Why use Win 9x on new PCs in 2013?

[lolnousernameforyou]

I think the biggest problem for windows 98 now was the 512 mb RAM limit and the 137 gig HD limit but that has already been broken.

[jaclaz]

Windows 98 is a resilient OS

Define "resilient", please.

@Everyone, please note how the OP asked this question on April and never replied, and -as highlighted by dencorso on post #6 - darreljon is particularly fond of this question, that he repeats from time to time, as he plainly stated on post #16:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/162657-why-use-win-9x-on-new-pcs-in-2013/#entry1037374

Why not waiting for his re-posting expected for September 2015?

jaclaz

[lolnousernameforyou]

 

Windows 98 is a resilient OS

Define "resilient", please.

jaclaz

(of a substance or object) able to recoil or spring back into shape after bending, stretching, or being compressed. (I mean it as it is easy to fix an issue since its two OS(s) in one, and if it does die its quick to get it up and running again) Edited August 31, 2013 by lolnousernameforyou

[JorgeA]

Hopefully you are satisfied.

OK, since you're running Win98SE on a modern PC, we have established that one can run Win98 on a current-model computer. That's very good to know. But to my mind the issue isn't the age of the computer itself, but rather the age of the OS relative to the newness of the peripherals and accessories. May I ask you this: If you have an equally modern printer attached to it, are you using generic printer drivers or does the vendor offer Win9x drivers for it? Is there any printer functionality (two-sided printing, for example, or printing more than one copy at a time) that you can't access because there are no specialized drivers for the printer for that OS?

Likewise, if you have an add-on video card, does the vendor publish drivers for it that work on Win98, or are you again limited to relying on some type of generic approach?

Besides getting the official Windows Updates, this would be my main type of concern if I were contemplating doing a fresh Win98 install on a new computer in 2013.

Again, to be clear -- I'm not arguing here, just inquiring. There is a possibility I might do this at some point in the future, so my curiosity is a practical one. It would be great to know that one can run 2013-vintage equipment on Windows 98 without compromising functionality.

--JorgeA

Edited August 31, 2013 by JorgeA

[rloew]

Hopefully you are satisfied.

OK, since you're running Win98SE on a modern PC, we have established that one can run Win98 on a current-model computer. That's very good to know. But to my mind the issue isn't the age of the computer itself, but rather the age of the OS relative to the newness of the peripherals and accessories.

I was responding to Andrew T's quote (#25).

I think the OP brought up a legitimate question; though probably not in the way he intended. What's the benefit of running Windows 9x on a new computer, when it's easier to run it on an older one instead? It isn't as though a Pentium III isn't fast enough.

This was specifically about the age of the Computer itself. Your response about peripherals is more related to the OP's original question about OS choices, not CPU choices.

May I ask you this: If you have an equally modern printer attached to it, are you using generic printer drivers or does the vendor offer Win9x drivers for it? Is there any printer functionality (two-sided printing, for example, or printing more than one copy at a time) that you can't access because there are no specialized drivers for the printer for that OS?

Likewise, if you have an add-on video card, does the vendor publish drivers for it that work on Win98, or are you again limited to relying on some type of generic approach?

Besides getting the official Windows Updates, this would be my main type of concern if I were contemplating doing a fresh Win98 install on a new computer in 2013.

Again, to be clear -- I'm not arguing here, just inquiring. There is a possibility I might do this at some point in the future, so my curiosity is a practical one. It would be great to know that one can run 2013-vintage equipment on Windows 98 without compromising functionality.

--JorgeA

Unfortunately, these issues are real. Generic solutions are available for some things such as for USB and SATA.

I do have 2-sided printing drivers for HP PCL printers that probably could be generalized, but I think even HP is going towards proprietary interfaces.

[Dude111]

Windows 98 is a resilient OS and unlike windows vista ,7 or 8 its not dumbed down and automatically does it

Indeed it is my friend,excellent reply!

I dont like how stuff has become so UGLY,DUMBED DOWN AND INTRUSIVE!!

Edited September 1, 2013 by Dude111

[Arminius]

I have 32GiB of RAM, 8TiB of Hard Disk Space and 8 Cores at 3.1GHz. I'm not stopping here.

Without further Mods, Windows 9x can support 512GiB of RAM, 384TiB of Hard Disk Space and 16 Cores at 21GHz.

Wow, that is amazing!

However...

If and when the time comes to do a fresh install of Windows 98 -- where does one go to get all the official updates through July 2006? (I'm thinking of Win98 FE, not SE.) Are there any repositories elsewhere, now that Microsoft has killed/repurposed the one(s) that stored the Windows Updates for 9x that you used to be able to get by clicking on "Windows Update" on the Start Menu?

And, is it possible still to get 9x drivers for all the peripherals that one might have today (modern printer, current graphics card, and so on)?

Not trying to be argumentative here, just genuinely curious.

--JorgeA (still with a soft spot for Win98)

You mean in 2005-2006 you didn't download the updates and back them up?

I rarely used Windows update prefering to download the installers myself from the old Windows 98 corporate page. But even Windows update gave the option of downloading the installer instead of an automatic install.

As far as FE goes once you install SP1 there are only about two dozen or so security and stability updates to install. Of the many hoxfixes that ended up in the unofficial service packs most of them originally were to address issues that cropped up with specific hardware configurations. If you check inside the .exe file you will see that many of the hotfixes were dual installers for both 98FE and 98SE. The installer would automatically detect which version you were using and install the appropriate file.

Why today would anyone use 98FE when SE is more stable and a wider range of older hardware had drivers for SE but not FE? I heard some people say FE was faster than SE but on a fast Pentium 4 who would notice the difference?

As far as printers go I never connected 98 to a printer. If I need to print something today I connect our XP laptop to the printer.

[JorgeA]

You mean in 2005-2006 you didn't download the updates and back them up?

I rarely used Windows update prefering to download the installers myself from the old Windows 98 corporate page. But even Windows update gave the option of downloading the installer instead of an automatic install.

As far as FE goes once you install SP1 there are only about two dozen or so security and stability updates to install. Of the many hoxfixes that ended up in the unofficial service packs most of them originally were to address issues that cropped up with specific hardware configurations. If you check inside the .exe file you will see that many of the hotfixes were dual installers for both 98FE and 98SE. The installer would automatically detect which version you were using and install the appropriate file.

Why today would anyone use 98FE when SE is more stable and a wider range of older hardware had drivers for SE but not FE? I heard some people say FE was faster than SE but on a fast Pentium 4 who would notice the difference?

As far as printers go I never connected 98 to a printer. If I need to print something today I connect our XP laptop to the printer.

I have an old PC with two hard disks each containing a full installation of Win98FE. They both include all official Windows Updates for that OS. One of them is the original install from the vendor (I bought that PC in early 1999, just prior to SE's launching) and the other is one that I did a couple of years ago, by sheer chance shortly before Microsoft cut off the server for Win98 updates.

But neither of these installations is particularly stable and so I have two main choices next time I need to install Win98 fresh:

1. To somehow extract the Windows Updates from these installations, so that I can then apply them to a new, fresh install. Is that possible?
2. To get the Updates from some other source.

The trajectory of my computing learning is very different from that of most people on this forum. Although I had a lot of fun tinkering with computers in 1982-85, ever since Windows overtook DOS I had tended to approach computers as black boxes that performed magic; in 2005-6 I wasn't expert enough to back up Win98 updates. Had you talked to me in those years about backups and installers, I would have given you a blank, mystified look. But TBH I'm not sure how I would go about it today even if the updates were available the old-fashioned way -- I don't remember the Windows 98 update application offering a simple choice to download the updates such that they could be installed manually later. Memories of how it worked are getting fuzzy by now, but IIRC it was a fairly automated function unless you went to the individual information page for each update -- which on dial-up made for quite a tedious process. (Not that back then I would have given much thought anyway to such an "advanced" function as downloading individual update installers.)

I do remember, though, that the last time I installed Win98, there were many many more than a dozen updates, maybe even several dozen. Maybe they weren't all security/stability updates, but there were a ton of them all told and it would be preferable to have them too, if possible.

--JorgeA

[jaclaz]

Maybe it's time to introduce the idea (for which I will be flamed, I know) that there is a better (faster, more stable, better working) OS than Win98SE (which is not Windows Me) but is 98SE2Me (though it may cause any number of EULA breaking ) :

http://www.mdgx.com/

http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#KRM9S

jaclaz

[LoneCrusader]

I have an old PC with two hard disks each containing a full installation of Win98FE.

...

But neither of these installations is particularly stable...

Windows 98FE never gave me anything but trouble. It was never stable in any configuration that I have seen. IMO, 95 OSR 2.x is a better choice than 98FE. There is no reason to use 98FE over SE unless you have some specific attachment to FE.

Being a 95 OSR2.x lover , even after using 98SE, I do understand if you have some attachment to 98FE, so I'm not bashing your choice, but just pointing out my experiences on the matter.

Edited September 1, 2013 by LoneCrusader

[rloew]

But neither of these installations is particularly stable and so I have two main choices next time I need to install Win98 fresh:

• To somehow extract the Windows Updates from these installations, so that I can then apply them to a new, fresh install. Is that possible?
• To get the Updates from some other source.

--JorgeA

Extracting the Updates themselves would be rather difficult and time consuming.

A list of the applied updates is stored in the Registry.

I don't know if there is a repository of these Updates.

[Arminius]

You mean in 2005-2006 you didn't download the updates and back them up?

I rarely used Windows update prefering to download the installers myself from the old Windows 98 corporate page. But even Windows update gave the option of downloading the installer instead of an automatic install.

As far as FE goes once you install SP1 there are only about two dozen or so security and stability updates to install. Of the many hoxfixes that ended up in the unofficial service packs most of them originally were to address issues that cropped up with specific hardware configurations. If you check inside the .exe file you will see that many of the hotfixes were dual installers for both 98FE and 98SE. The installer would automatically detect which version you were using and install the appropriate file.

Why today would anyone use 98FE when SE is more stable and a wider range of older hardware had drivers for SE but not FE? I heard some people say FE was faster than SE but on a fast Pentium 4 who would notice the difference?

As far as printers go I never connected 98 to a printer. If I need to print something today I connect our XP laptop to the printer.

I have an old PC with two hard disks each containing a full installation of Win98FE. They both include all official Windows Updates for that OS. One of them is the original install from the vendor (I bought that PC in early 1999, just prior to SE's launching) and the other is one that I did a couple of years ago, by sheer chance shortly before Microsoft cut off the server for Win98 updates.

But neither of these installations is particularly stable and so I have two main choices next time I need to install Win98 fresh:

1. To somehow extract the Windows Updates from these installations, so that I can then apply them to a new, fresh install. Is that possible?
2. To get the Updates from some other source.

The trajectory of my computing learning is very different from that of most people on this forum. Although I had a lot of fun tinkering with computers in 1982-85, ever since Windows overtook DOS I had tended to approach computers as black boxes that performed magic; in 2005-6 I wasn't expert enough to back up Win98 updates. Had you talked to me in those years about backups and installers, I would have given you a blank, mystified look. But TBH I'm not sure how I would go about it today even if the updates were available the old-fashioned way -- I don't remember the Windows 98 update application offering a simple choice to download the updates such that they could be installed manually later. Memories of how it worked are getting fuzzy by now, but IIRC it was a fairly automated function unless you went to the individual information page for each update -- which on dial-up made for quite a tedious process. (Not that back then I would have given much thought anyway to such an "advanced" function as downloading individual update installers.)

I do remember, though, that the last time I installed Win98, there were many many more than a dozen updates, maybe even several dozen. Maybe they weren't all security/stability updates, but there were a ton of them all told and it would be preferable to have them too, if possible.

--JorgeA

Your old PC with 98FE sounds like my old PC bought mid 1999 just before the release of SE. I bought a second hand 98SE OEM CD complete with manual and license key for $25 in 2004 but didn't get around to installing it until 2005.

Don't bother trying to extract the updates from your installation. A lot of them are still available from here:

http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm

and here:

http://erpman1.tripod.com/w9xmeupd.html

There may be some dead links but grab the ones you can. I may have some of those that are missing.

I don't know what happened in those days by clicking the the Windows Update shortcut in the Start Menu. I always went to Windows Update Catalog (now gone).

http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog

There you could select language, choose your OS, and be presented with a list of standard updates with a short description. You would then add them to a cart and when finished they would download into a folder (the default was Wu at the root directory).

The installers themselves would be a few folders deep divided into subfolders by language, OS, app, and name of the update. They didn't have specialized hotfixes in the catalog but everything else was there.

You probably don't need every hotfix. Many of them had to be requested from Microsoft to fix specific issues which did not affect a large enough number of computers to be put into general release. I adhere to the "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" philosophy. Most of the core updates from the former Windows 98 Corporate site ought to be installed in addition to 98FE SP1. The rest is up to your own judgment.

If you do get a copy of a 98SE CD make sure the first thing you do after you install the OS is to install the 98SE shutdown supplements or you will be swearing your head off and saying how much better 98FE was.

[winxpi]

You might try Windows 98SE through VMWare ESXi (formerly VmWare Esx) or so.

I saw a video where somebody claimed to install Windows 98 on Esxi. Still might be the best option how to install on modern hardware.

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by winxpi

[Destro]

This is a really bad necro and I don't think all of the talking points used by detractors to justify the use of 98 on "new computers" are any longer justified. The only talking point still valid is because they want to.  I am a strong believer and supporter in peoples right to do whatever they want on their computers so we can just end it there.  But at this point I think as far as we have come in 2018 with ryzen and latest gen mulitcore technology anyone with a strait face can say because its faster and "insert various absurd excuse about software and hardware compatibility in 2018 can be justified.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Destro

[rloew]

I can say 9x is faster with a "straight face" without any hesitation. I ran a Mathematical calculation last year using all 8 cores and about 29GB of RAM with far less overhead than would have been possible with any later OS.