It has been 7 years since Win98 was released

[un4given1]

Office 2003 does not install on Windows 98...

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...kb;en-us;822129

Have a screen shot to prove otherwise?

EDIT: HAHA... great minds think alike!

[tim_horton]

the thread was never intented to be a 98 verus xp debate but simply someone stating after 7 years how come or why do u still use 98 when xp is much better. i dont think it was a question of xps fame but a curiousity of a xp user why people run a so called dinosaur os.and the 98se users defend their os because it provides all their needs and dont feel the need to upgrade perhaps their comforable with 98 and change is not always better .why argue over which is better xp like longhorn is better hands down like 95 is better than 3.1 and so on .its almost as if 98se is the start of better oses the proto type of a good simple os and because of its bugs now mostly rememdy by sp 2 etc its fairly sound. sure as time goes by microsoft is making programs unable to work on 98 the time to move on will be a must.but 4 now 98se is still widely used and familar 2 most so 98se embrace the retro feel of a classic os and xp users that chuckle remember the little os that could the one that laid the groundwork for oses 2 come For those about to surf we salute u long live 98se hail msfn .party on garth.

[azagahl]

Until then I believe Microsoft over you.

Microsoft probably claims that because of one of the following:

1. They did not test on 98 SE for this software and did not want to claim support when it's untested.

2. They are trying to convince users to upgrade.

3. They made a mistake.

Have a screen shot to prove otherwise?

No. I don't have unlimited time to waste on arguing with skeptics. I wasted a lot of time already arguing with unforgiven1 about my ability to use 1 GB of RAM on 98 SE and he still never admitted being wrong and, as far as I know, he never tried it out himself once despite access to all the necessary hardware and software.

Also if I make a screenshot probably you will claim its doctored or something stupid. Horsecharles is quite knowledegable and I have no reason not to take his report at face value.

Let me turn this question around and ask that maybe you should try 98 SE yourself out since you are so interested in attacking it?

I will also refer you to the post here regarding using Office 2003 on 98; there are latter posts with more details.

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=258466

All of this seems kind of pointless to me anyway because as I said I don't even know why you would want Office 2003 over 2000, or vice versa. Does the dog walk over to my document and drop a turd if I make a typo? So just pretend I said 2000 in my original post if it makes you happier.

[un4given1]

Your "proof" is someone else who says they have it running? Your lost man.

1. Print Screen

2. Start/Run/mspaint

3. CTRL V

4. Save As

5. Attach to forum

Seems pretty easy to me. Instead you spent twice as much time typing about how you don't have to prove anything.

Let me turn this question around and ask that maybe you should try 98 SE yourself out since you are so interested in attacking it?

Why don't you go out and buy a Black and White TV?

Why don't you listen to 8 tracks anymore?

Why don't you heat your house with coal?

Why? Anyone who is using Windows XP and loves it isnt' going to waste their time going back to an OS that they remember crasing in the middle of everything they ever did! "Oh, but MINE doesn't..." You can't even install XP stabily on your PC, and somehow you have Office 2003 on your Windows 98 PC.... I don't believe anything you have to say because you don't back it up with proof and fact.

[bullet]

I agree with Tim as far as Win98 being something to look back on. That has been my whole point the entire time.

@azagahl

You proved my argument about office 2003

I don't have unlimited time to waste

Trying to install office03 on 98 is a waste of time.

[dman]

1. Print Screen

2. Start/Run/mspaint

3. CTRL V

4. Save As

5. Attach to forum

this is a off-topic, but if you do a lot of print screens you might find Gadwin PrintScreen handy....

http://www.gadwin.com/printscreen/

[azagahl]

Your "proof" is someone else who says they have it running? Your lost man.

I don't want to prove it to you. I accept that it's not proven. But I still believe horsecharles is telling the truth.

un4given1, I tried and tried to prove to you that 1 GB works just fine for me. I still am not sure if you accepted my proof. Honestly I would rather pull my teeth through nostrils than to try proving 1+1=2 to you. There's just no point in arguing with someone who insists on being so obstinate.

Seems pretty easy to me

No, installing Office 2003 is not at all easy for me since I would have to make a backup image my system, download probably multiple GB of data from MSDN (downloads from there take forever), extract it, and then install it for a long time, and then reimage my system (I don't want to use Office 2003 honestly and I do not want to just uninstall and leave my drive fragmented).

All this work just to prove something I don't care about, and you probably won't believe the proof anyway.

Is it easy for you to install 98 SE and Office 2003? If it's so easy then go ahead and give it a shot..

Anyone who is using Windows XP and loves it isnt' going to waste their time going back to an OS

I agree with Tim as far as Win98 being something to look back on. That has been my whole point the entire time.

So you don't want to try 98 SE because of some kind of irrational anti-nostalgic feeling. There's nothing wrong with that opinion. But it does make your assaults on 98 SE less credible when you haven't even used it for years. Things change a lot in 5 years.

Trying to install office03 on 98 is a waste of time.

Agreed, Office 2000 is less bloated and is probably the better choice.

[bullet]

I work with 98 almost daily. In fact I work in a domain that still has Win95 machines. It is for that reason that I appreciate XP and all of it's capabilities. I'm just saying do not come to me and say that Windows 98 is the greatest thing since sliced bread because it is definately not. I work with 98 and I know better.

[azagahl]

I work with 98 and I know better

Are you using an old and crappy system? 98 SE runs fantastically well on my Athlon 3400+ with 1 GB RAM.

Have you installed USP2.0RC3? It installs nearly all 98 SE patches from Microsoft - excluding the bad and dangerous ones that is. Works wonders IMHO.

If you think you've exhausted all there is to learn about using 98 SE then you may be mistaken.

[bullet]

To me running 98 on an athlon xp 3400+ with 1 GB RAM is a waste of a good computer.

You are absolutely right about me not knowing everything about Win98. The reason is the same one you would have about not knowing everything there is to know about windows for workgroups or better yet OS 8.6 for a MAC. It is USELESS to know that stuff. I would rather focus my attention forward instead of backward. I remember the past but I do not live in it and I do not want to go back. You can be my guest.

[un4given1]

1. Print Screen

2. Start/Run/mspaint

3. CTRL V

4. Save As

5. Attach to forum

this is a off-topic, but if you do a lot of print screens you might find Gadwin PrintScreen handy....

http://www.gadwin.com/printscreen/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the info. I don't do a lot... I was just pointing out just how easy it is.

[un4given1]

To me running 98 on an athlon xp 3400+ with 1 GB RAM is a waste of a good computer.

That's exactly what I said... There is also someone else here running it with an Athlon 64. What sense does that make?

[prathapml]

Before you criticize 98 SE further, I suggest you actually try it. For a skilled user, 98 SE is quite nice now, compared to when it came out 5 years ago. I use 98 SE and XP regularly and find that I prefer 98 SE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I use and support 98se on a daily basis. While I won't force you to say that XP is the best - because 98se is quite fine for older systems, the below certainly is puzzling:

Do a clean-install of win98se, install all the updates needed (as in IE6sp1, WMP9, etc.). Then apply the SESP2 (which is developed by gape). Office 2003 still won't install here. Please instruct me how I can get it to install on this.....

[eidenk]

The cons about 9x-Me : Limited size of the resources. No support for transparency.

After 10 years of Windows there is still not a color picker built in the color dialog in XP. Is this serious ? Is this the future ?

The start menu has turned into a Mickey Mouse affair.

You can't backup your registry by hand.

You've got to put up with the administrator thing.

You can't kill your explorer without it to restart automatically so you miss the ability to easily to change in one click (a small batch file) all your desktop environment including desktop taskbars.

And if it's stability that is a concern, just remove from 9x-Me the file webcheck.dll from your system (provided you don't use the active desktop feature) and you'll see that your system never freezes again to almost a halt or crashes. (Stimon.exe and sti.dll must be removed from Me if you want it stable as well.) After doing this the only problem that remains is freezing the display when deleting moving or copying large number of files or emptyimg the recycle bin. It is solved by increasing the file and folder caches which are 0 by default. Use the super cache settings from MGX. Once all this is done you can empty the recycle bin from thousands of file while at same time deleting thousands of files and copying housands from one drive to another. All this simultaneously without any glitch or halt or freeze.

I run my trimmed down Windows Me for up to seven days with the resource heavy eMule in the background without needing to reboot.

Why would I need XP for ?

What are really the pros of XP ? Frankly ? Not being able to change your hardware without being forced to give a phone call to Redmond ?

[bullet]

Where to start?

1. At least 10 times more reliable (fully protected memory model)

2. Ability to verify device drivers and roll back if necessary

3. Support for up to 4GB RAM

4. System File Protection (useful if you have stupid users)

5. Local security

6. Built-in wireless support

7. Remote Desktop Connection (Server not the client)

8. Ability to actually have more than one user

9. IPSEC and Kerberos

10. Built in Firewall

11. Better application compatability

12. Better hardware support

13. Unattended installs

14. Recovery console

15. File syncronization

16. Better power management

17. Bluetooth

18. Offline webpage viewing

19. Better file association handling

20. The big one is Active Directory and the ability to apply group policies

Hopefully this is enough for. I can find some more if you would like.