The Official Windows 9x is Dead Thread

[Joseph_sw]

another stupid thing in NT is permission-Access-List that dubbed as "Security" which is a joke.

for example:

its quite easy to mess/removing permission entries for HKCR registry on NT (yes, i have tries this both on XP & win7), which will render windows XP & 7 un-useable until a registry backup is restored.

it also made worse due fact typical NT deployment will have Remote Registry services enabled,

that make it possible for malicious program wreck havoc on connected computer.

as herbalist said, comparing to 9x system, NT system indeed expanding that attack-able surface.

[rloew]

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?

Even this limitation can be overcome. I have written a Large File Emulator that supports Uploading, Downloading, Playing Videos, etc. files larger than 4GiB on a FAT32 FileSystem.

[Dave-H]

Even this limitation can be overcome. I have written a Large File Emulator that supports Uploading, Downloading, Playing Videos, etc. files larger than 4GiB on a FAT32 FileSystem.

This is off-topic, but just very quickly Rudolph, is this patch for Windows 9x only, or will it enable me to generate files over 4 GB on Windows XP with FAT32 drives?

[SPX]

Lots of responses here, so I'll just add a few general points. . .

1. I've seen a lot of comments like, "Well if you're not [insert task here] then what does it matter?" The problem is that a lot of people DO play games, edit video, use their PC as a sound recording studio, etc. And 98 is not really suitable to these types of tasks, if for no other reason than that it often can't support the kind of hardware that is necessary to do these tasks comfortably and it doesn't support the applications that are best suited for these tasks.

LoneCrusader mentioned going to Linux instead of XP/Vista/7. But Linux also is not suitable for these things, because the applications just aren't available. Most games, for instance, are not written for the OS. And I can tell you from experience that, while there are some video editing apps that have been developed for Linux, there's nothing on the platform that could be reliably used for professional level work. On Windows you have access to Adobe Premiere and Sony Vegas. (Disclaimer: The last I checked Cinlelerra was making some headway, but lacked features and was buggy. Maybe it's a lot better these days.)

2. I know this is going to sound strange, but security is just not a huge concern of mine. I don't even run an anti-virus and I haven't for years. My efforts to secure my system involve being careful. I don't download strange e-mail attachments, I don't visit questionable sites, and I only download torrents from trusted users. This strategy has served me pretty well for the last 15 years. I also try to keep everything backed up externally so if my machine does get a virus that crashes it then I can just reinstall and set everything back up (though this has never happened). Beyond that, if I undergo an attack, then I'll just cross that bridge when I get there.

So basically what I'm saying is that whether Windows 98 is, or is not, more secure than XP/Vista/7 is pretty far below functionality when it comes down to me making a decision as to what OS I'm going to use. I'll sacrifice a little security for the ability to run the programs that I need to run without a lot of hassle.

3. There's no question that, out of the box at least, anything NT-based is more stable than 9x. To refer back to the story of the Libretto that I purchased not too long to, I first had to put Windows 95 on it, and then upgrade that to Windows 98. (It's a long story as to why.) Within 5 minutes--literally--of putting 95 on it I was receiving errors. I had not installed any applications or configured it in any way and it was already giving me problems. Now 98, of course, was more stable, but still problematic.

From what I understand, reading around the board here, there are independently developed patches and various applications and whatnot that will allow you to take a 98 system and stabilize it to pretty high level. I think that's cool. But I didn't have to do any of that with my Win 7 machine and I rarely have any problems out of it, with the exception of Firefox randomly freezing, which I chalk up to being a Firefox problem instead of a Windows problem. It is simply generally stable as-is.

Furthermore, the level of technical knowledge of many of the users here far exceeds even that of most computer hobbyists. I'm A+ certified, have worked as a tech for several years, and certainly consider myself smarter than the average bear when it comes to computers. But I have no idea what many of y'all are talking about half the time. So if it takes such a high level of knowledge and understanding to bring a 9x machine to--or beyond--an XP-level of stability, then it sounds to me like it has less to do with 9x's inherent stability and more to do with your extensive ability to modify it.

[Fredledingue]

SPX, It's only the installation process which is difficult for average users. For example it takes a reboot in DOS and editing in DOS an ini file to enable more than 512Mb of memory. There is also a cascade of updates that you should have and install.

But when you have the system up and running, you use w9x just like another OS. I mean there isn't real maintenance that you should do.

With Vista and 7 it's easier because... they come pre-installed on new computers. But most poeple complains that their computers are very slow. Full of bloatwares, automatic updates, notifiers, etc... useless services...

On XP/Vista/7 too you need to know how to tweak a PC so that it works decently fast. All the average users are left with snails which only run slower and slower as the bloatwares and several generations of viruses add up.

With w9x you have one difficult installation to do once then you are safe forever. With recent Windows versions it's a continual fight against things that slow down the machine. It requires at the end of the day the same amount fo knowledge if not more.

W9x does all the tasks you mentioned like video editing, audio, graphics etc. Without problem as long as you have a w9x compatible hardware and software.

Hnestly I realy don't find new software products attractive (from microsoft or not). They all look the same, all bloated, slow, either too complicated or too basic.

The main problem with w9x is compatibility with new hardware and softwares you realy want. You don't have recent version of your profesional editors. Most scanners and printers will not istall their drivers. You are stuck back in time unless by chance a new device is functioning.

W9x has many advantages which offset this disconfort.

Personaly I need a XP-or-above OS only for my new scanner because of the driver. But everything I do but scanning pictures is done on my fully updated w98se.

For me w9x will be death when my PC will be death and I'll have to buy a new computer.

I'll probably opt for 7. 7 is an improvement over Vista and XP. But I'm sure that I'll need to tweak it several times until I get rid of all the annoying things I don't have on my out-of-the-box w98se.

Boring things that you are so accustomed with that you find them normal or don't even notice them. Try an updated version of w98se on a not too old PC and see the difference!

Until you try it you can't understand. It's areal pleasure. Going on a modern 9x system, after working on XP or Vista is like taking hollidays.

[rloew]

Even this limitation can be overcome. I have written a Large File Emulator that supports Uploading, Downloading, Playing Videos, etc. files larger than 4GiB on a FAT32 FileSystem.

This is off-topic, but just very quickly Rudolph, is this patch for Windows 9x only, or will it enable me to generate files over 4 GB on Windows XP with FAT32 drives?

The Patch is an API hook so it is designed specifically for Windows 9X. The concept may be portable to other OSes but the code isn't.

[Dave-H]

The Patch is an API hook so it is designed specifically for Windows 9X. The concept may be portable to other OSes but the code isn't.

Thanks.

[herbalist]

I've seen a lot of comments like, "Well if you're not [insert task here] then what does it matter?" The problem is that a lot of people DO play games, edit video, use their PC as a sound recording studio, etc. And 98 is not really suitable to these types of tasks, if for no other reason than that it often can't support the kind of hardware that is necessary to do these tasks comfortably and it doesn't support the applications that are best suited for these tasks.

That is the best reason of all for running dual and multiboot systems. Even though KernelEx made it possible for 98 to run the online multiplayer game I enjoy (too much) 98 can't properly render the graphics. For me, that game is the primary reason I keep XP. Except for that, everything else I do works on 98 just fine.

I know this is going to sound strange, but security is just not a huge concern of mine. I don't even run an anti-virus and I haven't for years. My efforts to secure my system involve being careful. I don't download strange e-mail attachments, I don't visit questionable sites, and I only download torrents from trusted users. This strategy has served me pretty well for the last 15 years. I also try to keep everything backed up externally so if my machine does get a virus that crashes it then I can just reinstall and set everything back up (though this has never happened). Beyond that, if I undergo an attack, then I'll just cross that bridge when I get there.

I used to volunteer at a few malware removal forums, a couple of which were linked to specific products. It was sad just how much politics and money figured into what some of them did and didn't detect. It was enough to destroy my trust in signature based detections and got me started exploring a default-deny security policy, its ability to protect your system, and the software that enforces it. One thing I've found is that tight security can be contrary to user convenience but it doesn't interfere with the ability to run user applications. The primary concern I'd have with your approach is the avoiding of "questionable sites". With legitimate sites being compromised at a rapidly growing rate, can any of them be considered a "trusted site"?

So if it takes such a high level of knowledge and understanding to bring a 9x machine to--or beyond--an XP-level of stability, then it sounds to me like it has less to do with 9x's inherent stability and more to do with your extensive ability to modify it.

There are a few very talented individuals here that code these upgrades. The rest of us try them, test them, report what we find, suggest improvements, and enjoy using them. It's the knowledge and dedication of all of those here combined that's making the 98 systems discussed here as good as they are.

[ScrewUpgrading]

As the author of this post, I'd like to retract my opinion that Win9x is dead. I just made the discovery that I could disable javascript and thus increase my browsing speed on dialup by like 10x.

Win9x Lives!!!

===============

HP Pavilion 7845

866 MHz

384 MB Ram

Netscape 9.0.0.6

Opera 10

[Dave-H]

As the author of this post, I'd like to retract my opinion that Win9x is dead. I just made the discovery that I could disable javascript and thus increase my browsing speed on dialup by like 10x.

Win9x Lives!!!

Indeed it does!

If you're still using Opera, are you aware that you can re-enable javascript on a site by site basis?

This would enable you to still use js on sites that are unusable without it.

[SPX]

SPX, It's only the installation process which is difficult for average users. For example it takes a reboot in DOS and editing in DOS an ini file to enable more than 512Mb of memory. There is also a cascade of updates that you should have and install. But when you have the system up and running, you use w9x just like another OS. I mean there isn't real maintenance that you should do.

I think that what should be done is a sticky should be made for people who have just obtained/setup a 9x machine that lays out step-by-step exactly what they would need to do to take the machine from a factory installation to stable, secure and robust with the various patches and applications that have been developed, and this guide should be updated as new patches and applications are released. Because honestly, if I were to put 98 on my machine right now, I wouldn't have a clue about where to start with all these third-party mods that have been released. I don't know what all is out there or what it does or where to get it, and going through this forum thread by thread is impractical. I am curious, though.

With Vista and 7 it's easier because... they come pre-installed on new computers. But most poeple complains that their computers are very slow. Full of bloatwares, automatic updates, notifiers, etc... useless services... On XP/Vista/7 too you need to know how to tweak a PC so that it works decently fast.

The issue I have with this argument is that most of those problems don't come from Windows, but rather from all the crap that manufacturers load up onto the system before they ship it out the door. I installed a fresh copy of Win 7 on my machine and did very little in the way of tweaking and it runs quite well. If people leave all the factory apps on their system, and run Norton, and download everything that tries to download onto their machine, and accept every toolbar that wants to attach itself to IE, then yes it will run terribly. But I don't blame that on Windows.

W9x does all the tasks you mentioned like video editing, audio, graphics etc. Without problem as long as you have a w9x compatible hardware and software.

What are some of the compatible apps that you would suggest in these categories? Also, something like video editing requires a good bit of RAM. How can you get 98 to utilize, say, 4 gigs? And how does 98 respond to modern CPUs?

Honestly I realy don't find new software products attractive (from microsoft or not). They all look the same, all bloated, slow, either too complicated or too basic.

I don't disagree with this. It seems that there are a lot of applications now that don't do much more than apps in the past did, but for some reason the system requirements are so much greater. I don't get this at all. And I also agree that some apps now are simply too complicated. There is such a thing as feature overload. It can be overwhelming.

[SPX]

I used to volunteer at a few malware removal forums, a couple of which were linked to specific products. It was sad just how much politics and money figured into what some of them did and didn't detect. It was enough to destroy my trust in signature based detections and got me started exploring a default-deny security policy, its ability to protect your system, and the software that enforces it. One thing I've found is that tight security can be contrary to user convenience but it doesn't interfere with the ability to run user applications. The primary concern I'd have with your approach is the avoiding of "questionable sites". With legitimate sites being compromised at a rapidly growing rate, can any of them be considered a "trusted site"?

That's troubling, but I don't doubt it. I remember the first time Malwarebytes found something on my dad's PC that McAfee didn't find. It was like some paradigm shift for him. He just couldn't imagine how a free program could be better at detection than something he pays for.

As for legitimate sites being compromised, I've heard about such cases, but life is not without risk. I've never picked up a virus by going to Google or reading the news on MSN, so I just don't worry about it.

There are a few very talented individuals here that code these upgrades. The rest of us try them, test them, report what we find, suggest improvements, and enjoy using them. It's the knowledge and dedication of all of those here combined that's making the 98 systems discussed here as good as they are.

One thing I wonder is where everyone finds the TIME. I assume most people here have jobs, maybe families or at least a significant other, interests beyond computing, and--I would assume--computing projects that are more contemporary in their focus. So how does anyone find the time to develop stuff for Windows 98?

[DylanC]

I'm not an "expert", and I haven't used Windows 98 in over 10 years, but I would second CharoletteTHeHarlot's advice....pick up a used XP system for $20 and save yourself the linux headache. I've been tinkering with linux on and off for 10+ years and its just so dis-similar from windows that anyone who considers themselves to be a "power user" will probably get frustrated and give up. At least that's been my experience. It's like trying to learn French. It sounds like a good idea, but unless you have a real reason to switch, its just easier to stick with English. Newer varieties are almost as bloated as windows (Ubuntu, etc.) and still no easier to dig into the "nuts and bolts" of what makes it tick.

Another serious alternative to a linux system would be a Mac G4, PowerPC type. I know I could catch some flak for this, but I seriously consider even OS X 10.0 to be superior to windows XP and Vista. I've never really used windows 7, but I'm sure its not all that much better than Vista. And OS X 10.0 will run pretty snappy on older OS 9.1 hardware. I have an old 466 MHz G3 iBook "Clamshell" that runs OS X 10.1 just fine...if it had wireless internet I'd probably still use it. A decent G4 tower can be had on ebay for $20 +S&H.

Or you could even look for a junk machine with a legit CoA for windows 2000. I ran that OS as long as I could until some flashy game made me to upgrade to XP. In my opinion Win2K is the best OS that MS ever built...I still use it (VirtualPC) for some older 16-bit software that won't work right on XP or newer systems. I still use XP x64 at work, but Vista bothered me so much that I bought a Mac for my home PC. I've used Windows 7 a few times, but it seems like the more "progress" an OS makes, the less control I have over what it's doing and how it behaves.

[Kelsenellenelvian]

I've never really used windows 7, but I'm sure its not all that much better than Vista

Back that one up 7 is lightyears ahead of Vista.....

[ScrewUpgrading]

Dylan, I already tried doing what you suggested, picking up a cheap older mahcine and throwing on Windows XP or 2000. In my case, I bought a Dell Optiplex GX-260 for $50 with Windows 2000 on it.

In the end, I found myself in almost the same situation that I'm in now. An unsupported, proprietary operating system, which is only going to get worse with time, not better. Not to mention I found Windows 2000 to be a lot pickier when it comes to installing the correct drivers for everything from printers, fax/modems, to graphic cards. The built-in support in Windows 2000 just wasn't as good as Windows 98/Me. Granted, my assorted collection of computer parts is probably too old for NTFS versions of Windows, but they all worked with no problems on Windows Me, even though there's less than a year's difference between the two systems.

It's just another case of Microsoft trying to kill off older technology and forcing you to pay for the new stuff in my opinion. Which is why I hope Widows XP holds out as long as possible, because once XP is gone, computers as I know them will be gone. Everything is headed towards being "in the cloud," and basically you won't be in control of your own computer.

And that's why I'd prefer to use Linux. Even if my understanding of Linux is pretty bad, and it is, at least it's FREE ,and all you need to know to get started is how to burn a live cd. After that, you just got to tinker around with it.

I don't think i'd use Ubuntu, instead I prefer Vector Linux Lite, Wary Puppy, or even Dang* Small Linux. All three of those live cd's worked on my ancient computer, and some have the option of installing to your hard drive along with Windows. Which seems quite practical, using both Linux and Win9x, I mean.

So in that case, I'd have to disagree with CharlottetheHarlotte, as I see no point in buying yet another computer and soon-to-be-expired version of proprietary Windows.

But I think I'm in agreement with most people here when I say I'd rather just keep using Windows 9x.

Edited September 13, 2011 by ScrewUpgrading