cheer up!

[aqcww]

cheer up every one!i'm a win98 fans,although win98 is made in 10years ago,but i don't think it's very old.it's a good sytem

so cheer up everyone,do something for win98,don't forget this good system.

[BenoitRen]

I use Windows 95, you insensitive clod!

[RetroOS]

I use Windows 98 Second Edition - that's only nine (9) years old!

Hey BenoitRen, cheer up, you're using classic software!

Afterall, all the Windows 98, 98SE, Me, 2000, XP, 2003, users can thank Windows 95!

Anyone using that eight years young OS called Windows Me (Microsoft experiment)?

[Ambassador]

Heck no. An upgrade to Windows Me from 98SE is more pointless than XP to Vista.

I use Windows 95, you insensitive clod!

Heck yeah! Why isn't there more Windows 95 development here anyway?

[BenoitRen]

Because most people are using 98SE. I'm only one of the few still using 95. That's okay, though, there isn't much I need.

[Sysdll]

Anyone using that eight years young OS called Windows Me (Microsoft experiment)?

Me. (sorry, bad joke)

I use it on a dedicated Sims Complete / Casual Games machine that keeps family members from hogging my main computer.

I even like Vista. If it wasn’t for Vista there wouldn’t be all those Vista non-compliant peripherals on Ebay for $5.00 a pop. I’ve upgraded all my 98x machines with pocket change and that cheers me up.

[SlugFiller]

I use Windows 95, you insensitive clod!

Why? 98 is practically a service pack. I can't imagine a reason to stay on 95. It's not like it has something 98 hasn't, or any noticeable differences aside from lesser hardware support and stability. It can't really be compared to a move to the NT series.

Anyone using that eight years young OS called Windows Me (Microsoft experiment)?

When I first heard about it, I thought that would be the OS I would upgrade to after 98.

When I next heard about it, I realized it's not.

Actually reduced stability+features I don't need+disabling things it should have = not too inviting.

Too bad that after that screw-up MS figured "screw it" and threw away the whole series.

[BenoitRen]

Why? 98 is practically a service pack. I can't imagine a reason to stay on 95.

Windows 95 can be installed and used without IE. The shell is a lot less annoying and cluttered. AndrewT sums it up well in his weblog post about Windows 95.

Such differences are hardly just a Service Pack.

Edited May 1, 2008 by BenoitRen

[SlugFiller]

Read the article. Half about it was applicable to "Why 98 and not 2000". The remainder was pretty much "It doesn't have IE". Fair enough, I presume, although I have seen the occasional site which requires IE.

[TheRedFox]

Why? 98 is practically a service pack. I can't imagine a reason to stay on 95.

Windows 95 can be installed and used without IE. The shell is a lot less annoying and cluttered. AndrewT sums it up well in his weblog post about Windows 95.

Such differences are hardly just a Service Pack.

Firefox has an extension called IE tab that basically allows you to switch a tab to be like a window of IE. i think you do need IE installed for it to work though, but whatever. quite unimportant. if I had a windows 95 installation CD, I would definately install it on some partition on some box or other, eventually, but alas, I do not have one. I love that all of the stuff that 95 includes can fit on a tiny little 30mb partition. I'd make mine like at least a gb, though, so as to allow for storage space. I had a Windows 95 laptop (AST Ascentia 810N) that had a 512 mb hardrive (that was expanded to a maybe 1.5 gb by way of DriveSpace 3. It was nice, though without internets. unfortunately, the Screen Died, it lacks a battery, and the powersource plug in required you to plug a powersource in from an angle for it to turn on. a little too janky for my tastes. I still enjoy my 98SE box, though.

[TheRedFox]

Once you get to this point (10 years and therefore many official and unofficial fixes and service packs, Windows 98SE is really pretty stable. I also rather like the user interface (even some of the eyecandy, such as sliding menus), and it's compatible with quite a few programs (at least the necessities, such as word processing, up to date web browsing, nearly up to date flash and java, audio stuff, etc.) idk. I like this system alot. i also wish I had a Windows 98 install cd (i don't think quick restore will cut it, if I get a new hard drive or something.) anyways, yeah. just wanted to speak my mind.

[PeaceByJesus]

I used 9x up until last year, and went diectrly to Vista hb, and ended up dual booting with XP home ( tweaked), on a Dell e520 PC (3.08 ghz cpu, 1.5gb ram).

My old PC, with an AMD 650mhz, MSI6195 mobo, 320 ram, was used extensively on the web and otherwise for about 5 years, wearing out one PSU, and only got one virus all those years (thank God), so i was not looking for more security. And it is actually faster from full boot up to basic tasks like navigation and launching folders and small apps than either XP or Vista (in that order) is on the new PC , DSL surfing is about the same. And all are tweaked. I now use the old rig mainly as W/98se for a video player, running 4 pata HDs.

But i do not miss the blue screens and freeze ups, and limits of 98se! I like the speed, software compatibility and navigation of XP home ed., but Vista HB is more stable, albeit slower, and has better power and disk management.

As lack of system resources was a recurring problem for me under 9x, two freeware apps i found indispensable were Tclock http://homepage1.nifty.com/kazubon/tclock/ and FreeXPpro http://www.yourwaresolutions.com/software.html.

The first can be programed to give not only time in seconds but memory load and cpu load and sys. resources. You need the MS resource meter installed. Under tclock properties i used (i think) ddd-M-d\\hh:mm:ss//R-C-S

FreeXPpro can be programed to alert you when sys. res. get to a predefined level.

Also for looks, Transtext makes the icons transparent" http://www.realityrift.com/applications/transtext/