Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


win95guy

Why do you still use 9X

Recommended Posts

When I transfer large amounts of data from my Hard Drive to a Flash Drive, something gets damaged in the system, causing garbage to be written to the Hard Drive and sometimes the Flash Drive. Usually a Read/Write Error Blue Screen appears, but not until a Directory Sector and Both Copies of one FAT Sector have been destroyed... It may be safe to READ from a Flash Drive but I would not guarantee it. I would not recommend using USB with 98FE.
Maybe it's Windows Explorer under Win9x, not USB, that is causing the problems. The problem of the sluggish file deletes with Win98 Explorer shows that it is seriously flawed.

For moving files, I try not to use Windows Explorer under Win98; I am using Beyond Compare instead, or I boot into WinXP to do the file moves there with WinXP Explorer, but this has lead in a few rare instances to filename problems between Win98 and WinXP, for files containing some foreign characters (e.g. mp3s downloaded with eMule). Also, Win9x Explorer sometimes cannot delete some illegal files, I have to go into WinXP to delete them.

I used a Program for managing files called XFILE from a DOS Box. I did not use Windows Explorer.

I have also experienced under Win98SE blue screens and data loss, but only with my older Inspiron laptops, not with my dual-core desktops, when I had 2 external 1TB HDDs connected to the laptop and tried to move data between the two USB HDDs, even with Beyond Compare. Moving data between a USB HDD and the internal HDD is fine under Win98SE, only moving data between 2 USB drives may lead to data loss, if I transfer more than maybe 100 or 500MB. There is no data loss/blue screen under Win98SE if I transfer just small amounts of data. When I compare/update/synchronize 2 USB HDDs used for backup, I do it under WinXP, under Win98 is too risky.

Under 98SE I have not had corruption on the Hard Drive, but I have had transfers freeze leading to errors on the USB Drive. Substituting some files with ME versions seemed to help but other issues caused me to restore the originals. Further work is needed to determine if this would be useful.

Maybe 6 months ago I had a major disaster with file moves under Win98, when both the source and the destination got damaged, with a blue screen. Because files on the source drive got damaged, I didn't know anymore how reliable the source was. I was lucky that I had a quite current, clean 3rd backup. I copied a couple of files from the damaged source, then deleted and recreated the damaged 192GB partiton on the source and destination HDDs. I had some data loss plus time wasted restoring about 2x150GB of data on the source and destination USB HDDs.

Sounds like what I observed. I was able to repair the damage using my own tools and had backups for most things. The big problem was AOL's filing cabinet which is constantly updated while using AOL. The active part of the file was fragmented all over the destroyed FAT sectors. I had to match up a dozen fragments out of 128 clusters.

I won't recommend using the built in USB on 98FE for handling data either, at least not with hardware as old as I'm using. I did have problems when I hooked the external drive to the built in USB ports. They're slow and tend to be erratic. About all I use them for is a mouse or keyboard. The ports on the USB card are a whole different story. I've had the external drive hooked to that card for several years and have yet to lose any data. I'm not sure what you call large amounts of data as it relates to this discussion, but I've had no problems writing or accessing 7z archives of 500-1500MB with FE on the external drive. All of my Win2K backups were made with 98FE and 7Zip. I installed Shareaza on the external drive and it runs fine from there on 98FE. I only have access to a limited amount of USB hardware, but all of it has worked well when connected to the USB card.

One machine was an old computer with a USB 1.1 Card. The other has built in USB 2.0.

One time it occurred while I was transferring a few dozen digital photographs to an USB Key.

As indicated above, I am not the only one who has seen this problem.

You mean:

1)dark chocolate ice-cream

2)dark chocolate

3)chocolate in general

#3 which includes #1 and #2.

Edited by rloew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One machine was an old computer with a USB 1.1 Card. The other has built in USB 2.0.

Built in USB 2.0 on 98FE? What drivers did this use? Did the 1.1 card use native USB drivers or did it come with its own?

One time it occurred while I was transferring a few dozen digital photographs to an USB Key.

As indicated above, I am not the only one who has seen this problem.

I don't know what to say. When I first added the external hard drive, it performed poorly on the native USB. All I planned on using it for was system backups, so the speed wasn't a concern at the time. The USB card was added afterwards to get more USB ports, only 2 on the PC. It's been a long time, but if I remember right, the 2.0 drivers didn't automatically install from the CD and the card initially ran as 1.1. I had to install them manually with the inf file. The difference was incredible. Since then, I've repartitioned the drive a couple of times and have used it for everything.

It would be useful for 98 users to determine what is required to make USB devices stable and work consistently on 98. Since they work well for some but not others, the differences should be able to be identified. The only real issue I've had with USB access of the external drive was when using DOS. That problem tracked down to the way GParted partitioned the drive. Once that was found and fixed with PTDD, the USB drive is completely readable and writable from DOS as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The plain reason I don't use Windows 98 anymore is that compared to XP it's uptime is terrible, it's a pain in the arse to run on newer hardware and new devices either don't work with it or require too much faffing around.

Can I ask what brings you to this win-9x forum then? You don't use 98, you don't like it, and I don't think I've seen you post anything constructive or helpful here about win-98.

It's a good question IMO and I'd like to know, why you're wasting your precious (as I guess) time on Win9x zealots forum?

Edited by rainyd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One machine was an old computer with a USB 1.1 Card. The other has built in USB 2.0.

Built in USB 2.0 on 98FE? What drivers did this use? Did the 1.1 card use native USB drivers or did it come with its own?

The USB 1.1 Card used the native drivers.

I installed the built in USB 2.0 using the Motherboard CD, The Drivers which may have been USB 1.1 only and may have been the native drivers as well. I no longer have it setup.

I tried the various generic Drivers with the machine with the USB Card. I haven't tried NUSB with either.

It would be useful for 98 users to determine what is required to make USB devices stable and work consistently on 98. Since they work well for some but not others, the differences should be able to be identified.

I agree. Further research is warranted.

The only real issue I've had with USB access of the external drive was when using DOS. That problem tracked down to the way GParted partitioned the drive. Once that was found and fixed with PTDD, the USB drive is completely readable and writable from DOS as well.

I have noticed problems with the default partitioning of USB Keys. I usually repartition them with my RFDISK Program so they are bootable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The plain reason I don't use Windows 98 anymore is that compared to XP it's uptime is terrible, it's a pain in the arse to run on newer hardware and new devices either don't work with it or require too much faffing around.

Can I ask what brings you to this win-9x forum then? You don't use 98, you don't like it, and I don't think I've seen you post anything constructive or helpful here about win-98.

It's a good question IMO and I'd like to know, why you're wasting your precious (as I guess) time on Win9x zealots forum?

He was polite, so don't drive him out. Besides, he is telling the truth. I know it because I'm using both OSes. I had more than month uptime on XP and on 98 I never have more than 8 hours uptime, because I like to experiment with different software. On XP I've experimented even more, so OSes were in equal conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello! I am not a really experienced Win98SE user, and I am a newbie on this forum.

I use windows98SE because I can do all I need:

- play some old dos games (I love retrogaming),

- play small clips, vids and music,

- edit and view office documents,

- edit images,

- transfer files by usb ports,

- do simple and fast backup and restore of the entire system (thank you cannie!),

and because I like simpler things (new windows systems appears so complicated and bloated for my needs, ... but time passes and I have got also a XPSP2 laptop).

My system (PIII, 700 Mghz, 256Mb ram) is almost fast and stable whith italian USP2.1c_v3, NUSB3.3 and RP9 (thank you Maximus Decim, Alper, Max, Xeno86 and Tihiy!).

P.S. This is my first post on this beautiful forum!

Best regards.

I41Mar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The plain reason I don't use Windows 98 anymore is that compared to XP it's uptime is terrible, it's a pain in the arse to run on newer hardware and new devices either don't work with it or require too much faffing around.

Can I ask what brings you to this win-9x forum then? You don't use 98, you don't like it, and I don't think I've seen you post anything constructive or helpful here about win-98.

It's a good question IMO and I'd like to know, why you're wasting your precious (as I guess) time on Win9x zealots forum?

He was polite, so don't drive him out. Besides, he is telling the truth. I know it because I'm using both OSes. I had more than month uptime on XP and on 98 I never have more than 8 hours uptime, because I like to experiment with different software. On XP I've experimented even more, so OSes were in equal conditions.

Lol @ them: 'not posted anything constructive'. Only because they don't see my criticism of Windows 9x as being constructive. I guess for me to be seen as constructive I truly have to start believing that Windows 9x is the best just to satisfy you lot? :whistle: Heaven forbid I have a difference of opinion and evidence to back up what I've said about 9x being vastly inferior. And as I recall, if you lot think you know constructive, it wasn't me who started slandering cluberti/coffiefiend when they merely disagreed with someone's statements on here, the poster who I believe is now banned.

You people are obviously just jealous of my Windows XP uptime...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol @ them: 'not posted anything constructive'. Only because they don't see my criticism of Windows 9x as being constructive. I guess for me to be seen as constructive I truly have to start believing that Windows 9x is the best just to satisfy you lot? :whistle: Heaven forbid I have a difference of opinion and evidence to back up what I've said about 9x being vastly inferior. And as I recall, if you lot think you know constructive, it wasn't me who started slandering cluberti/coffiefiend when they merely disagreed with someone's statements on here, the poster who I believe is now banned.

You people are obviously just jealous of my Windows XP uptime...

Well, after all the topic is "Why do you still use 9X", so saying "my OpSys" is better is rather :crazy: ...

And as for your XP Uptime... lots of folks have newer than XP and are a lot happier. ;):P

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You people are obviously just jealous of my Windows XP uptime...

@JustinStacey.x: You know you're flame-baiting as well as I do. And I don't like it at all.

@all: Don't let yourselves be drawn into yet another OS war. We've already had enough of that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My XP system at home has been steaming along for nearly a month now. And given it's a laptop with a battery (they make great arbitrary power supplies) providing I don't BSOD I am confident I could run it into next year... literally.

////

You people are obviously just jealous of my Windows XP uptime...

I've never gotten a BSOD on my XP computer. :thumbup

You people are obviously just jealous of my Windows XP uptime...

@JustinStacey.x: You know you're flame-baiting as well as I do. And I don't like it at all.

@all: Don't let yourselves be drawn into yet another OS war. We've already had enough of that!

Indeed. Who really cares what OS someone uses? We can all brag about what we can do with our computers, such as:

- 3 month average uptime on my Win 98a pc

- never BSOD or reformatted my XP since 2002.

But who cares really? What is important is that we all use the same stuff. If someone has better success at something that me, that's my cue to find out what that is. Because I am mostly interested in making things better and more efficient. I couldn't care if you use 98, ME or OS/2 3.0. I've never understood the "wars" because nothing can ever come from it. It is fine for a technical discussion, especially considering what some talented people have been able to do with old OSes.

Remember, you use what you use because of whatever reason you have. Maybe you don't have a lot of money, maybe you play around with it because you happen to have another computer, or maybe you use it because you don't run anything that requires an upgrade. Those are all fine answers.

This topic is to say why you still use 9x. It isn't "why do you use 9x, or if you don't we get to tell you why you are stupid".

I still use 9x for things that work better in 98 than in other OSes. That doesn't mean I don't use other OSes. That is something to keep in mind. Many people who still have Windows 9x systems also run other stuff too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You people are obviously just jealous of my Windows XP uptime...

You've got to be kidding. I get more than enough uptime out of my 98 box. I'm lucky if I can find it still on my profile when I get home from work. Uptime doesn't mean much when several people use the PC.

At the moment, there's a Dell with XP sitting on the chair, waiting for me to do battle with one of the nastiest infections I've seen in a long time. The AV has been killed by the malware, as has the task manager, registry editor, safe mode, Online AV scanners, and most every tool that would help. If it were 98, it would be easy to clean assuming that mess could have even infected it to start with. A quick drop to DOS would have given me access to everything I need. But no, this "superior OS" will require me to install another hard drive with an OS equipped with all the tools so I can attack it from outside the OS. Of course, the NT file system limits my OS options for this service drive. Every time I get a mess like this, it reminds me why I prefer 98.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bla bla uptime bla lets see if anyone snaps at this lure

bla bla feed the troll blah!

this thread is circling the drain. last warning before i close it

since some obviously didnt see dencorso's warning, heres my version:

post-158212-1252109589_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi guys,

I am a Windows 95 user and i have been since the day it was released. I don't upgrade because i only use my web browser and that is all, does the only task i need. But why do you continue to use it? What makes you use an OS that isn't even supported anymore? one that has a lot of BSODs, lack of new hardware support and the same is beginning to occur with software, lack of SMP support and limits on Hard drive size/ram capability/ and cpu speed? There are so many things against it yet so many of you cling on like a resistant disease lol... tell me why?

Regards, Win95Guy :)

I would say it depends for what you use. If you have just one-for-all computer and wanting to do with all-and-nothing kind of things then its kind of tricky to still be sticked on WIN98SE even. Dont wait windows to be server system. None of the windows will fill this function as linux.

I dont play games. I make music and I use win98se with all these unofficial patches with 3.4GHz CPU, SCSI harddisks and 10 channel soundcards and MIDI interfaces. And that w98se is just becouse I have that machine only for music and all other machines will handle all other things. But why just w98se?

* that "you have to upgrade" is just FORCED, thats why I dont follow it. Its what THEY want, but not me.

* 98SE is more customisable and has less hassle with unknown directories and stupidity like "my files" type directories. so it is more under my control.

* USER INTERFACE reaction is much faster compared to XP and 2000.

* thats the only thing and system which is under my own control. Simple, no such deep directories for user data, flatter directory structure.

* thats the system which still has DOS on the bottom. It means much simpler backup methods. If anything goes wrong -- no problem to rewrite partition.

* Its not practical to be modern all the time. And if the brainwash from mickeysoft is "you have to swap out the windows after every 3 years". Then whatever OS it is, its old anyway. So I will settle down to system which works. And why I have to customise and acomodate to the new if my old is still perfect?!

Lack of hardware support and software support is just artificially generated problems. Its just question of money to someone and so, if someone pays there will be hardware support for win98se too. I will just buy WIN98SE compliant hardware. And surprisingly... that costs more than "requirement atleast XP".

In the beginning there was hard to find CD writing and Mp3 playing software even for WIN3.x, but on the year 2003 it was available even for DOS!

If it WORKS, and you dont have trouble, dont fix it! But after every hardware or software upgrade

pain will start again about drivers, compatibility and programs which dont work.

* persons who will say "they havent had crash under 2K and XP system" dont do so much usually with it. All windows systems have crashed until filesystem level.

* about BSOD, well, thats the art of finding correct drivers, trying all hardware and not accepting less than best, but in the long run... I have still the same SYSTEM

as a long time ago. And can use new features.

* there is usually just 1..2 things which say that it does not work under 2K/ XP system, but its clear that I can ignore it. If I seek enough I will find alternative which is working under WIN98SE also. I dont upgrade software becouse just ONE program wants it.

But I have another machine too, which is with Linux and thats one is for all other purposes.

Thats the machine for websurfing and >200GB HDDs. So, no problem of keeping WIN98SE.

Third machine is just DOS 7.1 only (486DX-4 100Mhz, 40GB HDD, 32MB RAM). Thats for old demoscene modules and games, mp3 playing and 2 soundcards. :)

And all of the machines have internet access and also directory sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ouch, forgot one thing. Luckily no problems at all with viruses. And welcome, I would collect them. :) New viruses arent so compatible with my old system :) And yes, it is possible to have the system so -- new hardware, old OS, old programs, if you find it perfect and working perfectly. No problem at all to keep it so. And so I have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...