Windows 98/ME support for hardware and software

[Fredledingue]

Windows 9X can't even address more than 512MB of RAM.

With the last Unofficial Service Pack 2.02, you can officialy go up to one Gig of memory.

The problem is that XP fans ignore the w98 updates (most of them even never used w98SE and remember the bad days of the forst version). It's like if we, w98 fans, ignored XP SP1 and SP2!

Now it's funny that XP, supposed to be faster because it has direct 32 bit code "emulation" (or whatever you call it) is in fact running slowlier than w98...that is 15 years-old- 16 bit DOS based... How is that? Would XP be slightly bloated by any chance?

[Link21]

Windows 9X can't even address more than 512MB of RAM.

With the last Unofficial Service Pack 2.02, you can officialy go up to one Gig of memory.

The problem is that XP fans ignore the w98 updates (most of them even never used w98SE and remember the bad days of the forst version). It's like if we, w98 fans, ignored XP SP1 and SP2!

Now it's funny that XP, supposed to be faster because it has direct 32 bit code "emulation" (or whatever you call it) is in fact running slowlier than w98...that is 15 years-old- 16 bit DOS based... How is that? Would XP be slightly bloated by any chance?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, if you try and run Windows XP on a dog slow system with little RAM, sure it's going to be slower than Windows 98. If you strip out all the bloat XP contains and run it on a PC even with only 128MB of RAM, it will be just as fast as POS Windows 98, and will be 10000X more stable and continue to provide consistent performance with a long uptime. Try running Windows 98 for a long time without a reboot while maintaining consistent system performance and stability. Bet you can't do it. If you think XP is bloated and don't want to have to deal with stripping it out, use Windows 2000!! Windows 2000 isn't bloated and at least it is a quality OS with a quality kernel being based on NT! Windows 98/ME has a POS kernel!! Trash those junker 98/ME operating systmes already.

Nails should have been put in the Windows 9X kernel's coffin years ago!! Windows 2K/XP PWned Windows 98/ME by far!!

Edited August 18, 2005 by Link21

[Link21]

The results of this poll so far disgust me. It's these Windows 98SE diehards who are still forcing the indutsry to support such a POS OS like Windows 98/ME, thus holding back the quality and performance applications could have already had.

All the Windows 98SE diehards need to get that blind thought out of thier head where they live in this fantasy world in which they think Windows 98SE is the best version of Windows and they can run everything on Windows 98SE for the rest of their lives when they keep buying new hardware and software. Because Windows 98 is not the best version of Windows!! The fact remains that Windows 98/ME are structured completely different from Windows 2000/XP. And developers having to write software using the same files that runs on two completely different OS platforms is probably a PIA and degrades the stability, quality, and performance of the applications which is sad. Write applications for the platform that is the better of the two being Windows 2000/XP.

It just is flat out sickening to see games with 2005 in the title that say they are compatible with POS Windows 98/ME. All modern games should be written to run on a quality platform only which is Windows 2000/XP when it comes to the Microsoft OS world!!

Edited August 19, 2005 by Link21

[wizardofwindows]

link theres 100s of thousands of new users emerging in 3rd world countries who are just beggining using pcs many on older boxes running 98 plus there are the same amount of peeps in north america using 98se at the office for printers faxes etc plus a pile of folks with older pcs incapable of running xp in fact at least 15% of machines have 98se or use it as a secondary os now if general motors decided 15% of people dont matter well it would be quite a loss in sales .i agree xp is a vastly superior os and is the best os going but to ignore 15% of users with 98se is foolish.perhaps all new games should be xp nt because u need a good video card ram etc usually p4 type stuff .trying playing gta vice city on a p2 its slow on a p3 better laggy p4 perfection so if the game or app doesnt require much ram or video and could run on a p2 then make it work for all oses and what about support for people would have been using programs brought ones and have upgrADED YEAR TO YEAR .i say backwards compatabity is always a good idea. the poll insnt fixed because 98se users are blind to change its probably a little bias no doubt but not totally one sized ask the pros in here if they think its a good ideas to leave 98se or 9x in todays games appz? just ask yourself why avg msn yahoo still provides support for 9x in their messengers ? because theres a big enough percentage still.my 2 cents.... Edited August 19, 2005 by timeless

[RJARRRPCGP]

The results of this poll so far disgust me.  It's these Windows 98SE diehards who are still forcing the indutsry to support such a POS OS like Windows 98/ME, thus holding back the quality and performance applications could have already had.    

All the Windows 98SE diehards need to get that blind thought out of thier head where they live in this fantasy world in which they think Windows 98SE is the best version of Windows and they can run everything on Windows 98SE for the rest of their lives when they keep buying new hardware and software.  Because Windows 98 is not the best version of Windows!!  The fact remains that Windows 98/ME are structured completely different from Windows 2000/XP.  And developers having to write software using the same files that runs on two completely different OS platforms is probably a PIA and degrades the stability, quality, and performance of the applications which is sad.  Write applications for the platform that is the better of the two being Windows 2000/XP.

It just is flat out sickening to see games with 2005 in the title that say they are compatible with POS Windows 98/ME.  All modern games should be written to run on a quality platform only which is Windows 2000/XP when it comes to the Microsoft OS world!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wa wa wa Take your whining somewhere else!!!

Edited August 20, 2005 by RJARRRPCGP

[dman]

It just is flat out sickening to see games with 2005 in the title that say they are compatible with POS Windows 98/ME.  All modern games should be written to run on a quality platform only which is Windows 2000/XP when it comes to the Microsoft OS world!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The games are actually supported by the directx hardware abstraction layer, not the OS. 9x supports directx, so why wouldn't the games be supported?

On the other hand, hardware companies have to put their money where it makes a profit, so the only correct answer to this question of driver support is "Depends'. If there is enough demand they will support it, thats how it works.

Edited August 20, 2005 by dman

[Link21]

It just is flat out sickening to see games with 2005 in the title that say they are compatible with POS Windows 98/ME.  All modern games should be written to run on a quality platform only which is Windows 2000/XP when it comes to the Microsoft OS world!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The games are actually supported by the directx hardware abstraction layer, not the OS. 9x supports directx, so why wouldn't the games be supported?

On the other hand, hardware companies have to put their money where it makes a profit, so the only correct answer to this question of driver support is "Depends'. If there is enough demand they will support it, thats how it works.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why did Microsoft release DirectX 9 for Windows 98/ME? It wouldn't make anymore money for them? Was it a significant amount of extra work for Microsoft to release DirectX 9 for Windows 98/ME in addition to Windows 2000/XP. If so they shouldn't have done it. So, would a DirectX game using the same installation programs and files run on a MAC if there was a version of DirectX 9 for MAC OS X?

Edited August 20, 2005 by Link21

[dman]

Why did Microsoft release DirectX 9 for Windows 98/ME?  It wouldn't make anymore money for them?  Was it a significant amount of extra work for Microsoft to release DirectX 9 for Windows 98/ME in addition to Windows 2000/XP.  If so they shouldn't have done it.  So, would a DirectX game using the same installation programs and files run on a MAC if there was a version of DirectX 9 for MAC OS X?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

MS obviously decided that it DID make sense to support directx on 9x. There are many kinds of value. If you have ever taken accounting you know goodwill is considered an asset.

Yes, you can create a directx abstraction layer for the mac. it has already been done here...

http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/04/17/macdx/index.php

Windows games also use Windows GUI components though, so games will never be "cross platform", but the interaction with the hardware will be coded in the same directx API, making them much more easily ported.

[Link21]

MS obviously decided that it DID make sense to support directx on 9x. There are many kinds of value. If you have ever taken accounting you know goodwill is considered an asset.

What do you mean by good will being considered an asset? Are you trying to imply that Microsoft did what they needed to do in order to not p*** off their customers? I mean, do you think it took Microsoft extra effort to make DirectX 9 compatible with Windows 98/ME than it would have if they made it for only Windows 2000/XP.

If Microsoft had choosen to make DirectX 9 only for Windows XP and not 2000, people would have a right to complain because Windows 2000 is still a good OS that deserved to be kept around back when DirectX 9 came about. If Microsoft made DirectX 9 compatible with Windows 2000/XP only, people wouldn't have the right to complain that Microsoft is forcing them to upgrade so fast. And Microsoft could have specifically used that example to state that they aren't forcing people to upgrade so fast. The reason we choose to support Windows 2000/XP only is because Windows 98/ME are POS operating systems. If we choose to support XP only for DirectX 9, then I could understand people complaining that MS is forcing them to upgrade because Windows 2000 is still a good OS, where as POS Windows 98/ME are not.

[dman]

What do you mean by good will being considered an asset?

Take an accounting class. Customer goodwill is an asset with monetary value.

Are you trying to imply that Microsoft did what they needed to do in order to not p*** off their customers?

Not implying, saying flat out. But this is only part of it. MS and MS affiliates want to sell games to all of the people that still use 98. They have huge marketing department, so I am sure whatever they decide to support or not support is thoroughly researched.

From all of the yes/no answers here it seems people don't understand it's not about the OS, it's about the $$$.

[Link21]

What do you mean by good will being considered an asset?

Take an accounting class. Customer goodwill is an asset with monetary value.

Are you trying to imply that Microsoft did what they needed to do in order to not p*** off their customers?

Not implying, saying flat out. But this is only part of it. MS and MS affiliates want to sell games to all of the people that still use 98. They have huge marketing department, so I am sure whatever they decide to support or not support is thoroughly researched.

From all of the yes/no answers here it seems people don't understand it's not about the OS, it's about the $$$.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would be less expensive for Microsoft to offer all people who use Windows 98/ME a free copy of Windows 2000/XP, and ditch support for Windows 98/ME all together. They could have done that a few years ago, and probably saved money. It costs probably a lot more to continue supporting Windows 98/ME than the money they'd loose by giving every Windows 98/ME user a free upgrade to Windows XP, especially since software is a non-tangible thing that can easily be reproduced for little cost. Also, Microsoft makes so much moey by selling lots more than just the Windows OS. They could have given away Windows XP for free and relied on selling their games and other software to make tons of money. Then their games and other software would have been cheaper to make because they wouldn't have had to ensure compatibility with POS Windows 98/ME and written the code to run on quality 2000/XP only instead.

But I guess Microsoft doesn't like the idea of making something with the name Windows on it and giving it away for free, even if it remianed closed source, despite the fact they could have probably saved money with the example I stated above.

[dman]

It would be less expensive for Microsoft to offer all people who use Windows 98/ME a free copy of Windows 2000/XP, and ditch support for Windows 98/ME all together.  They could have done that a few years ago, and probably saved money.  It costs probably a lot more to continue supporting Windows 98/ME than the money they'd loose by giving every Windows 98/ME user a free upgrade to Windows XP, especially since software is a non-tangible thing that can easily be reproduced for little cost.  Also, Microsoft makes so much moey by selling lots more than just the Windows OS.  They could have given away Windows XP for free and relied on selling their games and other software to make tons of money.  Then their games and other software would have been cheaper to make because they wouldn't have had to ensure compatibility with POS Windows 98/ME and written the code to run on quality 2000/XP only instead.

But I guess Microsoft doesn't like the idea of making something with the name Windows on it and giving it away for free, even if it remianed closed source, despite the fact they could have probably saved money with the example I stated above.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you implying that you know better than MS how to make money??

When you sign up for accounting, take economics too.

Edited August 20, 2005 by dman

[Fredledingue]

link21

Sure, if you try and run Windows XP on a dog slow system with little RAM, sure it's going to be slower than Windows 98. ...

XP will be slower than w98 on any computer. My computer is perfectly capable of running XP and I kept w98 because of performance, better interface and other things. It wasn't even a question of money.

I tested both XP and w98, both freshly installed, both on the same new computer and XP was 30% slower. And from my further experience all the XP computers even with more recent hardware couldn't react as fast as my w98 machine.

Try running Windows 98 for a long time without a reboot while maintaining consistent system performance and stability. Bet you can't do it.

Wrong bet. With the uSP2 my system is rock-stable. I often let him do automated operations of several kinds over the night, no problem. I rebooted maybe two or three times in the last 4 months and I'm sure that if I used XP as much I would have to reboot as many times because I have seen XP crashing too.

But you seem to completely ignore what uSP2 is and if you keep intentionaly ignoring it, I will intentionaly ignore SP1, SP2, SafeXP, the recent anti-virus add-on and all the tweak you can do (that you must do, to be exact) on XP for increasing performance. Ok?

The results of this poll so far disgust me. It's these Windows 98SE diehards who are still forcing the indutsry to support such a POS OS like Windows 98/ME, thus holding back the quality and performance applications could have already had...   

You have no f*cking clue about that.

As I say before EVERY new SOFTWARE in the world are designed on XP platform by programmers who are XP users and are required to work on XP and test their softwares on XP. So their softwares are fully optimized for XP and there is no link whatsoever between new softwares and w98.

There is not a single programmer in the world, who will drop an XP file he may use in his program, just to make a signle exe file for all versions of Windows.

It occures that most of softwares designed on XP for XP also work very well on w98 and/or that it takes minor changes to make it w98 compatible AFTER the XP version is done.

I already said that above but you don't seem to be willing to read arguments.

It just is flat out sickening to see games with 2005 in the title that say they are compatible with POS Windows 98/ME. All modern games should be written to run on a quality platform only which is Windows 2000/XP when it comes to the Microsoft OS world!!

So, if I understand you, if a game or a softwares is compatible with w98, it should detect the user's OS and block itself if this OS is w98? You are crazy!

[Link21]

@Fredledingue

So are you basically telling me that Windows 9X and Windows NT are very similar and not structured completely different. I thought Windows NT was as different from Windows 9X as OS/2 was from Windows 9X?

Basically, has Windows 98 been converted to NT, but with the same name as the Windows 98 I remember??

A programmer once told me that all programs written that run on Windows XP and Windows 98 are really just written for Windows 98, but they run on XP because Windows XP has backwards compatibility for running Windows 98 programs? That's just like saying you could write a Windows 3.1 program and say it is compatible with OS/2 WARP because OS/2 WARP provides the capability to run Windows 3.1 programs, even though such a program wouldn't be native to OS/2 WARP. Explain that to me someone, and is this the right analogy?

So tell me this? Why is it that some programs written for Windows 9X won't run on NT, no matter how you edit the installer, and vice versa? No, I'm not saying software should block installation if it detects Windows 98 is the OS. What I am saying is software should be designed so it utilizes an NT architecture, and won't run on Windows 98 because it doesn't have the required API set, like NT does. That would prevent Windows 98 from running it because it doesn't have the required API set, not because the installer is set to block installation on 98.

What about iTunes and Napster 2.0?? It specifcally says that they will only run on Windows 2000/XP and not Windows 98?? Is it possible to successfully install iTunes or Napster 2.0 on Windows 98?? If Windows 98 were so similar to Windows 2000/XP and just as good as them, then you'd think there would have to be a way to successfully install iTunes or Napster 2.0 on Windows 98?? Why is it possible to install Doom 3 on Windows 98 like mentioned earlier in this thread, but not Napster 2.0 or iTunes?

[miko]

API, API, API

API is a set of routines, protocols, and tools for building software applications.

taken from this page

AFAIK MS's most current Programming API is essentally .net 1.1 SP1,

guess what, 98SE and XP run the same version of .net

both can do the same.

AFAIK MS's most current Gaming API is Direct X 9.0c,

guess what, 98SE and XP run the same version of Direct X.

both can do the same.

AFAIK the most current versions of the OpenGL API are 1.5-2.0

guess what, 98SE and XP run the same version of OpenGL.

both can do the same.

whether the types of programs your talking about run or not is not dependant on the advantages XP has over 98SE (like NTFS, or file permissions, or the enhanced security, or more up-to-date drivers or even the fact it's a full 32bit OS) but on whether or not the OS supports the current APIs like i have mentioned above and guess what, it does. both OSs are equally as capable at running the kind of software your bothered about and quite frankly your little rants just show that you don't know what your talking about, i may be dumb when it comes to some things but your posts make me look like a Nobel laureate.

A programmer once told me

hey i'm a programmer, i have my own Quake engine and MAME & FBA builds and other bits and pieces, oh and i did the transparency hacks for kof2003 (thats ASM) i write websites & HTML in notepad btw i'm also an id*ot, can i be an authority now ? can i ? please...

all programs written that run on Windows XP and Windows 98 are really just written for Windows 98,

but they run on XP because Windows XP has backwards compatibility for running Windows 98 programs

LMAO

as for your examples iTunes and Napster 2.0 i suspect these won't install on 98 because of security issues, these programs want to securely track your usage and so will use security related parts of XP that are not in 98.

oh wow that's soooooo significant, in XP i can have my music collection spied on and securely tracked and you can't aha,ha,ha,ha . . . . . . . . . . . . hang on.

the main reason devs are starting not to put 98SE on game boxes and such now is because they can't spare the time to test them, basically companys won't assign the money for testing on an OS if MS says it's dead (not that that's actually happened yet), if it's not tested it can't go on the box because people will buy it and if it doesn't work right the sh*t will hit the fan.

it's not because the programs won't work on the OS, if they're code was .net or Direct X or OpenGL and bug free it should run equally well on both OSs.

as for drivers -

98SE/ME share the Windows Driver Model (WDM) with XP so there's no reason (except for badly written drivers) not to support them both (9X & XP) together (in relation to some hardware) up until the release of Vista.

Edited August 24, 2005 by miko