So let me ask the obvious. . .

[Tommy]

I like Windows 98 because I did grow up with it for one thing, but also because it is fast and doesn't slow down after months of use. I have an up to date copy of MalwareBytes on my Windows 2000 machine and I used it to scan the 2000 machine and also I did a remote scan of Windows 98 since it won't install and run on there natively that I'm aware of. Windows 2000 had a few pieces of minor malware whereas the Windows 98 machine subjected to the same sites I visit on my 2000 computer, had nothing. It was clean. I believe people are sheep when it comes to certain things being told to them. One of those things is Microsoft scaring people to upgrade their computers because heaven forbids, they're way out of date. While in one aspect it might be true, in another aspect, as long as it gets the job done, why replace it? If you own something that does everything you need it to, why pay more for something that does the same thing, or maybe even less than you expect it to? That's just kind of stupid. Honestly, I don't understand why Windows 7 gets all the praise that it does. I mean sure, it's kind of like Windows XP Second Edition but it's a lot more bloated and also in my experience, it slows down and gets sluggish after using it for a month or two, it's not as fast as it was when first installed. Now of course I am a tech professional so I know all about cleaning it up, defragging and all that good stuff. Even doing all the routine maintenance doesn't restore it to its former glory.

As for me, I don't do any special web activity except for browsing a few websites and doing email. I do a ton of local projects that don't require internet access but I don't do anything cloud related as I guess the new hipsters are calling it so I don't need the newest overpriced piece of junk from MS. I do own a copy of Vista and 7 both but neither one is in use at this time. Both are not installed on any machine. If it didn't have the limitations though, I'd use Windows 98 on every computer I own, seriously.

[submix8c]

This

...I really don't see a problem with buying a new computer every five years or so...

is ludicrous. How many people can afford to purchase a new computer? Every single one of mine are castaways that I DIY-upgrade, except for one that's a Purchased ($150) Refurbish that I had to save up to get.

This

I'm trying to generate a present-day dialogue and be part of that dialogue.

is incorrect, AFAICT. You've at every post argued against its use.

SO glad you can afford to buy a new PC and Upgrade to a newer OS, however I see no point in castigating others for their use of said OS on older (and newer) hardware.

I say BROWSE around MSFN and see the points that have already been made. But we repeat ourselves at your instigation.

@AnyMod - is there a real point to this Topic (been discussed many times over)? Indeed, XP at EOS "The sky is falling! Upgrade!"

[SPX]

I like Windows 98 because I did grow up with it for one thing, but also because it is fast and doesn't slow down after months of use. I have an up to date copy of MalwareBytes on my Windows 2000 machine and I used it to scan the 2000 machine and also I did a remote scan of Windows 98 since it won't install and run on there natively that I'm aware of. Windows 2000 had a few pieces of minor malware whereas the Windows 98 machine subjected to the same sites I visit on my 2000 computer, had nothing. It was clean. I believe people are sheep when it comes to certain things being told to them. One of those things is Microsoft scaring people to upgrade their computers because heaven forbids, they're way out of date. While in one aspect it might be true, in another aspect, as long as it gets the job done, why replace it? If you own something that does everything you need it to, why pay more for something that does the same thing, or maybe even less than you expect it to? That's just kind of stupid. Honestly, I don't understand why Windows 7 gets all the praise that it does. I mean sure, it's kind of like Windows XP Second Edition but it's a lot more bloated and also in my experience, it slows down and gets sluggish after using it for a month or two, it's not as fast as it was when first installed. Now of course I am a tech professional so I know all about cleaning it up, defragging and all that good stuff. Even doing all the routine maintenance doesn't restore it to its former glory.

As for me, I don't do any special web activity except for browsing a few websites and doing email. I do a ton of local projects that don't require internet access but I don't do anything cloud related as I guess the new hipsters are calling it so I don't need the newest overpriced piece of junk from MS. I do own a copy of Vista and 7 both but neither one is in use at this time. Both are not installed on any machine. If it didn't have the limitations though, I'd use Windows 98 on every computer I own, seriously.

I agree with this: "As long as it gets the job done, why replace it." I think if your current computer actually does everything you want it to do then there's really no need to replace it just for the the sake of doing so. I guess what I'm trying to gather from people is whether or not it actually does everything you want it to do. You said, "If it didn't have the limitations though, I'd use Windows 98 on every computer I own." Does that mean you have other computers running other OSes?

As for Windows 7, while I've typically sung its praises, I might actually have to agree with you. I have a Win 7 machine and it's been having a lot of issues lately, especially browser-related.

While the jury is still out, to be honest, I am starting to come around on Windows 8. I just recently picked up an 8.1 machine. I didn't like it at first, but now that I'm really starting get the hang of it I actually don't think it's too bad and it's probably an improvement over Vista/7 (but probably not XP).

This

...I really don't see a problem with buying a new computer every five years or so...

is ludicrous. How many people can afford to purchase a new computer? Every single one of mine are castaways that I DIY-upgrade, except for one that's a Purchased ($150) Refurbish that I had to save up to get.

This

I'm trying to generate a present-day dialogue and be part of that dialogue.

is incorrect, AFAICT. You've at every post argued against its use.

SO glad you can afford to buy a new PC and Upgrade to a newer OS, however I see no point in castigating others for their use of said OS on older (and newer) hardware.

I say BROWSE around MSFN and see the points that have already been made. But we repeat ourselves at your instigation.

@AnyMod - is there a real point to this Topic (been discussed many times over)? Indeed, XP at EOS "The sky is falling! Upgrade!"

I don't know your situation. Maybe you're on disability or on a fixed income or something along those lines. But you could build a brand new, well-powered desktop for $500 or less. If that was my price point, and I only upgraded once every five years, I would only have to save up $100 a year to build this new computer. You're telling me you can't put away $100 a year?

As for "castigating" anybody, I think you're the only one who feels castigated. Does anyone else feel castigated? Speak up if you do. I suspect not. Only in Inconceivable's world is asking well-meaning questions "arguing" and "castigating."

The truth is that I've been considering putting together a Win 98 machine, more for the nostalgia than anything else, but it has raised the question in my mind: Could I use it as my one and only computer?

So I ask questions:

I'm a film student and do a lot of HD video editing. Is there any way to do this with a Win 98 machine?

I like to view Flash content. Can I do this?

I like to watch Netflix. Can I do this?

I have a Blu-Ray collection. Could I watch them on a 98 machine?

etc. . .

These are called questions. I'm asking other people why they use 9x a. because I'm curious and b. because I'd like to know if their uses for their computer are similar to my own.

Relax.

Edited April 8, 2014 by puntoMX

[submix8c]

(sigh...)

I guess what I'm trying to gather from people is whether or not it actually does everything you want it to do.

Did we NOT say that it doesn't always? It depends on each individual need. Are you looking for a consensus?

You said, "If it didn't have the limitations though, I'd use Windows 98 on every computer I own." Does that mean you have other computers running other OSes?

THAT, sir, is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, now is it?

edit - This post went through after the last posting by the OP was made.

AGAIN, BROWSE the SubForum or SEARCH and the answers are already there.

I respectfully request that this Topic be closed.

edit2 - Do THIS google and get the "why" and stop asking!

"windows 98" "why use" site:msfn.org

Edited April 8, 2014 by submix8c

[SPX]

You said, "If it didn't have the limitations though, I'd use Windows 98 on every computer I own." Does that mean you have other computers running other OSes?

THAT, sir, is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, now is it?

You're a strange person, man.

I respectfully request that this Topic be closed.

Why? Other people seem to want to talk to me. So you want to deny them that?

This is how Internet forums work: A person posts a topic. If people want to respond, they will. If they don't, they won't. You're acting like you--and everyone else who has responded--is somehow being forced to do so. If you don't want to be a part of this conversation, then it's simple: Don't.

[submix8c]

No, this is a way somebody bumps post count by rehashing what has already been hashed PER RESPONSE. Did you not notice the MultiQuote button? Most of the respondents have said as much in the other Topics. Did you use the google I provided? Bet you didn't.

[loblo]

You use a streaming media player that doesn't use Flash to play Flash vids? I guess I don't understand how that works.

Are 9x enthusiasts hard at work trying to figure out how to make newer versions of Flash work with their systems? Because soon enough no Flash content at all is going to work. What then?

As for Silverlight, a lot of people like watching Netflix on their laptops so I'm not sure what you mean by "not much point" to it. Certain friends of mine consider this to be an essential function of their computers.

A Flash vid is an audio/video stream in an flv container streamed through RTMP. It's been little while since standalone players based on ffmpeg/mplayer such as XBMC, VLC, etc... are fully capable of that. I am surprised that someone who's as much in the latest cutting edge computing tech stuff as you are completely ignores that...

The Flash player browser plugin, which I've just updated it to the newly released version 13, runs fine. How long is it going to be before this version isn't supported on YouTube anymore do you think? I would think five years at least but by then I will most certainly be using a more recent version... Not that it's important and that I watch much stuff on Youtube anyway.

As for Netflix, while some people may consider this to be an essential function of their computers, other people couldn't care less about that. I hope you can understand that.

And since you seemed mostly focused on pay as you go VOD and Flash games, (as per all your alarmist posts) perhaps you should abandon that archaic PC technology altogether and embrace the brave new consumerist world of tablet computing, iPad and the like, don't you think???

[dencorso]

There are 4 things I couldn't care less if I tried real hard: Netflix, Facebook, Twitter, and computer gaming in general.

And make no mistake: I love plaing cards (real cards, preferably made from waxed stock-paper) and shooting pool (= pocket billiards).

[puntoMX]

*snip* --watching Netflix, *snip"

What has netflix to do with "modern computing"? there are so many devices that can be used with netflix that most of us won't even use a PC for it; hardware used for most 98 machines can't even handle videostreams any way (or on real low res).

People use an outdated OS as their hardware AND software is outdated mostly, but just serve them well.

[jaclaz]

See if this answers the OP:
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170810-ok-ok-well-support-it-lol/?p=1067031
this part:

JFYI I run a few machines with "outdated" (and out of support) OS since years:
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/158823-why-you-should-avoid-buying-windows-8/?p=1019348

Now, is it "smart"?
To some extents it is, the stupid machines use the stupid OS they run to do stupid things (like all the things PC's do), in exactly the SAME stupid way they stupidly did that when the respective OS's were mainstream, and they do that in what would be considered an insanely low-powered (as BOTH processing power AND mains power consumption goes).
But of course those machines are not intended to stupidly do the new stupid things like (say) Silverlight or HTML5 sites expect, so it is not a good idea for people wanting to have "recent" software on these "oldish" OS's.

can be easily extended to Windows 9x/Me user and be valid for it, as well as it does for NT 4.00/Windows 2000 and - from today - XP/2003 use.

jaclaz

[danikayser84]

I collect vintage laptops myself (mainly Dell Inspirons and IBM ThinkPads), and I find 98 and even 2000 run better on anything pre-2002 or so (I use Windows 2000 on my ThinkPad T23 with 1GB RAM and Windows 98 on my 600X which has the maximum 576MB RAM)... despite the age of the hardware, I can still do web browsing, DVD watching, etc. (with UURollup on Win2K you can even run Opera 12.16 and Office 2007 among others... I stick with Opera 10.63 on my 600X however, 11.6x was a bit slow)

Also, recently on my W2K machine I had a malware attack fail (because it required IE 7) and so far I've gotten along fine with no AV or antimalware on my 98 machine (I use ClamWin on my 2000 machine still)... if it weren't for the modern Web, I'd probably still be running 98SE and/or 2000 as my main OSes (my main machine does have Windows 7 x64 on it, but I made the theme look a lot like 98 or 2000... used 95 until 2001, then 98SE until 2006, then 2000 for a few months before buying a new XP machine only months before Vista's release)

[loblo]

hardware used for most 98 machines can't even handle videostreams any way (or on real low res).

Many people round here tend to have quite powerful hardware by 98/ME standards and with that you can play any 720p video (including HEVC) on the CPU without lag/dropouts.

At 1080p I can play h264/AVC in MP4 container at around 90-95% CPU still without lag but the same video in an mkv container is just a bit too much generally. Smooth 1080p HEVC playback is out of reach for the moment and most likely will remain so even with the likely speed improvements in decoding libraries in the next few years.

[submix8c]

One last post before I go POOF!

"So let me ask the obvious..." - if it was obvious, then why ask?

[jaclaz]

One last post before I go POOF!

"So let me ask the obvious..." - if it was obvious, then why ask?

For NO apparent reason :

jaclaz

[cyberformer]

I am going to continue using All Win 9x systems for as long as I possibly can! Whilst I do derive great satisfaction from Win XP (which I will also continue to use)----the 9x systems have a special appeal for me.

I have also created a dedicated Internet Explore 6 machine! I once avoided it like the plague (even removing it) .... until the "IE6 must die" campaign was instigated.
The vehement approach of others to "force" their agenda upon everyone else---rubbed me the wrong way. My dedicated IE6 PC was the result of their strident efforts to kill IE6.

As I have mentioned before---Man has the right to use the OS he Wills to use. Such a statement is made easily, since it is so congruent with my overall mode of self expression.

I think it would behoove you to bring forth a 9x machine of your own----so that you can share in the joy and exuberance that I and others on this forum feel when we initialize that glorious Start button!

What you might now consider folly, could well Initiate an overall beneficial, and rather pleasant experience for you.