Jump to content

Why do you still use 9X


win95guy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't mind dual Xeon 5080 cpus... they are practically the SMP versions of this cpu allowing for two in one machine... 4 cores of netburst would yes raise your power bill and heat your room in winter, but also perform pretty nicely :)

But will they beat even the cheapest C2D? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Try Youtube or another flash video site on that Celeron.

That's an unfair proposal. Flash is a CPU hog even on recent hardware. It's not even hardware-accelerated.

On a single core system Yahoo Messenger would kill all CPU resources, forcing you to wait till the transfer is done.

Did you actually test this, or is this just an assumption? This sure isn't true in Windows XP, which has a bit better multi-tasking than Win9x. I tend to think that an application being able to take over the CPU is a flaw in the OS, not because single-core is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm willing to bet that 4 cores of Netburst stock clock 3.73ghz could beat the cheapest C2D available... considering they clock at 1.06ghz and come in single core variants... i would call that 'raping' the Core2 in that case :whistle:

But you said Core2 Duo not solo... i'm still sure 4 cores of 3.73ghz netburst would beat 2 cores of the cheapest C2D :)

This is pretty obvious though... it's like comparing a Pentium M 2.26ghz P6 architecture against a 1.3ghz Pentium 4 which was the P6 predessesor. The high end of the previous architecture will usually outperform the low end of the new architecture but maybe not efficiently... netburst doesn't know the meaning of efficient lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did this thread go from:

"why do you still use 9X"

to:

"How many of which processor is better?"

98 wasn't designed to use multiple processors. If that's the criteria for comparing 98, then this thread is pointless.

No, I can't do heavy multitasking on a single 366mhz Celeron. I can run a P2P app with multiple transfers and an IM in the background while still performing normal internet activities. I'd like to see XP or Vista do that or anything else of consequence on 366mhz and 160MB RAM. Getting work out of a high power system is no big deal. Getting the same work from hardware that won't run a modern bloated OS is more of a challenge. On conventional single processor hardware, 9X systems will get more usable work out of it than an NT system. An OS is supposed to harness the hardware and make its power available to the users software, not use up as much of it as possible.

Regarding Yahoo and high speed file transfers, I can't verify that with 864/160 DSL service, but back when I used Yahoo (now a Miranda user), I had no problems transferring files and still browsing or doing something else.

Rick

Edited by herbalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the system needs less files and so the OS installs faster than Win2k,XP....

And I can run Win98SE very fast with 256 MB RAM, if it crashes I'm Immedietly on the Desktop again, on XP I need to wait many minutes ...

Also because my old Win98 computer had never to be installed again later when I knew 98 very well. Thought the old machine was made irreperable later by breaking the bios battery slot....

The good things are u still get updates 4 Internet Explorer 6 and they can be installed on WIn98SE and that IE6,WMP9, and DirectX 9.0c are all running on Win98.

Since KernelEX there comes also many movement, as now FireFox 3 also can run 98 over KernelEX.

To finish in a sentence, many of the common used progs are capable to run Win98 so why run XP or Vista with 256 MB RAM, you loose speed.

Edited by winxpi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

98 does have memory usage issues in its design. It wouldn't surprise me if someone here figured out how to fix that too.

This would be my dream come true.

As for the need to constantly upgrade to a faster computer; according to this site in 10 to 15 years this could be over.

http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/09/idf-gordon-mo-1.html

Edited by Sysdll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try Youtube or another flash video site on that Celeron.

That's an unfair proposal. Flash is a CPU hog even on recent hardware. It's not even hardware-accelerated.

On a single core system Yahoo Messenger would kill all CPU resources, forcing you to wait till the transfer is done.

Did you actually test this, or is this just an assumption? This sure isn't true in Windows XP, which has a bit better multi-tasking than Win9x. I tend to think that an application being able to take over the CPU is a flaw in the OS, not because single-core is bad.

What do you mean by "recent hardware" ? As i said my laptop with PIII @ 933 is fine with most flash video sites.

As for yahfoo, everybody i know with an internet connection has it. I experienced the lockup many, many, many times on my laptop when i used to run XP on it. While the dual-PIII has no trouble with it.

Edited by Th3_uN1Qu3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:thumbup Win98SE "Preferred O.S."= A ...Lean and Mean Revitalized-Updated-Superior 98SE O.S. Machine. .......1.5gb full install with all updates ,mail,messenger,t.v.,cd-player/re-corder,camera,photo-shop,no bloatware ,simple ,everyday use ,...trade-off on 3 different MoBo's on a rotation user/testing basis.... :blink: 1 major crash and 2 re-installs due to testing new updates in 3 month's time....not bad for a 10 year old O.S. system on 10 year old MoBo's..huh? :whistle:<*It reads to me when i sleep,too-yet will not do dishes though? > :blushing: Who needs a new 1,000,000,000mb/hdd-with "Warpspeed/ghz; if they could just put it in a "nutshell" and carry their Operating System in their pocket on a 4gb/usb-flashdrive when they travel as i do:) :rolleyes: Edited by thydreamwalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who needs a new 1,000,000,000mb/hdd-with "Warpspeed/ghz; if they could just put it in a "nutshell" and carry their Operating System in their pocket on a 4gb/usb-flashdrive when they travel as i do:) :rolleyes:

However, that is called Puppy Linux...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did this thread go from:

"why do you still use 9X"

to:

"How many of which processor is better?"

My fault. :( My comments about SMP...

What do you mean by "recent hardware" ? As i said my laptop with PIII @ 933 is fine with most flash video sites.

So you only mean Flash video, then? I guess that could work. But Flash in itself is still a hog, and can still bring a recent CPU to its knees. Fact is that if Flash was designed better and more efficient, it would also run well on about 366 Mhz.

As for yahfoo, everybody i know with an internet connection has it.

Welcome to Europe, I say. "Yahoo!"? What's that? It's all MSN here.

However, that is called Puppy Linux...

Win98 can fit on a floppy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you only mean Flash video, then? I guess that could work. But Flash in itself is still a hog, and can still bring a recent CPU to its knees. Fact is that if Flash was designed better and more efficient, it would also run well on about 366 Mhz.

That's true. Adobe has done nothing but bloat lately. But we can't change it ourselves as everybody uses it...

Welcome to Europe, I say. "Yahoo!"? What's that? It's all MSN here.

If you didn't know, let me inform you that Romania is in the south-east of Europe.

Win98 can fit on a floppy.

DOS 7.10 can, the GUI itself never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very seldom watch flash videos. Normally, I block flash content. Most of the time, it displays ads or something equally useless. There's very little content that's worth watching, but I went to YouTube just to see what this box will do. In full screen, the video isn't as smooth as I'd like but was very watchable. Yes, a 366 Celeron will play a full screen flash video running 98FE, with 18 processes running. FYI, this box was last rebooted on Friday afternoon, 44 hours ago. Still has 62% free resources. 98SE may be regarded are the more stable OS, but FE can be just as stable and reliable, and on my hardware, a bit faster. If I'd get around to giving it that cleanup it needs, it would probably do even better. It's getting a bit bloated, 2.86GB at the moment. The desktop alone is a 350MB+ mess.

Regarding Yahoo, if Yahoo gives you trouble on a 9X box, maybe you should give Miranda a try. They have a 9X version that works quite well. I use it for Yahoo and MSN. Much better than running 2 separate IM programs.

On the original subject, "why use 9X", for me the primary reasons are security and privacy. These are best achieved by having control over the OS and the software you use. Control requires total access that you don't have with an NT system. The more I look at the NTFS file system, the more convinced I get that it was designed to hide things from the user, processes, files, usage records, etc. Microsofts attempt to lock the kernel on Vista has only reinforced that belief. On 98 units, DOS lets you access everything. A 98 box doesn't complain if the OS components don't have internet access. It can be secured very well with a couple of freeware apps and a little tweaking. A simple batch file can keep your registry exactly the way you want it, fully optimized, emptied of usage records. What combination of apps are needed to accomplish that on XP? I can let someone else use this PC and not worry about what they might open, where they go, or what exploit they might run into. To me, a computer is a tool. For a tool to do what you want, you need to have control over it. If you don't have the final say over what it's doing, it may do more than you expect. For me, that's more than enough reason to not "upgrade." Little to gain and a lot to lose.

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Yahoo, if Yahoo gives you trouble on a 9X box, maybe you should give Miranda a try. They have a 9X version that works quite well. I use it for Yahoo and MSN. Much better than running 2 separate IM programs.

I have used Miranda in the past. There are so many things wrong with it that i don't know where to start. Sure, it is small and fast, and the yahfoo chat client is a slow piece of junk, but at least it does what i need it to do.

makes me with it supported SMP etc so i could throw it at any of my new PCs. Hey since it doesn't support SMP, does is not support a second core on a dual core graphics card?

What, you want a dual-chip ATi Rage? It should work with that.

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...