Windows 98/ME support for hardware and software

[miko]

Are you intentionally ignoring my point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i'll answer that. based on all his previous posts in this thread -

yes, yes he is.

Edited August 25, 2005 by miko

[azagahl]

Erm, what do you mean you can't by XP x64 edition?... It's just not released to the retail market

So where did you buy it exactly? How much did it cost?

[Fredledingue]

It is quite obvious to me that an OS should be installed on appropriate hardware

Yes, P4 3.4Ghz + 1Gb memory+ 2x120Gb HD + GF4 is perfect for w98se-uSP2.

A good wide 19' LCD display of the lastest generation is also recommanded for w98 OS.

It would ba a waste to use such computer with XP.

Link21

XP is not aquality OS. IMO. That's why driver support for w98 should go on.

Unfortunately economics sometimes are against that and we, w98 users suffer from the obligation to install low-performance XP-based drivers because everybody knows that XP mean low-performance.

Yes XP is stable but not a quality OS. No.

Also one more reason why your point is not valid:

Every processor use binary data and these binary datas are the same in w98 and XP.

Edited August 25, 2005 by Fredledingue

[Jito463]

Erm, what do you mean you can't by XP x64 edition?... It's just not released to the retail market

So where did you buy it exactly? How much did it cost?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I bought one copy from PlanetAMD64.com and the other copy I got through the trade-up program from MS. However, you can buy it from Newegg.com, we sell it at work and there are other online retailers that offer it for sale. Just do a froogle search for Windows XP x64.

Edited August 25, 2005 by Jito463

[Link21]

It is quite obvious to me that an OS should be installed on appropriate hardware

Yes, P4 3.4Ghz + 1Gb memory+ 2x120Gb HD + GF4 is perfect for w98se-uSP2.

A good wide 19' LCD display of the lastest generation is also recommanded for w98 OS.

It would ba a waste to use such computer with XP.

Link21

XP is not aquality OS. IMO. That's why driver support for w98 should go on.

Unfortunately economics sometimes are against that and we, w98 users suffer from the obligation to install low-performance XP-based drivers because everybody knows that XP mean low-performance.

Yes XP is stable but not a quality OS. No.

Also one more reason why your point is not valid:

Every processor use binary data and these binary datas are the same in w98 and XP.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

XP is a quality OS because it uses a quality kernel being the NT kernel. Linux is also a quality OS, and even more so a quality OS than XP/2000. Windows XP is fast once you strip out all the bloat. Anything based off Windows 9X is NOT a quality OS because it uses a horrible kernel!!

Windows 98 driver support has been halted for the latest hardware as was shown with the release of the Intel 915X+ chipsets, NVIDIA NForce 4+ chipsets, Radeon X800+ video chipsets, and the GeForce 7800 video card chipsets. So, now what are you going to do if you want an Athlon 64 system with an NForce 4 and GeForce 7800 or high end system. You won't be able to run Windows 98 on there. Face it, it's time to move on. The only reason you don't like XP is because you saw it and made up your mind that it is bloated. Sure, it may be bloated, but you can strip out all the bloat. It's the differences in the kernel that make an OS a quality OS. You would say the same thing about Windows 98 if it were bloated as well. It isn't bloated, but it uses a crappy kernel. Heck, if MS tried to load 98 with the same bloat XP contains, it probably wouldn't even work as your system would crash ever second.

Edited August 25, 2005 by Link21

[Fredledingue]

Windows XP is fast once you strip out all the bloat.

LOL. It's like saying w98 is stable once you install the uSP2!

Which is true while XP remain slightly slower even after its wheight losing cure.

XP is not a quality OS. It's a bad OS with a qulaity kernel and maybe a quality file system (thought the fat32 is also a quality file system IMO). Bloat is not the only thing, as kernell not being the only thing neither.

When I will have to upgrade my hardware to a point where it can't support w98, I will of course drop it.

But then I will have to fight against all the annoyances, bloats and useless services that cripple XP and will most probably cripple Vista and Longhorn64.

M$ is reluctant to make a simple OS that simply is a base for running programs with the highest performance.

Instead it wants to make flashy interface that always require the latest up-to-date hardware to hardly function, that multiply the level of servicing and management complexity, that integrate multi-hundred-MB apps such as windows media player, IE and others, that oblige running multiple level of protections against viruses because it's a network-open OS, that has no reliable driver installation etc.

And that couldn't even fix the annoying interface problems I had with w98! Just adding some more.

Sh*t! I only need a PROGRA~1 folder to put my freeware standalones in it. F*ck with their 3d cyan rounded window skins and their media edition!

[Link21]

Unicode only system files work only on an NT based platform. Would performance be any better if programs were written using Unicode only? What if DirectX 9 was written using Unicode only? Is it likely it would have performed better?

[dman]

Unicode only system files work only on an NT based platform.  Would performance be any better if programs were written using Unicode only?  What if DirectX 9 was written using Unicode only?  Is it likely it would have performed better?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it is unlikely. Unicode would be slower if anything, since it needs 2 bytes to store character instead of ascii's 1. Only thing unicode gets you is universal character set, not performance.

[miko]

http://www.microsoft.com/globaldev/handson...u_announce.mspx

[Link21]

Unicode only system files work only on an NT based platform.  Would performance be any better if programs were written using Unicode only?  What if DirectX 9 was written using Unicode only?  Is it likely it would have performed better?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it is unlikely. Unicode would be slower if anything, since it needs 2 bytes to store character instead of ascii's 1. Only thing unicode gets you is universal character set, not performance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, what's the point of unicode then? You could still write program for Windows 9X without unicode and you could type any character that universally existed in a word processing program? Will anything written for Windows not using unicode work on Windows 9X?

[dman]

So, what's the point of unicode then?  You could still write program for Windows 9X without unicode and you could type any character that universally existed in a word processing program?  Will anything written for Windows not using unicode work on Windows 9X?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe in your word processing program, but what if you were in japan, or Russia or anywhere else that uses characters not found in ascii set? That is what Unicode is for. Only 256 chars available in ascii, 65k in unicode... it includes everything. As the name suggests, unicode prevents the need for each language with special characters to have its own 8 bit character set.

[Link21]

Are there any programs like games that could be written to utilize certain API functions only available in Windows 2K/XP, but not available in Windows 9X?

[dman]

Are there any programs like games that could be written to utilize certain API functions only available in Windows 2K/XP, but not available in Windows 9X?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean like on purpose? Whether you need them or not? Sure if you write the program you can include any functions you want, NT only included. If goal is to deny it running on 9x just make check that it is running NT and exit if it is 9x. This is what polite programs that use NT only API do.

[Link21]

Are there any programs like games that could be written to utilize certain API functions only available in Windows 2K/XP, but not available in Windows 9X?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean like on purpose? Whether you need them or not? Sure if you write the program you can include any functions you want, NT only included. If goal is to deny it running on 9x just make check that it is running NT and exit if it is 9x. This is what polite programs that use NT only API do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that's not what I mean. I mean are there API sets available in Windows 2K/XP that are not available in Windows 9X that would result in a program having better performance if you used them?

[Link21]

Are there any programs like games that could be written to utilize certain API functions only available in Windows 2K/XP, but not available in Windows 9X?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean like on purpose? Whether you need them or not? Sure if you write the program you can include any functions you want, NT only included. If goal is to deny it running on 9x just make check that it is running NT and exit if it is 9x. This is what polite programs that use NT only API do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that's not what I mean. I mean are there API sets available in Windows 2K/XP that are not available in Windows 9X that would result in a program having better performance if you used them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyone know if there are extra API sets available in Windows 2K/XP that aren't available in Windows 9X?