The Worst Thing About Win98

[azagahl]

Windows Classic

Windows Classic Professional Edition

Windows 9X Professional Edition

Windows 9XP

Windows 9Xperience

Windows 9Xtreme

Windows 9Xelerated

Windows 9Xemplar

Windows Reduced Bloat Edition

Windows MDGxp

[soldier1st]

no

call it Windows 98 SE Version 2

that makes more sense.

[georgethetee]

azagahl, you da man again! Some great suggestions there. My fave is Windows Classic

[modicr]

"Windows ZZ" (WinZZ)

ZZ=Zu Zeit (German: At This Time)

Cheers, Roman

[bledd]

if it supported NTFS and SATA i'd be using it with these packs

[soldier1st]

Windows 98 SE NTFS Kicks Your Butt.

[ssmokee]

if it supported NTFS and SATA i'd be using it with these packs

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who and/or what gave you the idea the it wouldnt support SATA?

[jack99]

windows 98sp Final edition...... i win

[Fredledingue]

No, no, second thoughts - I can see some smarto calling UE Unofficial Experiment.  No, we don't want that....

Actualy it's XP that stand for XP-riment...

What about Windows KE: KILLER Edition ? B)

---> and while we are at it, why not renaming the director of M$?

I propose "Bill Gape"...

[Fredledingue]

Windows Classic --> no, we are no nerd!

Windows ZZ --> sound too spleepy

[os2fan2]

I usually use the four-digut build-number when indexing these, treating the whole as one type

win9x 0950 original win95 release

win9x 1111 OSR2.x releases [Here is OS/2 envy at its height.]

win9x 1998 original win98 release

win9x 2222 98SE version

win9x 3000 Windows multi-errors.

I suppose you could always go for OS/R [operating system / real mode], and continue this through.

OSR 1 Win95A, B 1,0 1,1

OSR 2 Win95C, D, E 2,0 2,1 2,5

OSR 3 Win98 3,0

OSR 4 Win98SE 4,0

OSR 5 WinME 5,0

This treats the whole lot as a single stream, at the major upgrade points, etc

OSR/3 is not in my collection, although i do have the rest!

Likewise, the NT releases are handled on WinNT numbers,

NT 3,1

NT 3,5

NT 4,0

NT 5,0 win2k

NT 5,1 winxp

NT 5,2 win2k3

NT 6,0 leghorn

[os2fan2]

By the way, i normally add service packs in the style of a second-point release, eg

nt 5,0 windows 2k

nt 5,0,0 windows 2k SP0

nt 5,0,4 windows 2k SP4

So the form of this version of Win9x might be

osr 4,0,0 raw win98se

osr 4,0,2 win98se + sp2

osr 4,1,2 win98se + sp2 + 98me pack

BTW, i have been doing this ever since win3x days

win300 windows 3.00

win305 windows 3.00 + Multimedia extensions

win31x windows 3.1x

win33x windows 3.1x + workgroups addin

There really was a win310, win311, win330 and win331.

win311 (ie 3.11 with no workgroups) was an OEM release only

win330 (ie 3.10 + workgroup extensions) was a very slow proggie, dubbed

"windows for warehouses". warehouses and workgroups are the same length and suitable for hex-editing.

W

[MDGx]

OSR 1 Win95A, B 1,0 1,1

OSR 2 Win95C, D, E 2,0 2,1 2,5

If I may make a comment:

OSR [Orbiting Satellite Revisited] versions above are actually:

OSR 1 Win950, A 1,0 1,1

OSR 2 Win95B0, B1, C 2,0 2,1 2,5

or if u wish:

95 RTM [4.00.0950]

95A OSR1 [4.00.0951]

95B OSR2.0 [4.00.1111]

95B OSR2.1 [4.00.1212]

95C OSR2.5 [4.00.1214]

More on this:

http://www.mdgx.com/ver.htm#TAB

Have fun.

[Fredledingue]

Ok guys, let's put it simply:

Windows UV 2.1 (Unofficial Version)

With Windows UV you'll get a tan before summer starts! B)

[os2fan2]

I always enjoyed MDGx's site. He seems cluey on this sort of stuff. None the same, while i have a good number of these OS's, they have not been really used a lot. From having to support different versions, and achieve different ends, i consider the following to be a useful presentation.

On the other hand, i tend to be multi-os, so i don't let the subtler distinctions worry me unless it is important. The OS/2 versions mattered because fix-packs were based on it.

Windows 9x brings with it a lot of various name-changes, and it is better to deal with the thing as a unified product. Even if one stops at 98se, one still has to make room for "multierrors".

At the moment, i have not found sufficient reason to go past the DOS version numbers (ie 0950, 1111, 1998, 2222, 3000), and these are readily accessable to the user in any case. That is, if one sees the dos version as 7.10.1998 one knows one deals with Win98 FE.

On the other hand, if there is good reason to depart from this, i would consider it.

The idea of using the 95-series OS/R numbers to extend through these five makes some sense, eg 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0. The UI and components are changed essentially at these five points, and the other changes are more akin to point changes, rather than core changes.

For example, the shell and the underlying DOS were changed at 1.0, 2.0 and 5.0. 2.0 features the integration of IE, while 5.0 includes some of the rollback features. One finds the 95/98 branding change at 1.0 and 3.0, with 5.0 partly branded as me.

One thinks of the intermediate releases like 0951, 1212, 1214, 1999, 2000, as point releases of these products.

I normally refer to the beasties as, eg Win0950 or Win2222 or whatever, rather than Windows 98. The NT stream is referred to as Winnt 5.0.4 (2000 sp4) or Winnt 4.0.6a (NT4 with sp6a).

I still have not got around to deciding the notation for home/pro/server/data centre, but the final form might be ntpro 5.0.4 or ntsrv 5.2.1.

The same sort of thing existed with OS/2 3.x (ie every combination of with or without WinOS2 files, every combination of with or without Networking [one makes this OS/2 3.1], and salmon or blue disks.

In version 4 they eliminated this distinction, and made just OS/2 warp. It has been single-version ever since.