My ideas about operating systems...

[aLeXis]

What I like with the Vista saga is that XP users are now in the same boat as w9x users.

XP users used to call us idiots for staying with w9x, told us to buy more ram and move to XP. Today it's them who are the "idiots" for not moving to the latest windows to date while they are resisting pressure against non-sens bloat.

Best quote in a while +1

[MichelleD]

I agree, I don't need the extra fluff tacked onto the OS and I usually Run vista or XP with Classic Display settings and I like it that way, but I still need a decent amount of hardware performance for 3D modeling and animation, and video editing.

So I got a new desktop with Vista (not by choice) and I'm left wishing it was running XP, because my programs only work (without huge bugs) in XP, but my only XP copy is on my Dell Laptop which is too slow or lacks Hard drive space for rendering or composing video.

I can get Adobe AE7 to run in Vista by constantly going from Windows 95 compatibility mode to Windows XP mode. One mode to allow importing of files, and the other one to allow exporting of files, but I really need a solid way of editing my files without forking out another $100 for another copy of XP.

I do love running win 98 and having it boot in seconds on my new desktop. I wish everything worked this smoothly, and was windows 98 compatible.

[cannie]

IMHO after Win98 SE MS decided to keep a tight grip on the user to fight piracy, and for that reason all supported OS are totally network based. There are increasingly more and more built-in backdoors. The code is closed and does not allow you to know where the backdoors are. An antivirus is totally neccesary, being the antivirus essentially a giant virus which protects you from viruses...for a short time. The same happens with the firewall. The system is increasingly more complex and hieratic, and the speed is not what you would expect at first.

II like using Windows 98 SE because I feel that the computer is completely in my hands. There is no file that can not be viewed, copied, deleted or restored. Besides the operating system can be easily cloned in several drives having immediate access to any of them. By using Unofficial SP2 its stability improves considerably.

Nevertheless I would not use Windows 98 SE for a network or to play games, because of its limited resouces: for that in this moment I would choose XP, if I am not forced by a native Vista... and I would install a dual boot whenever possible to have the possibility of using the "oldie" for the Internet.

Edited June 10, 2008 by cannie

[SlugFiller]

An OS should be a thin layer between the software and the hardware. The thinner, the better.

98 isn't what I would consider the best OS possible. Not by a long shot. To me, it is the lesser of all evils. Next is Linux, Win2000, OS X, and all other OSs trail somewhere behind that.

Personally, I have a pretty concrete image of what the perfect OS would be like, down to the threading model. Unfortunately, it would probably take me years to make it alone. In the mean time, I'm doing my best to get my 98SE to do everything I need it to.

Still, what I like most about 98SE, is that it is the most modern OS that doesn't do what I don't want it to. It's a shame all the newer OSs have decided to take the user out of the equation.

Edited June 10, 2008 by SlugFiller

[BenoitRen]

Nevertheless I would not use Windows 98 SE for a network or to play games, because of its limited resouces

What do you mean by limited resources? I don't see why it's not good enough for games.

[herbalist]

Why I still use 98.

IMO An operating system should run the users software, store the users data, and nothing more. It should not store records of user activities unless it's instructed to by the user/administrator. It should not connect out or send any data unless I tell it to. Once it's set up and configured, it should stay out of the way and be silent unless there's something happening that I need to know about. The user/administrator should have full control over every process and full access to every file.

98 is not ideal by any means, but it comes closer than any other MS operating system. My system has 4 operating systems installed. My primary is still 98FE. I have 98SE installed, but have yet to get the performance from it that FE gives me. It gets used for testing and experiments more than anything else. Win2K is installed, but is only used when it's absolutely necessary, when the same app just won't run on 98. Compared to 98, it's sluggish, slow to boot, and on my hardware, not as stable. I also have one HD with linux installed, but just can't get interested enough in it to really work with it. I'm considering removing it and using that HD for the swap file, temp files, cache, etc.

Most of the issues I have with 98 can be dealt with thru DOS. Most of the time batch files will do what I want with no input from me required. There's so much that can be done with 98 using DOS, especially from a security perspective, all of which is impossible on 2K and newer.

Still, what I like most about 98SE, is that it is the most modern OS that doesn't do what I don't want it to.

So true. The biggest issues I have with newer OSs is what they do that the user can't control. Each new version of windows stores more records of user activity than the one before while taking away control from the user at the same time. Vista and XP have way too much in common with spyware for me to consider using. IMO 98 is the last version of Windows over which the user still has enough control to undo its built-in spyware characteristics without needing to hack files.

Rick

[cyberformer]

I've used Windows 98se since the day I got my first PC--around 2001 or so.

When that PC started to give me problems (fixed now) I got my first XP PC.

I was not as PC savvy back then, and was always getting hacked and virused.

It ran so fast without SP2, and now that I know about external firewalls, and the use of various programs--I dispense with SP2 altogether--except for an unofficial service pack that came out some time back.

The only thing I like about XP is that it runs a few progs I cannot run on 98se.

It's fine for what it does, and it seems to work smoother and better without any updates from the big M!

But when I sit before my old Compaq win 98se, it's pure Magick!

It's a warm friendly OS imbued with Life! I really do believe after using XP, Linux, and seeing Vista etc--that 98se is the definitive OS. For me, its the best OS ever invented. With the work done by the members of this forum, it is what it could have been!

Except for the crappers that discontinue anti spyware and anti virus programs--thus giving us problems that cannot be blamed on the OS itself, it's really, really is the greatest thing the big M can ever truly pride themselves on. Too bad they abandoned a beautiful creation--to support Frankenstein monsters!

When I want to use a program that does not work on 98se I go to XP.

When I want to have fun, and use a computer every day, I've got 98se.

When I want to see something really fast, I go to my almost 1 Ghz PC with only 128 MB running Win 95B!

We are talking fast, very, very fast. It's a lean mean efficient Internet cruiser! And it opens and starts progs with the blink of an eye.

When I want to challenge myself to the point of going mad, I try to get an old thing I found with Windows 3.11 onto the Internet. Still researching how to do it at the moment. Not a bad little OS! Primitive looking, but you could run a business with it.

It really saddens me that some of the free programs that have helped us so much are now being discontinued for Win 9x. But it's not the end, only another challenge for us to grit our teeth--and preserve, refusing to give up on The OS that seems tailor made just for us.

[herbalist]

Except for the crappers that discontinue anti spyware and anti virus programs--thus giving us problems that cannot be blamed on the OS itself, it's really, really is the greatest thing the big M can ever truly pride themselves on. Too bad they abandoned a beautiful creation--to support Frankenstein monsters!

Fortunately, 98 doesn't need AVs and AS. It can be secured quite well without them. When there's no AV or security suite bogging it down, an OS that's already fast can fly! Even with a 366mhz processor, my 98SE testbox boots complete in under 45 seconds, with all security apps and other extras in autostart.

With the work done by the members of this forum, it is what it could have been!

It's sad that more people weren't aware of the projects and upgrades available here before they "upgraded" from 98. I'd bet a lot of them wouldn't have switched.

It really saddens me that some of the free programs that have helped us so much are now being discontinued for Win 9x. But it's not the end, only another challenge for us to grit our teeth--and preserve, refusing to give up on The OS that seems tailor made just for us.

Fortunately, the older versions of most of those programs work fine with 98. Using the most recent version of software isn't as important with 98 as it is with XP. With internet software for instance, fixing security vulnerabilities is one of the most common reasons for releasing a new version. Much of the time, the vulnerability didn't lead to anything exploitable on 98.

There's not much we can do about the big companies that follow Microsofts lead like good little puppets, supporting only what MS supports. Open Source software is another matter. With Open Source software, profit isn't the motive. Often it's the exact opposite, to give people an alternative to the expensive programs sold by MS and others. Those who work on Open Source software don't think there's any real demand for 9X support. Most don't know this place exists and aren't aware of the work being done here. They're much more likely to be responsive to us and continue supporting 9X IF they're aware that there's a demand for it and that there's knowledgeable people willing and able to do the testing.

An example of what we need to be doing a lot more of if we want software that runs on 98. At this moment, 204 people have viewed the End of support for Windows 98/ME in OpenOffice.org 3 thread, but there's only 13 votes for keeping 98 support. Since each person can add 2 votes, that tells me that only 7 people cared enough to give a couple of minutes of their time and ask them to keep supporting 98. If they stop supporting 98, we have ourselves to blame.

Rick

[cannie]

What do you mean by limited resources? I don't see why it's not good enough for games.

As for resources, there's a 512 MB limit for memory usage. There are some problems when using high speed processors.

Concerning games I mean the ones designed for XP or Vista. Of course, there are a lot of games to play also under Win98!

Apart of this, the lack of drivers makes it impossible the use of a SATA HD. It would be excellent if someone created one. The same thing happened with USB2 drivers and it was sorted out in the unofficial SP2!

[SlugFiller]

Instead they followed a line leading to Vista, the "Frankenstein OS", sold almost only as pre-installed platform (EOM) on new sold computers. No way you install Vista on a computer more than 3 years old. That's pretty silly from M$ management.

No it isn't. Business-wise it makes perfect sense. Their profits have probably never been higher.

It's also a form of "conspiracy" with hardware companies - bigger software that needs bigger hardware that needs bigger software. The perfect business model to make progressive sales of newer products without worrying about whether people actually want or need to upgrade - simply by leaving them with no choice.

Sure, this sucks royally for the end-user, but they're not aiming for customer satisfaction, only for high profit. That's business for you.

It's too bad the main non-business oriented competition is quite nearly the exact opposite of user-friendly. It has quite the potential, but ends up trying to hard and falling far short. Us end-users end up having only 98 as the middle-ground.

[BenoitRen]

Unfortunately, Win9x crashing has long become part of popular culture. You can't bring the OS up in discussion without that being pointed out.

I'm sure that it was crash-prone at a time, most likely when Microsoft tried to ram IE into the OS. But I get annoyed at people who claim Windows 95 is a buggy piece of s*** that crashes all the time.

Last time it was by a Haiku developer who supposedly even used it for years. I find that hard to believe when I've been using it for 10 years now without too many problems. Sure, once in a half year or so I get a BSOD. Or if I try some new software and it misbehaves in a way other than just crashing, the system may glitch a bit and require a reboot. But I think that's an acceptable failure rate.

Regarding Windows XP, I've never had it crash on me. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have its quirks. At times my DVD drive will disappear for no reason, and reappear later. Rarely the Windows XP theme will suddenly be selected for the taskbar (I use Classic).

Windows XP = Windows 2000 + ClearType + better Hyper-Threading support + much improved graphics support. Windows 2000 isn't much of a media OS.

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

Thread Culled. pointless arguing moved Here (not recommended reading but left intact for this threads context)

[GrofLuigi]

I was lured into XP by the promises that no app could crash another or the OS itself - memory isolation (protection). Coming from Amiga OS, I know it was a good thing. Unfortunately, it wasn't true at first - I've seen my fair share of blue screens. After the service packs the situation is better, but Micro$oft has grasped a new fetish - security (through obscurity = drm, bloat, slugishness). And taking away the control from the user. So the time is moving backwards now.

GL

[GrofLuigi]

Windows XP = Windows 2000 + ClearType + better Hyper-Threading support + much improved graphics support. Windows 2000 isn't much of a media OS.

Windows XP = Windows 2000 + skin. I laughed my a$$ off when I first saw it. Skins are for kiddies.

GL

*Edit Oh yeah, + activation.

Edited June 13, 2008 by GrofLuigi

[Octopuss]

Windows XP = Windows 2000 + ClearType + better Hyper-Threading support + much improved graphics support. Windows 2000 isn't much of a media OS.

Windows XP = Windows 2000 + skin. I laughed my a$$ off when I first saw it. Skins are for kiddies.

GL

*Edit Oh yeah, + activation.

/fail