The Official Windows 9x is Dead Thread

[submix8c]

Integrated graphics - Intel 82810e graphics controller w/ 3 MB shared memory

That may be the biggest culprit, right there.

In addition to ISP, agreed. You should be able to find an ATI or nVidia PCI/AGP (depending on whether it has AGP slot - better than PCI) with maybe about 32/64 MB on-card RAM for fairly cheap.

The RAM upgrade was a big plus.

Browse the forums for info on what might be most suitable.

[Fredledingue]

I also face a kind of slowlyness on w9x that I don't see on XP or above. This is mainly due to javascript.

Javascript based datas fetching to be exact, when javascript wait for some datas it takes much longer on w9x than on more recent OSes.

My favorite way round it is to disable javascript completely. This will make browsing on more recent OSes much faster too.

When javascript is needed I use a javascript size limitation, but it's not perfect.

If you use Firefox or K-Meleon, javascript is working slightly faster.

I feel that browsing the internet on w9x is not confortable because I need to constantly plays with enabling-disabling javascript (in Maxthon). Disabling to go faster, enabling it when the website refuses to display otherwise.

Facebook gives me crash issues too on IE6/Maxthon but I knw how to avoid that. This crash issue is very rare on other websites.

When javascript is disabled, the internet speed is equal to that on XP or Vista (with javascript also disabled).

With javascript enabled XP and Vista are faster, yet still show some slugginess versus non-script use.

As for safety, if w9x is not bombproof, XP is a NO-GO.

Vista and 7 might be a little bit more secure.

Pretending to talk "safety" on XP is sort of ridiculous. If you use XP you intentionaly expose yourself in way not comparable with w9x.

No way I'd choose to connect to my bank via the internet with XP but do it everyday on w9x.

I also never see any BSOD on w9x as long as the hardware works properly.

I can even say that w9x is more stable and reliable than XP or Vista on a same hardware since it takes less resources. On XP and Vista there are a lot of processes or services which may prevent you from quickely and properly shut down your computer, sometimes preventing you from shutting it down at all.

Think about automatic updates. Some Vista set ups will prevent the computer to start if the DVD drive is broke.

XP and Vista will uselessly try to do things to "resolve conflicts", with the only effect of making the process of restarting longer.

These things never happen on w9x.

W9x is half-dead as developement goes. We didn't see many updates in the last 6 months. But when they come they are greatly appreciated.

[I41Mar]

My home PC experience started in 2001, but I really started to learn a little more when I started reading this forum since about 2007. I am not definitively an PC expert!

I have to agree with CharlotteTheHarlot method.

Currently, my management method I have is this:

PC N°1: Windows 98SE desktop PC, my first PC that is now a old 2001 PIII, used for editing documents and graphics, video clips and many games. Now is offline, but quite fast, easy and very funny PC!

PC N°2: Windows XP laptop PC, bought a few years ago for my wife, but she never wanted to use it; it is used for editing documents and graphics, video clips, with a few more programs. Now is offline with an updated antivirus software, fast.

PC N°3: Windows 7 netbook, of my wife, but that I can also use it; it is the worst computer I've ever been able to use, very slow, bloated and only useful for Internet access with a Internet key! Now very updated OS and with an updated antivirus software, but no joy or fun there!

Then my security lies mainly on the PC N°3: the data downloaded from internet is then transfered to the other PC waiting some time, after performing another AV scan with updated virus sigs. But I think that the main security lies on the user between PC and keyboard!

Hope this helps.

I41Mar

Edited September 10, 2011 by I41Mar

[herbalist]

I was somewhat surprised to see the built in Intel graphics being listed as a problem. Mine uses the built in Intel 82845 graphics chip but the rest of the chipset is 82801. It has no problems with 32 bit color and a 1600X900 resolution. A different driver might make all the difference. I'm using version 4.14.10.3722, which has worked better for me than the newer drivers.

Intel still has download links for all the drivers at this page. Click on discontinued products. They've made all the difference in the world on my system.

[Dave-H]

For what it's worth, Windows 98SE is blisteringly fast and totally stable on my dual boot system.

Web performance (using Opera 11.51 with KernelEx) is extremely fast, there is no difference in fact from surfing on Windows XP.

I do have broadband of course, and a reasonably good graphics card (ATI Radeon X-850 AGP, which is probably the best I'll do on my present motherboard.)

As far as I'm concerned Windows 98SE is far from dead, although one has to accept now that there is a lot of modern software which will just not run on it, so I would never say that anyone should use it exclusively.

It's very useful as a second OS on a dual boot system however.

[SPX]

It's very useful as a second OS on a dual boot system however.

Useful how? And I'm not being facetious . . . I'm genuinely interested in why someone would choose to use Win 9x over something with an NT-based kernel.

I actually stop in here every once in a while to see what you guys are up to. I'm still interested in 9x, but that's only because I'm interested in legacy computing. There's a nostalgia factor for me, and that's why, for instance, I spent $150 on a 166 MHz Toshiba Libretto a year or so ago and went through hell getting 98 installed and getting everything else up and running. I never acted like there was some legitimate reason to use a Libretto when modern netbooks greatly outclass it in every area, or to use 98 when XP suited all my needs in a way that 98 simply cannot do anymore.

So if it's the "fun factor", then I get it. It's fun to just play around with this old technology. But as everyone has mentioned, new applications are not supported, new hardware is not supported, there are RAM and file size limitations, etc. So what is the PRACTICAL purpose?

Edited September 10, 2011 by SPX

[SPX]

But I'm an idealist, I'm dedicated. If something doesn't work with Windows 98, then I will avoid using it. Until only a couple of years ago, I refused to purchase ANYTHING whatsoever that connected by USB, simply because it would not work with Windows 95. To this day the only USB hardware I own are flash drives and USB-to-IDE adapters for hard drives.

I don't compromise my positions or my principles for convenience - and I'm used to being on the side of the minority.

This is just crazy to me. If you enjoy working with Windows 98, then cool. But it's an operating system that provides you with a way to do things on your computer, not something serious.

If you're going to be an idealist and not "compromise your principles" then channel that energy into human trafficking or saving the whales, not Windows freaking 98.

[Dave-H]

Useful how? And I'm not being facetious . . . I'm genuinely interested in why someone would choose to use Win 9x over something with an NT-based kernel.

<snip>

So if it's the "fun factor", then I get it.

I find it useful to be able to repair my XP installation using Windows 98 (and occasionally vice versa) mainly as it allows complete access to system files without constant file locking problems.

And yes, there is a "fun factor" too!

I still have my original 1993 PC, with Windows 95 and NT 3.51 on it dual boot.

I play with it, but I wouldn't use it for anything serious!

[LoneCrusader]

This is just crazy to me. If you enjoy working with Windows 98, then cool. But it's an operating system that provides you with a way to do things on your computer, not something serious.

If you're going to be an idealist and not "compromise your principles" then channel that energy into human trafficking or saving the whales, not Windows freaking 98.

Oh I have plenty of issues that matter to me other than my choice of operating systems. This is not necessarily the forum for their discussion. Try translating or searching for the phrase under my avatar, and you may have some idea.

Useful how? And I'm not being facetious . . . I'm genuinely interested in why someone would choose to use Win 9x over something with an NT-based kernel. ...

I would use Linux before I would use an NT-Kernel based Windows. And when/if the day comes that my Windows 98 won't do what I need it to do, then Linux is where I will go. Microsoft lost my "support" for good when they abandoned 9x, and they will never get it back.

Edited September 11, 2011 by LoneCrusader

[jaclaz]

With all due respect to everyone and to their opinions , the choice of an OS should not be something like a religion or a political party.

An OS is a tool.

It is good if it serves you well for the purpose you are using it to.

If this purpose is fun and CP/M (say) helps you reaching this purpose, than CP/M is a perfect tool for you.

If this purpose is a given kind of work and the OS helps you get it done "better" or "faster" then it is the right tool.

As said elsewhere in one of my carpenter's comparisons, I have a hammer that I like very much, and that over the years has proven to work, for it's intended purpose, very well, having allowed me to drive nails into wooden planks nicely and swiftly, it is well balanced, has a very good grip, and weights just what is needed to drive nails in a few hits, even on hard woods, without being too heavy.

Would I use it instead of a Torx 5 screwdriver to untighten a screw on a HD PCB? Certainly not.

I will surprise most of you by telling you that I still have a very, very old MACBOOK portable OS 7.1 on which I have a small program that from time to time I use to convert/clean text, as I was never able to find a suitable substitute in the PC world, and because I am very familiar with that particular program and I am more productive with it than with other tools.

Do I go around saying that MAC OS 7.1 is years ahead then current OS's?

No.

Can I say that it was years ahead at the time (we are talking of DOS 5.00 and the first appeareance of Windows 3.1)?

Yes.

And Windows 9x/Me has no support for NTFS or for files larger than 4Gb......

I am joking please NOT yet another debate of the Fat32 vs. NTFS type, please.

jaclaz

[herbalist]

Useful how? And I'm not being facetious . . . I'm genuinely interested in why someone would choose to use Win 9x over something with an NT-based kernel.

Except that it doesn't handle files larger than 4GB, I don't see a problem with 98. Unless you're into movies and big videos, how often will such a limitation be reached? The software and hardware limitations of 98 are for the most part artificial, largely because the apps that build the software are configured by default to make it that way. KernelEX addressed a lot of this. Except for attack surface apps, there's no reason that everything has to be the latest version. Except for apps that handle the most recent web content, the older versions of apps do the job as well as the new ones and are often lighter and better coded. Other than handling large video files and modern games, what else can't 98 do?

In all seriousness, most people trusting critical information and solid online security to Win9x are not thinking clearly. You want a bombproof computer without blue screens from a flaky browser or network driver or hardware problems. This really requires Win2k or above OS because of the practically crashproof kernel which has the ability to quietly terminate buggy applications and resist corrupt or hostile websites and attacks. Well, that's the way I see it.

Unless you're talking about the typical user that knows little more than how to turn the PC on and browse, I completely disagree. 98 can be made just as stable and secure as an NT system. I can't remember the last time I had a BSOD on my 98 system during non-experimental use. It's beyond my understanding how anyone can call an NT system secure when:

1, It's uninfected lifespan was being measured in minutes for quite some time.

2, XP and its NT kernel made rootkits a household word.

3, The size of the patches released for XP exceeds the size of most fully equipped 9X systems.

4, Was found vulnerable so often that it needed a regularly scheduled patch day, and even that was too slow.

5, its NT file system easily hides data, usage tracks, and executables from the user.

6, It has a huge attack surface due to all of the unnecessary ports open by default. As far as I know, on Win-7 some of them can't be closed without disabling large parts of the OS. On 98, one tweak closes them all.

I would trust a properly secured 98 system much more with financial transactions and sensitive data than I would XP. The majority of the keylogging malware and rootkits are designed to exploit NT systems and won't function on 98. In the last several years, many of the exploits that worked against XP and other NT systems did not work on 98. With 98, I could safely browse the sites that were compromising the NT systems that went there. I won't give XP access to my e-mail account. IMO, anyone who trusts an NT system with "critical information and solid online security" is not looking at the track record of the NT systems, how often and how badly they've been exploited, and how difficult it can be to remove some of that malware once they are compromised.

[jaclaz]

Well this is not at all fair.

First thing "NT systems" are not XP, just for the record I have a NT 4.00 machine running 24/7 since march 2003, only switched off/on for power outages or replacement of failed hardware/update of software/drivers/ordinary maintenance, let's say that on average it has been rebooted 15 times per year and NEVER had a BSOD and yes, it is connected to the internet and is also used as mail client and for (limited) Internet browsing.

Second thing, you are comparing you (whom I would call a particularly knowledgeable 98 user) to any of the most common XP users that lets MS and Windows Updates manage their PC instead of themselves.

XP just like Vista and 7 is botched in it's design because the good MS guys thought they could "export" their good OS (NT4.00/Win2k - reserved and aimed to corporate/professional use) to the masses by changing a few graphical aspects and automating some other ones.

An OS is a very complex thing and a more complex OS (like the NT family OS's undoubtedly are) need MORE maintenance/attention than a simpler one.

Point is how many people using XP in the last 10 years are capable of this (and actually are using ANY of the actual features of the OS, like authentication, group policies, permissions, quotas and what not).

Most "normal" users have "normal" needs, in most cases machines have one single user, and do very basic things.

So, as I see it the problem is that these OS were first "forced" into being usable by the masses, and then largely used by masses that had no idea waht they were doing (mind you the fault is not that of the masses, it is still of the good MS guys that provided them an unsuitable OS).

jaclaz

[herbalist]

Regarding NT systems, I do keep forgetting about the pre-2K systems. The earliest NT system I've used is 2k. It was OK if one excludes some rather strange oversights from an OS that was supposedly built to be multi-user, and the NTFS file system which I consider a security/privacy liability. The first thing I do with every 2K or XP system I get is convert it to FAT32.

You're definitely right about present day operating systems and their suitability for the average user. For them, even the so called management via Windows Update is better than no management at all. That said, combining a "typical user" and an unsupported OS, whether it's 9X or NT is a mess waiting to happen. Most of the readers here don't fall into this category. Those typical users are on Facebook maintaining imaginary farms. Most reasonably knowledgeable users can also see how badly the conventional approach to security (default-permit based AVs) is failing, but continues to be pushed because it's profitable. For a user that's willing to learn, a 9X system is easier to secure, if for no other reason, that's there's so much less attack surface to defend. Compared to 2K or XP, the purposes of the few (in comparison) running processes on a 9X system is obvious, making it much easier to decide what should and shouldn't be allowed. By comparison, the services alone on XP and newer systems are so interlocked that closing a port can require the disabling of several services, some of which might break other features the user actually needs. They seem to be designed to have a large attack surface that's difficult to eliminate. It's obvious that MS didn't learn a thing from Slammer and the consequences of unnecessary ports opened by default. It won't be that long before this gets exploited again.

[jaclaz]

Regarding NT systems, I do keep forgetting about the pre-2K systems. The earliest NT system I've used is 2k. It was OK if one excludes some rather strange oversights from an OS that was supposedly built to be multi-user, and the NTFS file system which I consider a security/privacy liability. The first thing I do with every 2K or XP system I get is convert it to FAT32.

This is coming dangerously near the NTFS vs. FAT32 flame war I am trying to avoid starting (again).

As you might know (or completely ignore) I like Win2K the most among the mentioned OS as it is a good compromise IMHO between usability (NT 4.00 is actually for geeks only) and effectiveness.

(and yes I have a "mirror" machine to the one with NT4.0 I described with more or less the same stats, though for unponderable reasons - not connected I hope with the OS - over the years in two different occasions a lightning fell near the building and in BOTH cases the damaged machine was the one running 2K)

But as said before it is simply the OS that can better do a number of things I need to do or that can do it (or that I know how to make it do) with the less fuss or without unneeded eye-candy.

To give you an idea of the kind of "unusual" user I am, the first thing I do when I get a PC is disable sound (or where possible directly remove the card).

This does deprive me of some entertaining experiences, such as:

http://www.unknown.it/materiale/titipa/tititipa.html

but all in all I prefer my silent room.

jaclaz

[herbalist]

To give you an idea of the kind of "unusual" user I am, the first thing I do when I get a PC is disable sound (or where possible directly remove the card).

Not too unusual. I'm in the process of rebuilding my default PC. I still haven't got around to installing the drivers for the sound card. I also like a quiet PC, the exception being that online game I play. It helps to hear when you're being shot at while playing. Unless I'm playing music, I usually have 98 muted. I don't bother with eye candy either. My desktop is black. Sometimes there's a picture, sometimes not.

This is coming dangerously near the NTFS vs. FAT32 flame war I am trying to avoid starting (again).

I did avoid listing the things I dislike about NTFS. But when the discussion moves to OS security, the "newer is better" crowd goes right to that point and all of its alleged advantages, it gets hard to avoid, but I will leave it alone. Too much of what is presented in OS security discussions is nothing more than vendor hype with little basis in fact, while the issue of user privacy is ignored or whitewashed over. Too much of what is part of the newer operating systems has a distrust of the user as its basis. Examples: WGA, DRM, which brings me to a question that's rarely answered decently. When the OS vendor and those it caters to don't trust the user, why should the user trust them?