Jump to content

Why would somebody use Win98?


Azelza

Recommended Posts

I don't get the 1998 software on 2008 hardware thing either. old computers are for old OSes/programs, new ones are for new OSes/programs.

That's just FUD fed to you by Microsoft and hardware vendors. Why do we get newer hardware? To make our programs run faster! We do not buy newer hardware for a newer OS and newer programs.

Now, some things the OS should be upgraded for. Like RAM and HDD barriers. But new because it's new is stupid.

Massive quantities of files or really gigantic ones belong on NTFS (if you care about the data).

No. If you care about the data, you put it on EXT2 or some other open file system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Massive quantities of files or really gigantic ones belong on NTFS (if you care about the data).

No. If you care about the data, you put it on EXT2 or some other open file system.

Touché

Heh. Funny coincidence: I popped Touché into Google to be sure I spelled it right and the 2nd one was: Touché is a free, open-source tracking environment for optical multitouch tables . It has been written for MacOS X Leopard and uses many of its core ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fully agree with you here. The multi-cores appear to be a brick wall for Win9x. Its almost as if Intel is creating its own planned obsolescence with respect to the OS. Something about those 3.x GHz single core chips hitting a thermal limit or something. I still dream of a 4 GHz single core (take it in a heartbeat over dual 2 GHz) running Win9x.

Machines with multiple processors have existed for quite some time, even NT 3.51 supports it, whereas Microsoft chose not to support it in Windows 9x-line because this used to be for servers only, and they found it too troublesome to work in something this big for no profit.

I vaguely remember two socket motherboards although I never had one. Must have been around the Pentium I. It would be nice if someone figures out a way to insert a VXD in front of the processor that somehow treats all cores as a single mega-processor without significant overhead. I say this because my testing on WinXP of various CPU's with multiple cores does not add up using traditional benchmarks and my own methodology. I am not ready to publish anything yet but my intuition today is that a theoretical 8 GHz single-core would wipe the floor with Quad 2 GHz. I wonder if anyone else feels ripped off by the current CPU choices.

One thing I have not done is use Win9x under a VM under WinXP/Vista. CPU overheating issues aside, I wonder if the multi-core CPU is presented to the Win9x kernel as a single monolithic glob of GHz. Whetstone might be a decent measure of the really old hardware against the really new since it has been in use for quite a long time. Maybe others could chime in that have tested Win9x under these VM's.

I doubt it, AFAIK each VM gets one thread, and one thread stays on one core only.

Thanks for that info. I really know nothing about this because I have yet to find a reason to test Win9x in a VM since it works perfectly fine directly from the Boot Sector. I do suspect something big is happening here with VM's in general. My guess is that Microsoft will do something to stop the bleeding from Vista/Apple/Linux. Maybe their entire failed ceaseless patching security model will go belly up, Windows will exist only in ROM, firmware or flashware and everything else will exist in a VM. Just guessing though.

That 120+ GB HDD limit has obviously been broken by some rather clever members here. Personally I stay at or under 120 GB HDD's just to be safe. Like I said, the right tool for the job. Massive quantities of files or really gigantic ones belong on NTFS (if you care about the data). FAT32 tables can get so large from LFN's that the law of diminishing returns comes into play anyways as simple file operations become slow and FsInfoSector updates begin to fail, then you have a Scandisk that eats up all the time that was saved in the first place! Hmmmm, wasn't there supposed to be a FAT64 anyway?

What good would it have been? Windows 9x wouldn't be able to use it anyway.

Yup. Sad but true. Besides, I just checked Wiki and they say FAT64 already exists as exFAT although only Vista SP1 can see it (worth reading, see the new file/disk limits). Once again Planned Obsolescence rears its ugly head. I swear, Microsoft has completely forgotten how they got where they are.

Note to self: add to wishlist a Multi-core CPU retrofit for Win9x. Placing that next to previous dream of vNTFS.VXD with unlimited read/write capability. :yes:

Edited by CharlotteTheHarlot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I still dream of a 4 GHz single core (take it in a heartbeat over dual 2 GHz) running Win9x."

I dreamed too, of having a fast single core to run Win 98. Sometime in Fall 2007, I bought a new Gigabyte 8I865GME-775-RH motherboard with the intent of building a fast Win 98 computer. I knew this would be one of the last MB's available new that would still run 98 with no chipset or other hardware incompatibilities so I grabbed it up from Newegg while it was still around.

Just last week I finally got a 3.6ghz Pentium Cedar Mill (661) CPU. I'm just waiting on a second stick of RAM so I can run the RAM in dual-channel mode, then I'll see how fast Win 98 can run in the outer reaches of the stratosphere!

Edited by the xt guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really an interesting thread, educational too. I seriously asks meself, how come I have little interest in XP, and zero interest in Vista.

Why do I use Win98, the answer is primarily what CharlotteTheHarlot said: best tool for the job. Everything I need to do, from recording audio and composing music, to surfing internet, to web design, writing, precise photo editing ... it gets done really fast. Instant click-and-go gratification. Unimpeded efficient process toward satisfactory results, what more do I need? Bottom line, why would I spend money or time on "upgrades" unless I actually need them to get the job done more efficiently. If I start to be limited by the OS I will expand, but not likely into microsoft-world further than XP. They are getting too nosey and a little pushy about taking over my computer. <_<

"Mister Computer Sir -- what do you mean, you are going to do such-and-such without asking me first?"

It's too bad really, if it weren't for their business model, MS could have us driving lean modular rocket ships on the newest processors, instead it's like maybe giganto space freighters with super magnum engines going .. just fast enough .. I guess. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey peeps, not to gatecrash the party ;), but you do realize that after posting the initial question azelza never took part on the thread, do you? :unsure:

...and I guess there are a few tens similar threads on the board.....

Why don't we turn this into something REALLY new, like a good ol' NTFS vs. FAT32 or Mickey Mouse vs. Dracula thread? :ph34r:

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't we turn this into something REALLY new, like a good ol' NTFS vs. FAT32 or Mickey Mouse vs. Dracula thread? :ph34r:

It was new for me, though. First time I ever examined my OS motives.

But I promise never to speak of it again. On this forum. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just last week I finally got a 3.6ghz Pentium Cedar Mill (661) CPU. I'm just waiting on a second stick of RAM so I can run the RAM in dual-channel mode, then I'll see how fast Win 98 can run in the outer reaches of the stratosphere!

Trust me, you'd be better off with a Core2 Duo. Even using only one core, a 2.4 or 2.6 GHz C2D woud probably wipe the floor with your Pentium.... unless you overclock it like a madman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...old computers are for old OSes/programs, new ones are for new OSes/programs.

runnign anything but Xp/Vista/2003/2008/linux on 3Ghz range PC is just wasting your resources on nostalgia IMO. ...

Only on dual core. Because dual core processor are not built in a way that allows w98 to use both cores as if it was just only one with double power.

But on 3Ghz single core processor w98 will beat Vista and XP just as on older hardware.

At this point we may just ask "why using XP 32 bits on new, 64 bit hardware?"

Nobody pretends to run w98 using one core on dual core machine as fast as XP or even Vista (if tweaked appropriately) on this same dual core.

But everybody here knows how ineficient XP and Vista are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I still dream of a 4 GHz single core (take it in a heartbeat over dual 2 GHz) running Win9x."

I dreamed too, of having a fast single core to run Win 98. Sometime in Fall 2007, I bought a new Gigabyte 8I865GME-775-RH motherboard with the intent of building a fast Win 98 computer. I knew this would be one of the last MB's available new that would still run 98 with no chipset or other hardware incompatibilities so I grabbed it up from Newegg while it was still around.

Just last week I finally got a 3.6ghz Pentium Cedar Mill (661) CPU. I'm just waiting on a second stick of RAM so I can run the RAM in dual-channel mode, then I'll see how fast Win 98 can run in the outer reaches of the stratosphere!

:thumbup Woohoo! 3.6 GHz. I'm drooling. That should smoke just about anything. I've got a 3.4 Prescott 1MB L2 that's a room heater. Love to see the heatsink for that one you got.

You must report back with results. Here is a nice portable Whetstone found on SAC FTP or SAC Website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't we turn this into something REALLY new, like a good ol' NTFS vs. FAT32 or Mickey Mouse vs. Dracula thread? :ph34r:

I'm kinda partial to the old Freddie vs Jason vs MM. Having just saw Jason-X again the other day I hereby change my vote to him.

Mickey Mouse vs. Dracula ... I go with Van Helsing.

NTFS vs. FAT32 ... I take both :thumbup

Edited by CharlotteTheHarlot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

XP and Vista may be inefficient, but at least they can see both cores and make use of them. XP will assign programs to a core. Vista will balance the load on both.

You know, instead of all this multi-core nonsense that is obviously meant to appeal to the customer marketing-wise (because they couldn't increase the Ghz much anymore to appeal to "numbars goin' up!" sentiment), they should capitalise on the architecture. A Core 2 Duo of which a single core is used will beat out a Pentium IV of equivalent clock speed just because of better architecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

XP and Vista may be inefficient, but at least they can see both cores and make use of them. XP will assign programs to a core. Vista will balance the load on both.

Don't they both do that? AFAIK XP also balances the load.

You know, instead of all this multi-core nonsense that is obviously meant to appeal to the customer marketing-wise (because they couldn't increase the Ghz much anymore to appeal to "numbars goin' up!" sentiment), they should capitalise on the architecture. A Core 2 Duo of which a single core is used will beat out a Pentium IV of equivalent clock speed just because of better architecture.

Actually, even some 1.8GHz Core2 Duo should beat the crap out of a 3GHz P4, even in sigle core mode...

Pentium 4 (and its architecture) was Intel's most horrible mistake ever... Early P4s got beaten up by identically clocked P3s

Edited by alexanrs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just last week I finally got a 3.6ghz Pentium Cedar Mill (661) CPU. I'm just waiting on a second stick of RAM so I can run the RAM in dual-channel mode, then I'll see how fast Win 98 can run in the outer reaches of the stratosphere!

I hadn't looked back at the Pentium 4 Wiki in a while but now that I have I see how lucky you are:

The final revision of the Pentium 4 was Cedar Mill, released in early 2006. This was simply a straight shrink of the 600-series core to 65 nm, with no real feature additions. Cedar Mill had a lower heat output than Prescott, with a TDP of 86 W. The Core Stepping of D0 in late 2006 reduced this to 65 watts. It has a 65 nm core and features a 31-stage pipeline (just like Prescott), 800 MT/s FSB, Intel 64, Hyper-Threading and Virtualization Technology. As with Prescott 2M, Cedar Mill also has 2 MiB of L2 cache. It was released as Pentium 6x1 and 6x3 (product code 80552) at frequencies from 3.0 GHz up to 3.6 GHz. Overclockers managed to exceed 8 GHz with these processors. (emphasis mine)

This had to be the most expensive P4 in its day. You must tell us where you found that chip! And how much? L2 cache is 2 MB on LGA 775. That sounds like real fun to me (from a Win9x point of view naturally).

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...