Jump to content

Why do you still use 9X


win95guy
 Share

Recommended Posts


On that point... I bet my floppy drive still works. Haven't tried it... recently... ever...

I bet my computer would boot faster if I just disabled it in the BIOS. :lol:

Why disable it? Just push it behind the hard drive in the boot order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think that Floppy disk drive adds a lot of boot time, imagine my booting up and it searches both my 8" fdds, 1 5-1/4" fdd, 1 3-1/2" fdd, a tape drive, a cd, a dvd, then network, and usb, lastly it checks the two hdds. If not for pci breadboarding it would not have the tape, or two 8" fdds. If not for assembly language tutorials the boot list would be a bit shorter also. But that was getting a bit off topic.

I just found one more reason for why I still use Win9x, as it ages viruses will be made less often for it as there will be less of a userbase making it a waste of time to develop a virus for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use Windows 9x because it works!

I'm a firm believer in the golden rule: If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It.

Let's leave aside the fact that my computer isn't powerful enough to run a newer operating system. So let's leave aside the cost of having to buy a new computer in order to run that newer operating system (and the waste of money in junking an existing computer which works perfectly well).

Let's leave aside, too, the cost of junking all the expensive software which I've bought over the years that might not run on a different operating system.

Then again, why should I pay out good money on a new computer when the existing one does everything that I need it to? That would be dumb!

But, for me, it's more important to have a computer that works, rather than risk changing to some bug-ridden new one. I've read the posts on the forums by people complaining about Windows XP's faults: I remember how many bug fixes there were to get Windows 9x working properly, and I don't choose to go through that all over again!

Also, I don't see that Windows XP offers any advantage over Windows 9x to an ordinary home user. I've read how bloated and slow XP is, and I see it as a backward step: I'd be buying a new computer that's slower than my existing one. That would be *really* dumb!

I've added a PCI card with USB 2.0 and e-SATA ports. So whenever necessary I add a new (internal or external) 120 GB hard disk - either a PATA or a SATA disk - to increase my disk storage. And I use my CD-writer to save an unlimited amount of data on CD-RW discs.

Having become familiar with Windows 9x, over many years, I also know how to fix any problems that come up. Being able to get the computer going again myself (e.g. restoring a registry backup if a new piece of software hijacks some important setting) is invaluable.

To me, as a typical home user, Windows 9x is a tried and proven success: it works, does everything I need it to, and does it quickly. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have this experience:

i plug another hardisk (its FAT32) that contain lots textfiles on it to a winxp system, i tried to find files that contain certain string.

if the string contain spaces on it, winxp complain that i should enable indexing services on it.

however if i plug that hardisk on win9x system, i can simply find such files without having the OS complain about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use Windows 9x because it works!

I'm a firm believer in the golden rule: If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It.

Let's leave aside the fact that my computer isn't powerful enough to run a newer operating system. So let's leave aside the cost of having to buy a new computer in order to run that newer operating system (and the waste of money in junking an existing computer which works perfectly well).

Let's leave aside, too, the cost of junking all the expensive software which I've bought over the years that might not run on a different operating system.

Then again, why should I pay out good money on a new computer when the existing one does everything that I need it to? That would be dumb!

But, for me, it's more important to have a computer that works, rather than risk changing to some bug-ridden new one. I've read the posts on the forums by people complaining about Windows XP's faults: I remember how many bug fixes there were to get Windows 9x working properly, and I don't choose to go through that all over again!

Also, I don't see that Windows XP offers any advantage over Windows 9x to an ordinary home user. I've read how bloated and slow XP is, and I see it as a backward step: I'd be buying a new computer that's slower than my existing one. That would be *really* dumb!

I've added a PCI card with USB 2.0 and e-SATA ports. So whenever necessary I add a new (internal or external) 120 GB hard disk - either a PATA or a SATA disk - to increase my disk storage. And I use my CD-writer to save an unlimited amount of data on CD-RW discs.

Having become familiar with Windows 9x, over many years, I also know how to fix any problems that come up. Being able to get the computer going again myself (e.g. restoring a registry backup if a new piece of software hijacks some important setting) is invaluable.

To me, as a typical home user, Windows 9x is a tried and proven success: it works, does everything I need it to, and does it quickly. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

I agree with you on a lot of aspects here. Windows 9x, when properly maintained, is fine for the home user that does little to no internet. Most browsers are outdated (and I hate opera). Obviously, being a tech buff, I have two very beefy Vista/7 x64 systems, but I still do my basic tasks myself on a 9x machine. It's a familiar, much more basic operating system to get stuff done. It should play all your music files, sync with most older music players, run office well, and even be enough to check email and do basic web browsing.

If your current machine is productive, that's great, if you don't think you'd see an increase in productivity, well that's all the more reason to save your money these days. However, a newer machine, even with Vista, will be faster running Vista than almost any 9x system. (Assuming you're not running 98 on say a 3.8 GHz P4).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have this experience:

i plug another hardisk (its FAT32) that contain lots textfiles on it to a winxp system, i tried to find files that contain certain string.

if the string contain spaces on it, winxp complain that i should enable indexing services on it.

however if i plug that hardisk on win9x system, i can simply find such files without having the OS complain about it.

Anytime I made a search (files that contain certain string) on XP or Vista (on different machines and NTSF partitions) it has been extremely slow compared to w98.

The only time it's faster is when the content is indexed but it was barely ever the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to win95guy:

Right now i still run Pentium III-S 1400 "Tualatin" CPU as my main computer. For some months i was optimizing my HW and OS to beat records in 3dmark 2001. Mostly i was trying to beat computers equipped with Intel Chipsets (since i use VIA chipset) stronger (and much more expensive) RDRams, and computers with stronger graphics.

Last year i was sucessful and my computer is one of the most strongerst Pentium III machines in the world. One guy is better than me. He uses Apollo pro 266 chipset, DDR 266 rams, pair of PIII-S cpus and ATI HD 3850 AGP. Really beatiful machine IMHO.

Later i bought Intel based board with 945 chipset and Pentium 4 on socket 775. I was quite stunned. CPU Performance which was measured was almost same, but the P4 got twice frequency :D...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Later i bought Intel based board with 945 chipset and Pentium 4 on socket 775. I was quite stunned. CPU Performance which was measured was almost same, but the P4 got twice frequency :D...

The NetBurst based Pentium 4s (all P4s) are horribly inefficient per clock cycle. The PIII was a much better design, and some of that was carried over to the Core processors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As others have said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! I can achieve all that I want to on a Win9x system. Maybe it isn't the latest version of the software, but so what! I feel so much more relaxed now that I have awarded myself a pass-out from the M$ inspired game of keeping up with the Jones.

Then add my problems with the later M$ licence conditions, that appear in particular to give them the right to remove software from my computer because they don't like it being there.

And then add my concerns about having to ask M$ for permission to use my OS again, after I make some significant changes to the box, and about the "telemetry" it is reputed to send off to Redmond whether I like it or not. [in passing, the same applies to M$ Office. They proudly announced once just how many Word documents were being opened with each version of Word over the previous months.

Of course Win98 has its problems, but I'll cope.

Life is a balancing act between various options. And I like where Win98 has the balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the question had been posed by the hardware and drivers providers it would be "How is it possible that anybody is allowed to keep using Windows 98 after the end of the Microsoft lifecycle? Are you trying to kill our business? It should be forbidden by all means!"

If the RIAA ever had the factic power that the hardware and driver providers have today, then the Bible, all Shakespeare works and all Beethoven music, to mention only three authors, would be withdrawn from all stores and not sold any more because "their lifecycle is over and they are no more supported by their authors God, Shakespeare and Beethoven".

Well, in the case of the Bible they would consider it has been rewritten by a member church and then you should have to pay to RIAA every time you were heard saying "Our Father who..."

The more they push against Windows 98, the happier I feel using it. I get conscious of my freedom.

I never loved any kind of dictatorships.

Edited by cannie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cannie, don't joke: In Belgium (despite the flag, I'm belgian) parishes has to pay copyrights to the Office of Copyrights (SABAM) for singing religous songs in the church. It's NOT an hoax!

But Microsft is superior to God, Bethoven and Shakespear combined. You should know it! :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the RIAA ever had the factic power that the hardware and driver providers have today, then the Bible, all Shakespeare works and all Beethoven music, to mention only three authors, would be withdrawn from all stores and not sold any more because "their lifecycle is over and they are no more supported by their authors God, Shakespeare and Beethoven".

Well the RIAA doesn't have this power and won't. Its controlled by NASCAP, but they are bound by US Copyright laws. Anything within the free domain is fair game. I've had to deal with NASCAP in the past, and its just plain annoying.

However the main point of using an older OS still comes down to one point. You only really need what can run your apps. There is nothing wrong with using Win 9x at all. Some people do it because they have no need to upgrade. My main upgrading point was always because I wanted to use a certain program and, at the time, it couldn't be run on an older OS. Nowadays, there are many programs and VMs available that allow older programs to run on newer OSes, but at one point those were not available. And you must remember, a lot of the time, people who use Win 9x likely also have other computers using something newer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the RIAA ever had the factic power that the hardware and driver providers have today, then the Bible, all Shakespeare works and all Beethoven music, to mention only three authors, would be withdrawn from all stores and not sold any more because "their lifecycle is over and they are no more supported by their authors God, Shakespeare and Beethoven".

Well the RIAA doesn't have this power and won't...

At the risk of keeping this thread off-topic (sorry!)

It may surprise some people to learn of the power some of these non-governmental agencies have achieved while everyone was napping. I can state as a fact the following: Here in my little corner of the States there is a large and very popular flea market that regularly gets raided by teams made up of local cops, FBI feds and agents of the MPAA, who of course are arresting folks that are selling counterfeit DVD's and other such state secrets.

I certainly hold no sympathy for people that copy media and sell it and pocket the proceeds (there is clear theft in this case). But what we have now is the elevation of some short-lived consumer recreational media products to the level of a national currency. Furthermore, when actual counterfeit money is detected it is a minor affair that is handled by the locals (no doubt some SS folks get notified though). I mean, we can really tell what the priorities are these days.

My overall point being that it is wise to never say never about any of these hollywood/artist/software lobby groups, and never under-estimate what may happen down the road. (As I write this there is a large BSA flash banner add at the top of this page!).

I can easily imagine raids on stores that might be selling illegal hardware such as some DVD player without the required output restricting chips, or maybe VideoCards that refuse to honor the Vista/7 DRM protocols. A Congress (or EU) full of fools is capable of doing just about anything, it just depends upon who is bending their ear.

If the current state of affairs (industries successfully lobbying for draconian governmental protections) were in existance around 1890, we would have buggy whips, unpaved roads, feeding troughs, and horse poop piles all around us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...