Jump to content

Did something happene in Autum 2008 to the Win98 community?


winxpi

Recommended Posts

Flash is the main hindrance to the propagation of video through the internet, and the big stop to the web as a mulitimedia medium. YouTube is what induced the Flash cancer. YouTube alone successfully destroyed the concept of web based video by making video dependant on bandwith.

Actually it is the main vector of its propagation, come on!

YouTube made video dependant on bandwith ? Care to explain better what you mean here ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The AMD 450MHz CPU is a Pentium 1 Class Processor.
Didn't know there were P I CPUs above 233MHz. Admittedly, I'm not very familiar with the AMD family - always used Intel CPUs (actually I've also used Cyrix ones back when tinkering with P I machines).

AMD made P1 replacements up to 500MHz. I have always preferred AMD Processors. They give me more control especially for SMM and Memory.

A quick googling revealed the conditional move CMOVcc has been implemented in Pentium Pro so maybe that AMD already has some support. They also say that particular opcode is quite useless nowadays.

Definitely not the one I have. The CMOVcc instruction and a PREFETCH instruction (after emulating CMOVcc) appear in the Dialog when GVC.DLL crashes.

Apparently GRETECH didn't think CMOVcc was useless, there are plenty of them in GVC.DLL.

Regardless, GOMplayer - which I use on a daily basis - is quite "heavy" even for my P III 667MHz machine where for some reason DVD playback is choppy therefore unwatchable. Not to mention it does require some RAM for a decent AVI playback. I wonder how much RAM can that old board support - none of my P I boards could take more than 128MB.

It was slow and choppy. I probably won't be using it for general viewing.

I plan to Patch the GVC.DLL file to eliminate the CMOVcc instructions to see if it is any faster. The TYAN S1590 supports up to 384MB of RAM.

Edited by rloew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter my OS, I can't watch any YouTube or Flash video because my dsl connection is too slow.

This is silly, Flash players can and do buffer the video they play, meaning no matter how little bandwidth you have, if you simply start then pause the video and wait for a sufficient portion of it to download you can eventually watch it just fine. My only gripe is the lack of hardware acceleration in Flash players (which became less relevant as CPU power increased).

PDFs are acceptable: there's nothing wrong with having a secure means of data storage that you can safely share. Of course it's not perfect (one can unlock a PDF file as long as it lacks a password to simply view it). They don't replace all other forms of documents, they just provide a secure one when it's needed.

Flash itself has just been a vehicle to make websites more interactive and give an OPTION for the designers. Again, plenty of the internet DOESN'T use Flash; it's just another option, along with various iterations of HTML and... UGH Java. There's also Silverlight now; I guess ActiveX is there too for all its horribleness.

Queue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flash and PDF defeat the original advantages of the internet: Sharing and duplicating content ad infinitum and for the largest audience possible, fast access and easy, intuite, human friendly interraction.

This is why I don't consider Flash part of the web. It's a proprietary plug-in.

YouTube is what induced the Flash cancer.

False. Flash was already there long before YouTube, and some mainstream websites were already using it. Sites like Newgrounds already existed that offered tons of Flash content.

Because flash files or pdf files cannot be shared, duplicated ad infinitum maybe ? And they don't allow fast access and easy, intuite, human friendly interraction perhaps ?

Flash is proprietary. You can't view Flash objects' source code and source media (not legally, anyway). The web is based on open standards.

Also, it doesn't resize to the viewport, and it doesn't degrade gracefully (which is a problem for blind users (like Google!)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you wouldn't expect every Win9x user to actually buy a licence for a copy of a soon unsupported OS (that is XP) or even worse (Vista, 7, etc) just to be able to run their 9x. That solution is only for people who like to play around and reinstall 5 times a day or so.

Of course, that's why I say "For the moment and in the near future". I am talking exclusively of the scarce people who already are Windows 98 users and also have an XP install CD. They are able to run both simultaneously and in this moment this is a privilege. After that "near future" most probably we all will be forced one way or another to buy new and still non existing hardware and software to do the same things: business is business.

BTW, the hardware that we all use comes almost exclusively from asian countries where almost nobody pays a license to Microsoft and where the best pirates and virus makers of the world live and work, and IMHO they work a lot.

It seems that asian hardware manufacturers use expeditive ways in their economically expanding and very densely populated countries, where democracy means the same as in Cuba or North Corea, to force the sales of new machines. Viruses are the marketing substitute for ads while the OS is still supported. When the lifecycle is over they don't need viruses any more: they simply stop delivering spare parts, no matter if there is any demand for them or not. And not paying for foreign licenses is excellent for their governements accounts.

Thanks to the Internet we share the first of these "privileges" all over the world, and the need of spare parts makes us suffer everywhere the second one: you can keep using Windows 98 and in the near future XP without Microsoft support, but not without spare parts to repair your computer, something which earlier or later is always mandatory.

In the world of computing we all are subject to totalitarian ways, and where nobody pays a license Microsoft is also a victim.

Edited by cannie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because flash files or pdf files cannot be shared, duplicated ad infinitum maybe ? And they don't allow fast access and easy, intuite, human friendly interraction perhaps ?

Flash is proprietary. You can't view Flash objects' source code and source media (not legally, anyway). The web is based on open standards.

Also, it doesn't resize to the viewport, and it doesn't degrade gracefully (which is a problem for blind users (like Google!)).

Mmmh we were talking about flash embeded videos. You can do whatever you want with them. Watch them offline or convert them to other formats easily.

And I don't quite understandand what you mean by graceful degradation of flash :wacko:

Edited by eidenk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmmh we were talking about flash embeded videos.

Since when? You did say "flash files". Anyway, you can't get to them if you don't have Flash, unless you use a third-party service to download the FLV files.

And I don't quite understandand what you mean by graceful degradation of flash

Graceful degradation is one of the best features of the web. If a website is properly coded, all the following is true:

  • Can't display images? You'll get the alternate text describing it or showing what it said.
  • Don't have JavaScript (enabled)? You'll miss a convenience feature or something flashy, but you'll still be able to access the content.
  • Don't have support for some CSS properties? The page might look a little weird, but will otherwise work.

With Flash, instead, I'm completely locked out of the content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Flash, instead, I'm completely locked out of the content.
And that's exactly my point: when web sites will be forced - by any means - to use Flash for most or all useful content, and that Flash will be incompatible with 9x even with any unofficial update, then 9x users will be left with advertising only to access.

That's exactly what they want: deprive users of the ability to choose what to display in a web page and what not by means of filters, added to unverifiable/unstoppable checks as the one already mentioned in a previous post.

As I keep Flash disabled as default, not once did I stumble into sites that simply displayed an empty square and some copyright info below. Now that's the same as having an incompatible version of Flash. Hack that page to display, if you can!

On top of this, dunno why the discussion has dropped into web-side only, since the issues with 9x vs the world are generic and I tried to delve into this by presenting the doc vs docx example. There will be more such incompatibilities in time, rising from Unicode-only documents that can't be converted up to completely new file formats - also Unicode-based - that will be completely out of reach for 9x users.

I'm a 98SE user and will always be so please don't consider me as talking from somewhere above these issues, because I've taken my share of mocking from the NT "elite".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because flash files or pdf files cannot be shared, duplicated ad infinitum maybe ? And they don't allow fast access and easy, intuite, human friendly interraction perhaps ?

Well, there are cool games in flash, when they do cool stuffs that obviousely require something like flash, it's al right. What is wrong is when flash replace normal html/javascript code. Or when the flash application could easily be replaced by plain html or script, or a simple video file.

In these cases, flash is less user friendly and less duplicable than html.

PDF is duplicable but only as an entire ducument. The goal of PDF is to prevent modifying or taking parts of the original document. That's an hindrance in the propagation of the information. Of course it's often legitimate, but when there is no reason, it's a annoyance. Plain html or normal htlm generated by javascript should be the standard of the internet. Not flash or pdf.

YouTube made video dependant on bandwith ? Care to explain better what you mean here ?
This is silly, Flash players can and do buffer the video they play, meaning no matter how little bandwidth you have, if you simply start then pause the video and wait for a sufficient portion of it to download you can eventually watch it just fine.

In theory yes. But in practice it realy sucks.

First flash player (one of the last version) set the buffer to a ridiculousely small amount. Everytime I have to change it.

Then, I realy have to wait the exact duration for enough download. It's impossible to predict when I can start watching it.

The best is still to wait for the download to be complete, but I can't use a download manager.

they just provide a secure one when it's needed.

Not only when it's needed. When it's the case, it's fine but too often there are pdf stuffs where an html would be much more easier and would not cause any problem to anyone.

IMO, there are paranoiac poeple who want to protect everything.

Flash was already there long before YouTube

Of course. But the flash diarrhea started with the spread of YouTube.

We now see YouTube video on more and more sites where copyright protection is realy just a mundanity, if not totaly irrelevant.

It's just so easy to tap YouTube bandwith instead of yours.

As I keep Flash disabled as default, not once did I stumble into sites that simply displayed an empty square and some copyright info below. Now that's the same as having an incompatible version of Flash. Hack that page to display, if you can!

And they just removed the webmaster e-mail address because of the constant flow of complain.

Do you realy think that all the XP users have IE and flash updated?

And what about all the Linux and Macs? They will have to race against the constantly evoluing and non-standard media?

I don't think it will work like that. Too many poeple will be angry.

If a website shows me a flash, and even if my computer is able to play this flash, I refuse intentionaly to view it. If they make a website, I'm expecting to see html. If I don't I consider this website as inexistant. That's THEIR problem NOT MINE!

And if I can find an e-mail contact, I'll write to them, and say in a very snobish tone that I can't see their website and that because of security reasons I'm forced to disable Flash on my computer.

It's me who refuse to see their content not them refusing me to show it, you understand.

And I don't care about what might be on their sucker website. There are plenty of cool stuffs eleswhere. I can also not surf the web and buy a good book instead or do a jogging or another activity.

They do what they want. I have no time wasting with the clowns who think that I will use the internet like a tv. They won't increase their visitor count or their pay-per-click revenue with me.

Basta!

Edited by Fredledingue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there are cool games in flash, when they do cool stuffs that obviousely require something like flash, it's al right.

For a start I think that Flash games are generally amongst the most stupid things there are on the internet...

What is wrong is when flash replace normal html/javascript code. Or when the flash application could easily be replaced by plain html or script, or a simple video file.

No one forces anyone to create Flash websites, there aren't many btw, so there is no wrong being made.

PDF is duplicable but only as an entire ducument.

Totally untrue!

The goal of PDF is to prevent modifying or taking parts of the original document.

Totally untrue!

etc...

:hello:

Edited by eidenk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before

1.Diehards like yourselves that just love win98

2. People that can't afford to go newer. That have questions to be answered

3. People that just got an old computer off of (insert relative or friend) . That have questions to be answered.

After

1.Diehards are still here but when it is losing compatibility some people just don't want to put in the effort and just move on

2.They are still here but now they are part of the 3's and the old computer they just got has XP on it. So they don't need to ask questions in the win98 forum.

You still have people here that can't afford to go newer or inherited a win98 computer but there are less and less everyday :(. To me we are entering our first cyclical OS stage :D

Now

Win98 (great old OS)........Win2k(the forgotten one)...........XP(Widely considered the most complete)

Future

XP (Great old OS)............Vista(the forgotten one)............Win7(widely considered the most complete)

"I Hope Vista is forgotten" Not that I really do just wanted to get that response out of the way before someone else said it :D

Edited by reeko124
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me we are entering our first cyclical OS stage

Maybe this is an explanation, but IMHO there's another one:

Upgrade was easy from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 (about 2 years), a bit more difficult from this to Windows 98 (about 4 years), and even more difficult to XP (more than 8 years and still not totally achieved).

People loves XP, being possible to "downgrade" to it from Vista and "virtualize" it from the future 7, in which a more expeditive way will be used to "convince" retrograd people opposed to the "scientific advance": hardware will be incompatible with an straightforward installation of Windows 98, 2000 or XP.

If the opinion of users had any meaning, XP should be delivered "as is" with no obligation of further support by Microsoft.

But this is a war and not a dialog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's exactly my point: when web sites will be forced - by any means - to use Flash for most or all useful content, and that Flash will be incompatible with 9x even with any unofficial update, then 9x users will be left with advertising only to access.

Except that was only a part of your original point. It was only one of the web technologies you cited, and the only one you're right about.

On top of this, dunno why the discussion has dropped into web-side only

Because it's something we're all familiar with and can talk about.

No one forces anyone to create Flash websites, there aren't many btw, so there is no wrong being made.

Not many?! Are you on the same Internet as me? For example, every official video game website ever made since 2003 or so. A good chunk of store websites as well.

About PDF: I don't see much wrong with it, really. Even with Acrobat Reader 5, I can still view all of them. Plus, one year ago it has become an open, documented standard. The reason that PDF got popular years ago is that it prints the same on most machines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reeko

I don't know if there are stages but poeple quickely get rid of an OS when there is a new better one.

It took two version for poeple to move massively out of w98. With XP poeple found an OS that didn't crash as often as w9x used to, it was a blessing network administrators and it offered a new colored interface with some more integrated stuffs (thought not as many as one thinks).

Another thing:

When XP was out it was a habit to install the newest windows, every two years or so, following a linear evolution. Today you have an entire generation who had known only XP and the olders don't even remeber how gray dialog boxes looks like. As of today poeple stayed 7 years with XP without any upgrade except Vista, which was a fiasco. Very few have been willing to lay $200 for a minor, mostly cosmetic upgrade.

The reason why XP is so popular is because there has been no decent new version since.

If w7 is as promising as what I'v read, you will see XP use tumbling very swiftly.

For a start I think that Flash games are generally amongst the most stupid things there are on the internet...

I agree but 5 years old kids find them cool.

No one forces anyone to create Flash websites, there aren't many btw, so there is no wrong being made.

Well, for the experiment it can be interresting.

PDF is duplicable but only as an entire ducument.

Totally untrue!

Not totaly. If someone wants to make a protected pdf, it become difficult to copy-paste its content.

Of course you can always do a print screen.

The goal of PDF is to prevent modifying or taking parts of the original document.
Totally untrue!

Most of official and legal documents and forms are in pdf, for a reason. Of course there are poeple using pdf for anything.

It's one format which makes accidental modification less likely than say, Word.

I'm not bashing pdf. I just find irritating when I have to download a pdf while they could have it on a webpage I can see immediately and with more interaction.

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...