX 9 be installed on Windows 95? If there is a will, there is a way right? So it must be somehow possible to make many of these games and applications run on almost anything because if there is a strong will, there is a way? What do you think?

I am NOT any one of those!! I am not on any MS team of any sorts. If I was actually on a MS team, don't you think I would be bahsing Windows 2000 as well to try and convince Windows 2000 users to upgrade to Windows XP? Of course I would be. The fact is that I am not. I am bashing anything Windows 9X because I think it sucks and continued support for it from hardware and software vendors has only held back the quality and stability would otherwise could have had now if it weren't for POS Windows 9X support. People have the right to work on projects and try to make 98SE better as much as they want. But what bothers me, is that its people like you that actually have made the hardware and software manufacturers drag 98S/ME support for this long which I very much fear has degraded the quality and performance that software and hardware could have otherwise had if they put all of their effort into writing software and drivers specifcally for NT based platform.

So really then, there isn't much of a difference in W98 and XP besides the memory management handling and NTFS file system? Someone I know that claims they are very expertise in knowledge about the way Windows NT and Windows 9X were made (they were an OS/2 WARP administrator for a bank my friend works for), claims they are so different that you cannot even compare them. They said that Windows 2000 is as different from Windows ME as OS/2 WARP is from Windows ME. They said that all programs written for Windows 98 that also say they are XP compatible are really all written for Windows 9X, but have been tested on Windows 2000 or XP? He says that any program written strictly for Windows NT will not stand a chance to run on Windows 9X? Is that more a thing of the past before the same API sets were introduced to both Windows 98SE/ME and Windows NT/2000/XP?? Isn't really the only difference between Windows 9X and NT is that they both use the same WIN32 software API designed to run the same coded programs, but the same API is written differently to run on two different OS kernels, but runs the same applications? I guess what that tech friend of mine told me still bugs me to this day and concerns me about the differences in both operating systems and a reduction in performance and stability?

Why do you keep referring to me hating Windows 98? It is anything Windows 9X based that I hate including Windows 98. If you don't like XP and the activation crap, use Windows 2000. At least that is a quality OS and doesn't contain the stupid Bill Gates communist activation!! But using anything Windows 9X based is hitting the bottom of the barrel. It is technically a POS compared to other real 32-bit operating systems.

A topic that made it off the front page. And now, three more votes to the worst possible poll answer!! Probably intentionally doing it to tick Windows 9X basher off. That is sad.

I don't want Bill talking to my pc... in fact, I don't want my pc talking to ANYONE without my consent. That is the one HUGE reason why I hate XP. And I do use 2000 (and 98se), it has proved to be a good, stable OS for most purposes, I'm not arguing with that. So, like timeless said, this IS a 9x support forum, not an OS war forum for the NT vs. DOS people. Back on topic, DirectX 10 is not due to release for about another year, so there's not much any of us can do about it in the way of compatibility right now, except, try to prepare for the worse (ex: dx10 only running on vista.) I don't want anyone talking to my PC either without my consent. That is why I say use Windows 2000 if you don't like Windows XP. It's not so much 9X is bad, but it is pointless to run it on high end hardware for running today's. Let 9X do what it was designed to do. Run legacy programs on slower systems. That is the place where I find it better. Your right, it is not a war between NT and 9X. I just was stating my opinion. I guess I really just don't like 9X. It does rightly have a place here. I am just stating that it doesn't make sense to run 9X on today's PCs for running today's software. I would expect more questions in this forum to be about older PCs with regards to Windows 9X. But people can ask whatever they want. But it certainly isn't as actice as the nlite forum. nlite forum is far more active than other forum here as far as I've noticed.

NO, I won't be saying that! Windows 9X has always been a complete POS when it comes to 32-bit computing and multi tasking even in it's heyday. I will never diss Windows XP once Longhorn becomes mainstream because Windows XP is still a quality and fine OS. The fact is, I always have hated Windows 9X from the standpoint of being considered a 32-bit and pre-emptive multi tasking OS. It is a horrible OS in that regard compared to what others had to offer. It was only because of Micro$oft's unethical and anticompetitive practices that their OS was by far the most dominant and was the only thing that had almost every software application that existed available for it. It HAD nothing to do with it being the best OS available. There were far better operating systems available, but they were never given a chance because no one had the control that MS had. IBM's OS/2 would have blown MS Windows 9X out of the water from a technical, reliabaility, and performance standpoint if it were given a chance in the market place!! I have used OS/2 and Linux back in the day. And boy, I felt like I was in heaven when using the very few applications available for Linux and OS/2 that were also available for Windows. I mean the performance was so much better and I could actually multi task without severe performance degradation while maintaining great up time and stability. I always thought of Windows as being tremendously inferior and crappy compared to other operating systems. But when I got on the NT band wagon, I can actually say for once and for all, I used the first version of an MS OS, being Windows 2000 that I can actually say I found respectable and that I liked. It's Windows 9X and what it was advertised to be (falsely true 32-bit self standing OS) which I am bashing, not older operating systems. The fact that if it weren't for Micro$oft's unfair anticompetitive control over the market place, we would all have been running an OS kernel far superior to anything Windows 9X/ME had the last ten years!! That is really what bothers me. For instance, if the whole home consumer computing world was using some OS based on a quality core like Linux that was realy 32-bit the last 10 years like everyone thought we already were,(because of false advertising on Micro$oft's part), I wouldn't bash older operating systems. I would be praising how far we have came. I've talk to some expert programmers regarding the design of operating systems and sadly, they really believe that the whole home market PC industry progress has been slowed the last 10 years because of Micro$oft Windows being such an inferior OS compared to others. And when they say Windows, they mean because of Windows 95/98/ME based operating systems. It is Windows 9X I think is crap, even in its heyday, especially considering what OS core we should have been using the last 10 years had it not been for Micro$oft's unfair monopolistic business practices. It is not older stuff that I think is bad. It is merely Windows 9X and Microsoft's unfair business practices that forced an inferior product to be the dominating force in the market place.

If you don't like Windows XP, use Windows 2000. Anything Windows 9X is a POS. It is called the tremendous differences in the OS kernel which makes Windows 9X a POS!! I persoanlly hate DRM infested crap too. But that doesn't make me ignorant enough to use an OS with a POS core like Windows 98/ME. I use Windows XP because it is the most up to date and uses a qquality kerenl Believe me, I hate all the bloat XP comes with as well including the DRM infested junk. But I strip that bloat out before using it. There is no excuse to be using Windows 98 if you don't like Windows XP becuase it always has Bill talking to your PC. Use Windows 2000. It has none of that crap in it and still uses a quality kernel. The core OS of Windows NT/2000/XP/2003, Linux, Solaris, BSD, OS/2, and MAC OS X easily blows Windows 95/98/ME out of the water. Well, if you are using Windows 98SE and you say that it is easy to say that the DOS kernel is an obsolete and unstable POS, that is essentially what you are using. Windows 98 is the DOS kernel at it's very root. It was never designed for 32-bit computing and multi tasking in mind. Actually, I have used Windows 98SE before with all the updates and service packs applied. It was only marginally better at best. It was still an unstable OS for the most part. The only time I ever got it to be stable was when running legacy or simplistic 32-bit applications. Even then, the up time was horrible if you left it on without a reboot for too long. Whenever I'd try and do anything even the slighest bit resource intenstive, performance would degrade pretty quickly or the system would lock up. This was even with the latest service packs applied. It was also with the most up to date drivers and on high quality perfectly flawless hardware. There you have it. Windows 9X will never be stable for semi resource intensive or greater 32-bit computing or multi tasking. Maybe some people who claim 98SE is very stable with the latest updates are just extrenely lucky??

It's not just the age of the OS which matters. Anything Windows 9X is a POS when it comes to semi resource intensive or greater 32-bit computing and multi tasking. I always hated Windows 9X. Look, Windows ME was released right around the same time when Windows 2000 was released. But I think Windows 2000 should still be supported by hardware and software manufacturers for a long time because Windows 2000 is still a good OS. Windows 98/ME shouldn't be supported not because of their age, but becuase of their age and that they suck. Windows 2000 is over 5 years old, but it deserves to be supported for a long time because it is a quality OS. Windows 98/ME are not no matter how you look at it. It's not just the age of the OS that matters when it comes to supporting it. I am all for continuing to support older OS's released a while back, as long as they are based on the same core and still a good OS. Windows 98/ME are completely different than Windows 2000/XP. Developers should stick to one based OS core, to ease the task of writing software. Imagine how things would be if developers had to write software compatible with Linux, MAC, and Windows 2000/XP using the same files and installer.

It's the superiority in the kernel and memory management that make Windows 2000/XP so much better than POS Windows 98/ME. I mean lets face it. Windows 98/ME aren't even native 32-bit operating systems. Should we still be running resource intensive applications on an OS that isn't even natively 32-bit. Of course not. Linux is a quality OS. If DirectX games and other applications were all ported natively for Linux the last 10 years as they are for Windows, performance would have probably been a lot better than it ever would have been on any MS Windows whether 9X or NT based. but if we have to cling to the MS OS world, at least use an OS that doesn't suck like Windows 9X. Windows 9X is actually what gave Microsoft a bad name for having an inferior OS compared to what others had to offer. That is why I say trash it. Why in the heck didn't MS design a real 32-bit OS 10 years ago. The fact that Windows 95 was originally native 16-bit with 32-bit extensions has thus reduced performance and stability for all 32-bit applications and multi tasking the last 10 years. Read what this thread and article below to find out why POS Windows 9X/ME should have died a long time ago when it comes to 32-bit computing. But the sad thing is, if it weren't for Micro$oft's control freak manipulative practices, the whole PC industry would have been using a real native 32-bit OS the last 10 years. Other compnaies had an OS based on real 32-bit architecture which was ready for universal compatibility for the home consumer market. But it never stood a chance because of MS's vindictive business practices, even though their were far superior technologies. Read what it says at these two links below to see why Windows 9X should have died for good long ago: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=34259&st=0 http://www.skrause.org/computers/dos.shtml

It will be a good thing that DirectX 10 won't support POS Windows 98/ME. However, it should support Windows XP because Windows XP is still a quality operating system that deserves to be kept around for a long time even after Vista is released!! So if DirectX 10 only supports Windows Vista when it comes out, people running Windows XP or Windows XP x64 will have every right to complain about Micro$oft forcing people to upgrade all the time!! The same IN NO WAY can be said about people still running POS Windows 98/ME!! Honestly, the industry should have done everything it could have to make Windows 2000/XP the standard OS platform and almost all software designed to require a Windows 2000/XP core to run. Windows 2000 deserved to be kept around for a long time after XP was released because it is still a quality OS. But when Vista is released, I think it is fair to say that Windows 2000 will only have extended support while Windos XP continues it's mainstream support for a while longer. DirectX 9 shouldn't have supported POS Windows 98/ME!! DirectX 9 should have been Windows 2000/XP/2003 only!! If Microsoft decided to make DirectX 9 for only Windows XP, people running Windows 2000 would have every right to complain about Microsoft forcing people to upgrade all the time because Windows 2000 was still a quality and plenty new OS at the time. But the whole industry should have made a serious attempt to trash Windows 98/ME right after Windows XP was released. The same can't be said about Windows XP once Vista is released because Windows XP is still a quality OS that deserves to be kept around for a while after Vista is released. Same should have held true for Windows 2000 once Windows XP was released, although Windows XP was released only 20 months after Windows 2000 was released, so Windows 2000's mainstream support would survive less long based on that fact. But Windows XP has been around longer than any other desktop MS OS, so it's mainstream support will be longer just because of that. The industry should have made a move three years ago to trash Windows 98/ME when it comes to support for semi-resource intensive 32-bit computing or higher. In NO way should people have the right to say that the whole industry is doing a nod to MS by doing that. If the whole industry made a move to only support Windows XP and not Windows 2000 three years ago, then people would have a right to complain about doing MS a favor and forcing people to upgrade. But phasing out support for POS Windows 98/ME should have been forced upon the hardware and software manufacturers because they are POS operating systems!!