Windows 98/ME support for hardware and software

[Fredledingue]

Link21,

Miko explained more in details and better than me why it makes no difference if a software is w98 compatible or not.

In fact programs rarely need or even make use of the XP "architecture".

So, You realy shouldn't worry about that. In the case your goal is only ranting against w98, this thread will be locked soon because such topic is not appreciated by the moderators of this site.

[miko]

don't waste your breath Fredledingue, after reading through the full thread, i've begun to realise that what we have here is an intolerant fascist. first he posts a poll, then he posts virtually every second post when it doesn't go his way, every single mention of 98 is preceded by POS (which is quite psychologically worrying) and he seems incapable of accepting anyone elses views or even points. next we'll be hearing how he's a buding amateur artist...

so here's the thing Link21, you win, 98's a piece of sh*t. we all agree, don't we lads ?

(pssst nod your head)

isn't that nice mmmmm ?

(walk backwards towards the door Fredledingue)

(keep going)

now run!

Edited August 23, 2005 by miko

[Link21]

don't waste your breath Fredledingue, after reading through the full thread, i've begun to realise that what we have here is an intolerant fascist. first he posts a poll, then he posts virtually every second post when it doesn't go his way, every single mention of 98 is preceded by POS (which is quite psychologically worrying) and he seems incapable of accepting anyone elses views or even points. next we'll be hearing how he's a buding amateur artist...

so here's the thing Link21, you win, 98's a piece of sh*t. we all agree, don't we lads ?

(pssst nod your head)

isn't that nice mmmmm ?

(walk backwards towards the door Fredledingue)

(keep going)

now run!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hate anything based on Windows 9X including Windows 98. It gave me a nightmare of problems when I've used anything based on Windows 9X. I have used Windows 2000 and Windows XP, and both of them I found to be so much better that I felt like I was in heaven after using 2000, even with the earlier service packs for both. You can use what you want, I'm just stating that I never liked anything based on Windows 9X.

[albator]

I thin that talking about perfomance of 98 vs XP, you to know that using fat32 filesystem instead of ntfs on modern large hardrive (40 gig and more) is less rapid than on Fat 32.

I think, that the only advantage of Xp vs 98se, his NTFS support and better compatiblity with USB and bluetooth...

For old computer with 128 meg of ram and less, xp is slow, even with the nlited xp edition...

98se remain one of the best os Microsoft did, when using an old P3 733 with 98se and 128 meg of ram, my pc perform much better than with any gnome based linux distributions...

I will rarely say something good about MS, but their old 98se OS was fair.

And dont compare windows 98se to windows ME !

passing from 98se to Me is downgrading. Its' XP or 98 in case of yout sister computer!

Last comment: MS does not car at all about powers users, MS phylosphy is to make software for dumb and clueless users instead of educating them. Why would I use Ms office ? to see the little animated puppy ?

Edited August 24, 2005 by albator

[Wolf_Demon]

well i can't say ME is a quality OS but i know 98 sure is.

[Fredledingue]

Albator

I thin that talking about perfomance of 98 vs XP, you to know that using fat32 filesystem instead of ntfs on modern large hardrive (40 gig and more) is less rapid than on Fat 32.

Do you mean Fat32 is faster on large hard drives than ntfs?

[Link21]

well i can't say ME is a quality OS but i know 98 sure is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Windows 98 and ME are both the same thing. The only difference is that Windows ME has System Restore and PC Health. If you disable that, they are pretty much the same OS. Neither is quality where as Windows 2000/XP are quality operating systems.

[dman]

@Link

You started this poll allegedly to ask if hardware mfgs. should support 9x. You really seem more interested in bashing 9x than the answer to your poll.

Here is example of what I mean by "depends"

I bougt a ATI RageXL 8MB card for a customer yesterday. Price was $15.00. What are the odds of that ending up in a 9x machine? Quite high, so if I was mfg. I would be sure to include drivers for 9x.

On the other hand, how many GeForce 7800 256MB PCI Express cards end up in 9x machines? Not too many, so if I was mfg. I would not be too worried about supporting it on 9x.

You see, it is economic decision, and all the 9x bashing in the world won't change that.

It is quite obvious to me that an OS should be installed on appropriate hardware, meaning to me P-II and below always get 9x, P-III is a tossup and P-4 and up gets XP. And on appropriate hardware both perform admirably.

[azagahl]

It is quite obvious to me that an OS should be installed on appropriate hardware, meaning to me P-II and below always get 9x, P-III is a tossup and P-4 and up gets XP.

What OS should I buy for my Athlon 64 system? XP 64-bit?

Oops, I forgot, you can't buy that yet... guess I'll stick with this free Linux stuff that's had 64-bit support for more than a year. And it comes with office tools and a C++ compiler; imagine that. It also doesn't require fubared partition tables.

Or I'll keep using 98 SE which eats up very little of my 1 GB, seems to work just fine with Dx 9.0c games, has better backward compatability, and doesn't force me to phone Bill up to use MY computer. It's also cool being able to mount a compressed volume from the command line; will Gonad be able to do that?

Edited August 24, 2005 by azagahl

[Jito463]

Erm, what do you mean you can't by XP x64 edition? It's been out since April. I've got two final copies running on my home and work machines. It's just not released to the retail market, you have to buy it OEM.

[Link21]

@Link

You started this poll allegedly to ask if hardware mfgs. should support 9x. You really seem more interested in bashing 9x than the answer to your poll.

Here is example of what I mean by "depends"

I bougt a ATI RageXL 8MB card for a customer yesterday. Price was $15.00. What are the odds of that ending up in a 9x machine? Quite high, so if I was mfg. I would be sure to include drivers for 9x.

On the other hand, how many GeForce 7800 256MB PCI Express cards end up in 9x machines? Not too many, so if I was mfg. I would not be too worried about supporting it on 9x.

You see, it is economic decision, and all the 9x bashing in the world won't change that.

It is quite obvious to me that an OS should be installed on appropriate hardware, meaning to me P-II and below always get 9x, P-III is a tossup and P-4 and up gets XP. And on appropriate hardware both perform admirably.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously an ATI Rage XL 8MB card should support 9X. How old is that card by now? Like more than 6 years old. Of course it should support Windows 9X.

But give me one reason why Windows 9X should be supported for video cards like the GeForce 4 series and higher, and the Radeon 9000 series and higher video cards. There are hardly any Windows 9X users using GeForce 4 class video cards or higher and Radeon 9000 or higher video cards. Same with games that require at minimum those class video cards or higher to run. I don't see why manufacturers should be concerned about supporting Windows 9X for games that require a video chipset manufacturered in the last 2.5 years.

[Jito463]

@Link21

I think I have to agree with the rest of these posters. I'm not a big fan of 98/ME anymore myself (though 98SE was definitely the best of the 9x series), but you just seem to want to bash on them, not seek peoples opinions.

Edited August 25, 2005 by Jito463

[miko]

one reason ? people other that you want to use them ?

how do you know what cards 9X users are using ?

i myself run an 5700 FX (GF5) and previous to that a GF4ti, i would be running a 6600GT if i didn't have to upgrade my PSU along with it (note not the OS).

MDGx clearly states in his post (9th in the thread) that both he and his friend run GF6800s on 98SE.

and as for games there are only 3 games i know of sofar that are actually XP only on the box, and two of them can apparently be installed and run on 98SE anyway.

Edited August 25, 2005 by miko

[wizardofwindows]

why bash 98se it is acool little os that could ,even xp retaines alot of the dynamics of 98 and of all the 9x oses its the fan favorite,hell ived installed it about 500 times on mine and friends pcs even in 2005 i still put win98se on pcs.i think like the post s above if the pc is better with 9x than use it.you basically can srf chat play games email theirs not alot you cant do on 98se infact alot of home users are contend with 98se and never consider xp. if u browse tru these forums youll find the most action in 98 forums second to nlite and so on.why not support 9x and how come you see the spec on appz stated 98/me/2000/xp ,i guess cause 15%of folk still use 98 and upgrade their programs on a 9x box and why does mdgx who clearly cut his teeth on dos related 9x continue to devote so much space on his site to 9x related things because theres demand interest its not a select few who are begging gapes or geogre to create 9x sps to save their poor old 98 ,no its people who still use it maybe your parents friends a aunt ask yourself who you know whos running 98se at home etc youd be sursprized not everyones running out buying a new P4 3 gig mhz etc no its alot of hand me down P2 etc so let raise our glasses and salute this little os that could hail 98se.

[dman]

Obviously an ATI Rage XL 8MB card should support 9X.  How old is that card by now?  Like more than 6 years old.  Of course it should support Windows 9X. 

But give me one reason why Windows 9X should be supported for video cards like the GeForce 4 series and higher, and the Radeon 9000 series and higher video cards.  There are hardly any Windows 9X users using GeForce 4 class video cards or higher and Radeon 9000 or higher video cards.  Same with games that require at minimum those class video cards or higher to run.  I don't see why manufacturers should be concerned about supporting Windows 9X for games that require a video chipset manufacturered in the last 2.5 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you intentionally ignoring my point? THERE IS ONLY ONE REASON WHY HARDWARE IS OR IS NOT SUPPORTED!!!!

It is an ECONOMIC DECISION MADE BY MANUFACTURER. If the company thinks it is in their interest to support, they will. Else they will not. It doesn't matter how much you love or hate 9x, support will not be denied just because you think it sucks, nor will it be provided merely because you are a fan. I know this is a tech forum, but this simple example of economics seems easy enough to grasp.