Azelza Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 I see topics like "New motherboards that work with Win98" ...That's just ridiculous. I can imagine using Win98 if you live in a third world country and have a 10 year old computer... but even MicroXP uses 37MB of Ram TOTAL, and nLite will use about 50MB....So I don't understand you people, wanting to run Win98 on modern hardware, *let alone old hardware* where MicroXP / nLite is perfect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelsenellenelvian Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 I like to play with it and be very nostalgic...Lots of people here take it very serious though.Its really a very good OS but getting it to run is becoming VERY hard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerbrom Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 oh well, just part of life's diversity I guess.-personally, I use it to run 'legacy' online games on old discarded PCs (some games don't run with Vista, or have trouble with the latest graphics cards). There seem to be others like me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 (edited) Why... for the same reason others ride on '61 VolksWagen 1200 Beetles and Trabbants from the 70's, of course! I find harder to understand why would anyone burn a bucketload of money to have those contemporary New Beetles, though... Edited September 29, 2008 by dencorso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starcraftmaster Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Becasue some people cant be stuffed installing windows xp/vistaand theres hardly any thing speical about xp/vistaONLY annoying thing about 98/me is that new hard ware dont work much and new soft ware wont work much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beats Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Its really a very good OS (...)I beg to differ. From a technical point of view, Win9x is junk without any form of security. It's a 32 bit shell on top of 16 bit DOS, with poor virtual memory, multitasking, memory management...... etc.and theres hardly any thing speical about xp/vistaThe NT kernel has loads of advantages over Win9x. NT has proper multithreading, multitasking, memory management, security, file system and so on, and unlike Win9x, its still supported today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexanrs Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Oh god... here it goes again...Windows NT/XP/Vista is better when it comes to "local" security, which is good on shared computers.Windows 9x is more secure when it comes to networks, simply because it doesn't support even half of the networking crap people use to hack into a computer.Windows XP/Vista has better support for newer hardware...whereas Windows 9x has better support for older hardware.Windows NT/XP/Vista has a more robust kernelWindows 9x has a lighter oneWindows XP/Vista runs all new softwareand Windows 9x runs all oldies, including TONS of DOS stuffIn the end, it is all a matter of taste Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannie Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 It is a privilege if you have compatible hardware. Only a few people use it any more. I use it in dual boot XP/.Win98, but I normally run only Win98. Each of both may be used to restore the other from a previouly saved .rar copy preserved on a CD.Furthermore I have Win98 cloned in 3 logical units, which may be loaded alternatively by simply booting from different floppies instead of the double boot.I feel at ease because of its simplicity: loading time 30 seconds, switch off 3 seconds. Complete restore from scratch, 4 minutes. No viruses. I love change. At work I have no choice and I must always use XP, then at home I don't need any more complex OS for my simple needs and enjoy it.Windows 98 SE, developed before 2001, was the last product of Microsoft not built for networks: no Administrator at all, no backdoors at all, no activation needs, fair play.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beats Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 In the end, it is all a matter of tasteNo, it's not. At least, not when seen from an objective and technical point of view.ps. Thinking that Windows 9x is more secure when it comes to networking, is utter nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sfor Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Well. In one case it is safer, in other it is not.Still, I'm not afraid to connect a newly installed Windows 98 directly to the internet, while I would not do it with Windows XP without a router on the way.To use an objective comparament it is necesary to define the boundries. In general both systems do have some advantages in some cases.Also the technical advancement is not equal to the satisfaction of the user. I do prefer to use an older car without an advanced computer between me and the engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberformer Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 The question is not "Why do I use Windows 98?"There is no question really, for it is "My Will" to use it!That is what it all comes down to.....an act of will!And as far as security goes,.....just remove IE with the eradicator program, and it is most likely far more secure, than any Vista or XP with IE!The other side of the coin is, that even though it is my will to use 98se as my main and favorite OS, it would be silly of me to say to someone using Vista or XP that they were wrong in some way, if it is their will to use either of those operating systems.Infinite variety! is the spice of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenoitRen Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 I wonder what the point is to make a thread asking this question when you've already made up your mind as to the usefulness of the OS.I can imagine using Win98 if you live in a third world country and have a 10 year old computer... but even MicroXP uses 37MB of Ram TOTAL, and nLite will use about 50MB....But do you have a fully functional system? I don't think so. While you do with Win9x, using the same amount of RAM and HDD. Plus, if you want to talk about slimmed down installs, there's Mindows, which can fit on a 1.44 MB floppy.It's a 32 bit shell on top of 16 bit DOSOkay, you don't know what you're talking about, and got this from popular culture. Win9x is not a shell. It's actually a marriage of DOS and Windows, pretty much.and unlike Win9x, its still supported todaySo what? Just like support for Win9x, it won't last forever, and WinXP will likely be dumped along with all other previous versions of Windows, and Vista users will laugh at you for staying with an unsupported OS. At least I'm allowed to use Win9x whenever I please, not having to deal with activation. You don't get that with WinXP.Thinking that Windows 9x is more secure when it comes to networking, is utter nonsense.Yet your own article says:Fortunately, Win9x/Me's simplicity also works to its advantage security-wise. Because it was not designed to be a true multiuser operating system, it has extremely limited remote administration features. It is impossible to execute commands remotely on Win9x/Me systems using built-in tools, and remote access to the Windows 9x Registry is only possible if access requests are first passed through a security provider such as a Windows NT Family server or Novell NetWare server. The NT Family and Novell NetWare provide user-level security, versus the locally stored, username/password-based share-level security that is the default behavior of Win9x/Me. (Win9x/Me cannot act as a user-level authentication server.)Therefore, Win9x/Me security is typically compromised via the classic routes: misconfiguration, tricking the user into executing code and gaining physical access to the console.I find Internet security to be more important than local security. Win9x is a home OS, and if someone gets local access to your computer, no matter your OS, it's game over.Personally, I use Windows 95 because it has worked well for me for over 10 years, and still does. It's fast, with a clean UI, and DRM-free. A more recent version of Windows won't improve my computing experience at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexanrs Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 No, it's not. At least, not when seen from an objective and technical point of view.Yes it is. If someone can do everything they need/want in Windows 9x in less time, why bother with the advantages of the NT kernel? And this is coming from someone that uses Windows Vista as a main OS. ps. Thinking that Windows 9x is more secure when it comes to networking, is utter nonsense.How can you exploilt a bug in a service that doesn't even exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainyd Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 (edited) Beats, looks like that you haven't read carefully enough article which you've linked.Please, stop posting that nonsense It's a 32 bit shell on top of 16 bit DOS because that's not true (Win32 API has been fully implemented in those systems).Were it so, that wouldn't be possible to install on Win98/ME DirectX 9, NET Framework 2.0, WMP 9.0 and many other programs.Btw, we don't need on our forum Windows NT crusaders. Edited September 29, 2008 by rainyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberformer Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 It's hard to believe, but their are actually people out there, that really get "emotionally upset" that others still use 9x!I mean, really, really--Upset, angry, and perturbed---that they would join some kind of political party or organization willing to prevent us from using 9x.I'm not joking!They are under the strange supposition (superstition) that 9x users are prone to virus problems, and that we might infect them, ---when it is their machines (which they think are so secure) that are actually making the mischief!9x fanatics are more likely than not, quite knowledgeable concerning all methods of securing their computers.Yep! Reminds me of the Star Trek episode last night, with Landru the giant PC controlling the minds of the populace: Instead of going around saying " are you of the body"---this bunch says---"Are you of the NT"What, you are not of the NT---you 9xers are a threat to the body, and must therefore beAbsorbed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now