Link21

It's a good thing and should have happened years ago. Windows NT and Windows 9X were made so differently that it is highly likely that applications being developed that are cross compatible with two completely different OS platforms has probably hurt performance and stability the last few years. Windows NT is far superior to anything piece of sh*t Windows 9X based OS. I mean, do you see software written for the MAC that is still comptaible with MAC OS 9 or below? No. All MAC software written these days are for MAC OS X only. The same should be the case with Windows PCs. All software should be for Windows 2000/XP only. That way, we will obtain superior performance by utilizing the features of a native NT based OS. Let Windows 9X die. It should have died years ago. It's only purpose should be for running legacy games and applications that flat out won't run on an NT based OS. Dual boot if you have a need to run legacy applications that flat out won't run on an NT based OS. In NO way should one be using POS Windows 98/ME for running today's software on today's hardware!! Forcing that kind of compatible only hinders the superior performance we could be having in today's computing world which is sad.

You mean like on purpose? Whether you need them or not? Sure if you write the program you can include any functions you want, NT only included. If goal is to deny it running on 9x just make check that it is running NT and exit if it is 9x. This is what polite programs that use NT only API do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, that's not what I mean. I mean are there API sets available in Windows 2K/XP that are not available in Windows 9X that would result in a program having better performance if you used them? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Anyone know if there are extra API sets available in Windows 2K/XP that aren't available in Windows 9X?

You mean like on purpose? Whether you need them or not? Sure if you write the program you can include any functions you want, NT only included. If goal is to deny it running on 9x just make check that it is running NT and exit if it is 9x. This is what polite programs that use NT only API do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, that's not what I mean. I mean are there API sets available in Windows 2K/XP that are not available in Windows 9X that would result in a program having better performance if you used them?

Are there any programs like games that could be written to utilize certain API functions only available in Windows 2K/XP, but not available in Windows 9X?

No it is unlikely. Unicode would be slower if anything, since it needs 2 bytes to store character instead of ascii's 1. Only thing unicode gets you is universal character set, not performance. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So, what's the point of unicode then? You could still write program for Windows 9X without unicode and you could type any character that universally existed in a word processing program? Will anything written for Windows not using unicode work on Windows 9X?

Unicode only system files work only on an NT based platform. Would performance be any better if programs were written using Unicode only? What if DirectX 9 was written using Unicode only? Is it likely it would have performed better?

Yes, P4 3.4Ghz + 1Gb memory+ 2x120Gb HD + GF4 is perfect for w98se-uSP2. A good wide 19' LCD display of the lastest generation is also recommanded for w98 OS. It would ba a waste to use such computer with XP. Link21 XP is not aquality OS. IMO. That's why driver support for w98 should go on. Unfortunately economics sometimes are against that and we, w98 users suffer from the obligation to install low-performance XP-based drivers because everybody knows that XP mean low-performance. Yes XP is stable but not a quality OS. No. Also one more reason why your point is not valid: Every processor use binary data and these binary datas are the same in w98 and XP. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> XP is a quality OS because it uses a quality kernel being the NT kernel. Linux is also a quality OS, and even more so a quality OS than XP/2000. Windows XP is fast once you strip out all the bloat. Anything based off Windows 9X is NOT a quality OS because it uses a horrible kernel!! Windows 98 driver support has been halted for the latest hardware as was shown with the release of the Intel 915X+ chipsets, NVIDIA NForce 4+ chipsets, Radeon X800+ video chipsets, and the GeForce 7800 video card chipsets. So, now what are you going to do if you want an Athlon 64 system with an NForce 4 and GeForce 7800 or high end system. You won't be able to run Windows 98 on there. Face it, it's time to move on. The only reason you don't like XP is because you saw it and made up your mind that it is bloated. Sure, it may be bloated, but you can strip out all the bloat. It's the differences in the kernel that make an OS a quality OS. You would say the same thing about Windows 98 if it were bloated as well. It isn't bloated, but it uses a crappy kernel. Heck, if MS tried to load 98 with the same bloat XP contains, it probably wouldn't even work as your system would crash ever second.

Obviously an ATI Rage XL 8MB card should support 9X. How old is that card by now? Like more than 6 years old. Of course it should support Windows 9X. But give me one reason why Windows 9X should be supported for video cards like the GeForce 4 series and higher, and the Radeon 9000 series and higher video cards. There are hardly any Windows 9X users using GeForce 4 class video cards or higher and Radeon 9000 or higher video cards. Same with games that require at minimum those class video cards or higher to run. I don't see why manufacturers should be concerned about supporting Windows 9X for games that require a video chipset manufacturered in the last 2.5 years.

Windows 98 and ME are both the same thing. The only difference is that Windows ME has System Restore and PC Health. If you disable that, they are pretty much the same OS. Neither is quality where as Windows 2000/XP are quality operating systems.

I hate anything based on Windows 9X including Windows 98. It gave me a nightmare of problems when I've used anything based on Windows 9X. I have used Windows 2000 and Windows XP, and both of them I found to be so much better that I felt like I was in heaven after using 2000, even with the earlier service packs for both. You can use what you want, I'm just stating that I never liked anything based on Windows 9X.

@Fredledingue So are you basically telling me that Windows 9X and Windows NT are very similar and not structured completely different. I thought Windows NT was as different from Windows 9X as OS/2 was from Windows 9X? Basically, has Windows 98 been converted to NT, but with the same name as the Windows 98 I remember?? A programmer once told me that all programs written that run on Windows XP and Windows 98 are really just written for Windows 98, but they run on XP because Windows XP has backwards compatibility for running Windows 98 programs? That's just like saying you could write a Windows 3.1 program and say it is compatible with OS/2 WARP because OS/2 WARP provides the capability to run Windows 3.1 programs, even though such a program wouldn't be native to OS/2 WARP. Explain that to me someone, and is this the right analogy? So tell me this? Why is it that some programs written for Windows 9X won't run on NT, no matter how you edit the installer, and vice versa? No, I'm not saying software should block installation if it detects Windows 98 is the OS. What I am saying is software should be designed so it utilizes an NT architecture, and won't run on Windows 98 because it doesn't have the required API set, like NT does. That would prevent Windows 98 from running it because it doesn't have the required API set, not because the installer is set to block installation on 98. What about iTunes and Napster 2.0?? It specifcally says that they will only run on Windows 2000/XP and not Windows 98?? Is it possible to successfully install iTunes or Napster 2.0 on Windows 98?? If Windows 98 were so similar to Windows 2000/XP and just as good as them, then you'd think there would have to be a way to successfully install iTunes or Napster 2.0 on Windows 98?? Why is it possible to install Doom 3 on Windows 98 like mentioned earlier in this thread, but not Napster 2.0 or iTunes?

Take an accounting class. Customer goodwill is an asset with monetary value. Not implying, saying flat out. But this is only part of it. MS and MS affiliates want to sell games to all of the people that still use 98. They have huge marketing department, so I am sure whatever they decide to support or not support is thoroughly researched.From all of the yes/no answers here it seems people don't understand it's not about the OS, it's about the $$$. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It would be less expensive for Microsoft to offer all people who use Windows 98/ME a free copy of Windows 2000/XP, and ditch support for Windows 98/ME all together. They could have done that a few years ago, and probably saved money. It costs probably a lot more to continue supporting Windows 98/ME than the money they'd loose by giving every Windows 98/ME user a free upgrade to Windows XP, especially since software is a non-tangible thing that can easily be reproduced for little cost. Also, Microsoft makes so much moey by selling lots more than just the Windows OS. They could have given away Windows XP for free and relied on selling their games and other software to make tons of money. Then their games and other software would have been cheaper to make because they wouldn't have had to ensure compatibility with POS Windows 98/ME and written the code to run on quality 2000/XP only instead. But I guess Microsoft doesn't like the idea of making something with the name Windows on it and giving it away for free, even if it remianed closed source, despite the fact they could have probably saved money with the example I stated above.

What do you mean by good will being considered an asset? Are you trying to imply that Microsoft did what they needed to do in order to not p*** off their customers? I mean, do you think it took Microsoft extra effort to make DirectX 9 compatible with Windows 98/ME than it would have if they made it for only Windows 2000/XP. If Microsoft had choosen to make DirectX 9 only for Windows XP and not 2000, people would have a right to complain because Windows 2000 is still a good OS that deserved to be kept around back when DirectX 9 came about. If Microsoft made DirectX 9 compatible with Windows 2000/XP only, people wouldn't have the right to complain that Microsoft is forcing them to upgrade so fast. And Microsoft could have specifically used that example to state that they aren't forcing people to upgrade so fast. The reason we choose to support Windows 2000/XP only is because Windows 98/ME are POS operating systems. If we choose to support XP only for DirectX 9, then I could understand people complaining that MS is forcing them to upgrade because Windows 2000 is still a good OS, where as POS Windows 98/ME are not.

The games are actually supported by the directx hardware abstraction layer, not the OS. 9x supports directx, so why wouldn't the games be supported? On the other hand, hardware companies have to put their money where it makes a profit, so the only correct answer to this question of driver support is "Depends'. If there is enough demand they will support it, thats how it works. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why did Microsoft release DirectX 9 for Windows 98/ME? It wouldn't make anymore money for them? Was it a significant amount of extra work for Microsoft to release DirectX 9 for Windows 98/ME in addition to Windows 2000/XP. If so they shouldn't have done it. So, would a DirectX game using the same installation programs and files run on a MAC if there was a version of DirectX 9 for MAC OS X?

The results of this poll so far disgust me. It's these Windows 98SE diehards who are still forcing the indutsry to support such a POS OS like Windows 98/ME, thus holding back the quality and performance applications could have already had. All the Windows 98SE diehards need to get that blind thought out of thier head where they live in this fantasy world in which they think Windows 98SE is the best version of Windows and they can run everything on Windows 98SE for the rest of their lives when they keep buying new hardware and software. Because Windows 98 is not the best version of Windows!! The fact remains that Windows 98/ME are structured completely different from Windows 2000/XP. And developers having to write software using the same files that runs on two completely different OS platforms is probably a PIA and degrades the stability, quality, and performance of the applications which is sad. Write applications for the platform that is the better of the two being Windows 2000/XP. It just is flat out sickening to see games with 2005 in the title that say they are compatible with POS Windows 98/ME. All modern games should be written to run on a quality platform only which is Windows 2000/XP when it comes to the Microsoft OS world!!

With the last Unofficial Service Pack 2.02, you can officialy go up to one Gig of memory. The problem is that XP fans ignore the w98 updates (most of them even never used w98SE and remember the bad days of the forst version). It's like if we, w98 fans, ignored XP SP1 and SP2! Now it's funny that XP, supposed to be faster because it has direct 32 bit code "emulation" (or whatever you call it) is in fact running slowlier than w98...that is 15 years-old- 16 bit DOS based... How is that? Would XP be slightly bloated by any chance? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure, if you try and run Windows XP on a dog slow system with little RAM, sure it's going to be slower than Windows 98. If you strip out all the bloat XP contains and run it on a PC even with only 128MB of RAM, it will be just as fast as POS Windows 98, and will be 10000X more stable and continue to provide consistent performance with a long uptime. Try running Windows 98 for a long time without a reboot while maintaining consistent system performance and stability. Bet you can't do it. If you think XP is bloated and don't want to have to deal with stripping it out, use Windows 2000!! Windows 2000 isn't bloated and at least it is a quality OS with a quality kernel being based on NT! Windows 98/ME has a POS kernel!! Trash those junker 98/ME operating systmes already. Nails should have been put in the Windows 9X kernel's coffin years ago!! Windows 2K/XP PWned Windows 98/ME by far!!

It may have true 32-bit code, but it depends on legacy 16-bit code to function. It is essentially real 32-bit code extensions on top of a 16-bit subsystem.

Excellent. SO does that mean removed components will have their corresponding files removed from SFC_OS.dll and thus no SFC popups while keeping SFC enabled? Never the less, thank you so much for all the great work!

Drivers don't use the same version for both operating systems. Just look at ATI's and NVIDIA's website. They have a separate version to download for Windows 98/ME than for Windows 2000/XP. Applications use the same versions probably because they are just written for Windows 98/ME and they rely on the fact that Windows 2000/XP have backwards compatibility for Windows 9X applications. So almost all applications written today and for the past few years aren't even native to Windows 2000/XP, and are really native to Windows 98/ME, but just run on Windows 2000/XP because of what I said above, which is FRIGGIN SAD. That's how application performance is suffering. Windows 98 has always been a POS OS. It's called the kernel. Use an OS based on NT that at least has a quality kernel!!

So, let performance suffer just because they are afraid of losing a few sales. Almost all people using Windows 98 have systems with CPUs 1GHz or less in speed. That is a fact!!

That is simply not true. Windows 98/ME are completely different operating systems under the hood than Windows 2000/XP and as such, it probably does result in worse performance and stability than we'd otherwise have in the PC industry if it were Windows 2000/XP only!! Just like I said above. That is more than enough reason for someone to argue over this. Just because there system is stable and performance is good, doesn't mean it wouldn't be better if POS Windows 98/ME were trashed all together. It's the fact that developers have to continue and provide support for two distinctly different operating systems made by the same company (Microsoft) for the last 5 years where as they only had to support one base OS prior to Windows 2K. Stick to one common OS which is the better of the two completely different OS based platforms being 2K/XP.

AMEN!! That's really what bothers me about continued support for POS Windows 98/ME. Application and game performance probably suffers a lot because of continued support for POS Windows 98/ME which are a completely different OS under the hood than Windows 2000/XP. If they were Windows 2000/XP only, performance and stability would be much better!!

It's the kernel of the OS that makes the difference. Every software package out there that's released is probably incomplete in one way or another. Windows 98/ME suck becaus ethey use a crappy kernel. Windows 2000/XP/2003 use a quality kernel. Don't just choose your OS based on the interface and fetaures it loads by default. If you hate XP so much and don't want to deal with stripping out the bloated junk, use Windows 2000. Windows 2000 isn't bloated and still uses a a quality robust kernel.

I have disabled the Application Layer Gateway service before, and the Windows Firewall service was still started when on automtic. And I could still open the Windows Firewall and add specific programs to allow exceptions to. Why would I be able to do that if it's needed for the Windows Firewall to run?? Is it needed perhaps for the Windows firewall to function properly, but I just haven't run into any problem yet?

But is it needed for just using the Windows firewall?