Jump to content

Why would somebody use Win98?


Azelza

Recommended Posts

1. I'm not an NT crusader. (Net/Open/Free)BSD are far better than NT.

2. Win9x IS nothing more than a 32 bit shell on top of DOS. Remove DOS and see how far you get.

3. The article was just one of the 100.000's available. Google is your friend.

4. I'm not preventing anyone from using Win9x, but it's the FUD that bugs me. "A real good and secure OS".. yeah right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


As I see you're using the same argument again:

Win9x IS nothing more than a 32 bit shell on top of DOS. Remove DOS and see how far you get.

This is just perfect example of the FUD.

I recommend you to use own advice:

Google is your friend.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

W98 ROCKS!

All your Xp/Vista users are 3d world country poeple who didn't have a computer 5 years ago!

You understand Vista and XP users: YOU ARE POOR THIRD WORLD POEPLE RUNNING CRAP made-in-China HARDWARE!!!

You use Vista/XP cuz it came pre-installed on your $249 box. (I paid mine $1300 6 years ago and it still works 2x faster than your low end XP or barely-Vista-capable junk. )

HAHAHAHA! :D

w98 on new hardware gets you to top of hardware power and top safety on the internet!

The only reason for not using w98 is either lack of crucial driver or dual core or 64 bit core (or both).

But if you want to buy a dual core and/or 64 bit, you better wait for a better windows release because Vista is not fit for proper computer use and XP is not distributed anymore.

Edited by Fredledingue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not another one of these threads. :puke:

Read the Why do you still use 9X thread.

Why use 98? I use it because it does everything I want. I also have a multi-boot system with Win2000, 98FE, 98SE, and Linux. The majority of the time, 98FE is running. My 98 box runs 24/7, is very stable, and in spite of what you may believe, it is extremely secure. I don't know where you get your information, bit a well configured 98 box is very hard to attack from the net. My security package is all freeware, enforcing a default-deny security policy. No AV, AS, AT, etc installed for almost 3 years. At least 6 different people use it regularly, half of which know nothing about safe computing. It never gets infected. The only way 98 is more vulnerable than XP is when the attacker has access to the keyboard. I don't see how you can call XP more secure. 98 didn't need a dedicated patch day. Shall we compare the number of patches released for each OS or the total MB of those combined patches?

What do you have against DOS? If XP had an equivalent that didn't run in windows, rootkits wouldn't be half the problem they are. In the hands of someone who knows how to use it, DOS can be huge asset to security. DOS may not be as versatile as Linux command line but it's more capable than command line in XP. Regarding whether 98 is 32 bit or half 16 bit, who cares? 64 bit is where windows is going, so your 32 bit XP is obsolete as well. As long as 98 does what I need, runs dependably, and protects my data, I don't care 2 bits one way or the other.

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 be

Absorbed!

Must be nice to still be able to see Star Trek. That's a pretty good comparison though. Instead of Landru, I would have used the Borg.

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a 32 bit shell on top of 16 bit DOS

Okay, 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.

The 32bit interfaces in the 9x line are just nothing more than thunking layers that go back down into the 16bit APIs from Win 3.1x, which for the majority of tasks gets shunted back into V86 mode of the underlying DOS and then back into the 16bit API of Windows and ultimately the 32bit layers.

As someone else posted, remove DOS from those, and Windows will not operate.

Anyone running 9x can trace everything with SoftIce and see the chain of sequences. Trace long enough and you're plopped right back into good ol' DOS code.

I personally prefer an NT system and I couldn't use 9x if I wanted to as there's no support for my H/W. I feel NT is far better, but I don't begrudge anyone for using what they want. To each their own.

Edited by MrCobra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone else posted, remove DOS from those, and Windows will not operate.

Remove the Lilo or Grub and Linux will not operate, as well. So, this statement is a bad example.

Still the DOS can be used as a stand alone OS, not just the OS loader. So, it is a very good toll, when the 9x kernel is damaged.

Windows 9x has to use none 32bit code in order to keep compatibility with older applications and drivers.

What one is treating as a disadvantage the other believes to be a huge advantage. Windows 9x supports 3 generations of code, that way (DOS, 16bit and 32bit API).

Still the key part (kernel) of the code is 32 bt. So windows 9x has a right to be called a 32bit OS. The funny thing is the NT based OS were stripped from the compatibility related code, yet they are still bigger. So, perhaps the old code is not that bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:thumbup With WindowsSE98 there's no severe complaint as the older we get it works better and better than newer models!!!"Not as 'Flashy' as 2008 model operatin' systems but more "Fundamentally Superior!" :whistle: Hopefully,there's an "AnniversaryEditon of 98SE=could call it the 98FinalFrontierEdition? :blushing:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remove the Lilo or Grub and Linux will not operate, as well. So, this statement is a bad example.

This is not true I am making this post from Puppy 2.13 run from a "live CD". There is no Lilo or Grub or menu list. Just boot from a CD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One cpu in the office still uses win 98 due to custom software. A special software was created for this company many many years ago on win 95. It will run on win 98 but nothing newer. The owner does not want to dish out 40 thousand dollars for new software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would somebody use Win98?

Because next year it goes to eleven :rolleyes:

Because most of the members of our forum using Win98 SE it will be ten. ;)

Btw, except Vista, all versions of Windows are old and very old - I do not count Windows 2003 and 64-bit version of Windows XP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the real question should be: Why should I have to stop using Windows 98 SE if I like it?

Ads and all kind of pressures, including stop delivering spare parts and dr¡vers, have been used by hard/software companies to force you to upgrade. :realmad:

This is a no laws land and everything is allowed.

They have this way created a neurotic colective passion against Windows 98 users. It seems we are the enemy.

I wonder if there is any obligation, moral duty or legal command to stop using Windows 98.

I upgraded and created a double boot system. But I keep using Windows 98 at home almost all the time, and will use it for as long as I may.

I know Windows 98 so deeply as you may know a ten years old friend which never plays foul in the benefit of anybody.

Windows 98 is so obedient and faithful as my dog. :whistle:

Wow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...