New Games

[miko]

still calling it POS with every utterance, you need serious help.

that and your in the wrong forum. go home to your first 98's a POS topic = http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=44398

leave us 98se users who actually want to make use of the OS (and follow this topic) alone and take your hate elsewhere outside the Windows 95/98/98SE/ME Support forum.

what a small life to constantly bile over what others do.

[wizardofwindows]

i think links ex gf must of left him for a 98se man lol .Who cares what os ya use ,use the os that best suits your pc hardware and software in 3 years link will be whining that xp is ancient cause hes got vista lol what a noob God i wonder if he hop over to other forums bashing 95 users . i use xp cause i can if someone came out with a convertor that would let me run nt programs on 9x a kernel 32 api device id run 98se in a minte cause its so second nature 2 me .if u never ran 95 98 in its heyday and enter the cyberworld on xp u cant appeciate how far weve come everything we have came from a 9x gui etc ,forget the past and your doomed 2 repeat something something u get the drift in closing link go play on your xbox or go harrass the playstation crowd hey why not tellthe n64 crowd they suck lol u need 2 get more this is the net try bingo your mom would luv the company.

[Link21]

i think links ex gf must of left him for a 98se man lol .Who cares what os ya use ,use the os that best suits your pc hardware and software in 3 years link will be whining that xp is ancient cause hes got vista lol what a noob God i wonder if he hop over to other forums bashing 95 users . i use xp cause i can if someone came out with a convertor that would let me run nt programs on 9x a kernel 32 api device id run 98se in a minte cause its so second nature 2 me .if u never ran 95 98 in its heyday and enter the cyberworld on xp u cant appeciate how far weve come everything we have came from a 9x gui etc ,forget the past and your doomed 2 repeat something something u get the drift in closing link go play on your xbox or go harrass the playstation crowd hey why not tellthe n64 crowd they suck lol u need 2 get more this is the net try bingo your mom would luv the company.

NO, I won't be saying that!

Windows 9X has always been a complete POS when it comes to 32-bit computing and multi tasking even in it's heyday. I will never diss Windows XP once Longhorn becomes mainstream because Windows XP is still a quality and fine OS. The fact is, I always have hated Windows 9X from the standpoint of being considered a 32-bit and pre-emptive multi tasking OS. It is a horrible OS in that regard compared to what others had to offer. It was only because of Micro$oft's unethical and anticompetitive practices that their OS was by far the most dominant and was the only thing that had almost every software application that existed available for it. It HAD nothing to do with it being the best OS available. There were far better operating systems available, but they were never given a chance because no one had the control that MS had. IBM's OS/2 would have blown MS Windows 9X out of the water from a technical, reliabaility, and performance standpoint if it were given a chance in the market place!!

I have used OS/2 and Linux back in the day. And boy, I felt like I was in heaven when using the very few applications available for Linux and OS/2 that were also available for Windows. I mean the performance was so much better and I could actually multi task without severe performance degradation while maintaining great up time and stability. I always thought of Windows as being tremendously inferior and crappy compared to other operating systems. But when I got on the NT band wagon, I can actually say for once and for all, I used the first version of an MS OS, being Windows 2000 that I can actually say I found respectable and that I liked.

It's Windows 9X and what it was advertised to be (falsely true 32-bit self standing OS) which I am bashing, not older operating systems. The fact that if it weren't for Micro$oft's unfair anticompetitive control over the market place, we would all have been running an OS kernel far superior to anything Windows 9X/ME had the last ten years!! That is really what bothers me. For instance, if the whole home consumer computing world was using some OS based on a quality core like Linux that was realy 32-bit the last 10 years like everyone thought we already were,(because of false advertising on Micro$oft's part), I wouldn't bash older operating systems. I would be praising how far we have came. I've talk to some expert programmers regarding the design of operating systems and sadly, they really believe that the whole home market PC industry progress has been slowed the last 10 years because of Micro$oft Windows being such an inferior OS compared to others. And when they say Windows, they mean because of Windows 95/98/ME based operating systems.

It is Windows 9X I think is crap, even in its heyday, especially considering what OS core we should have been using the last 10 years had it not been for Micro$oft's unfair monopolistic business practices. It is not older stuff that I think is bad. It is merely Windows 9X and Microsoft's unfair business practices that forced an inferior product to be the dominating force in the market place.

[Chozo4]

Where there is a will there is a way.

There will always be poeple running windows 98 on all systems. If it isn't possible it will be made possible by the large community of windows 98 users. Games even if written only for '2k/xp' will eventually be modified to work on win9x very shortly after it's release providing the fanbase of both the game(s) and the unsupported os (supposedly) have a big enough strive to do it. That strive is very often there in excessive quantities. The MSN forums here and the development of windows98 and linux for example are all great examples of that.

Windows NT is far superior to anything piece of sh*t Windows 9X based OS.

Heh, and yet windows NT at first took 5 service packs (or more?) to finally become stable and usable. Same thing with windows 9x... it wasn't a charmer first time around untill it become more mature.

Oh sure, you can call it fiercely infererior (POS-ish) all you want but technology advances at the pace of the almighty dollar. Sure, it might be inferior to a [limited] extent but it can do pretty much all the same things the new O/S's can do. As others have already stated before me, when well configured and correctly patched... a win98 system can run as stable and efficiently as an NT based system. Poeple will use what they want on what they want. It is not your choice to say who will use what but rather that of the users themselves and the company driving the technology. If they make all the best right away, the company will end up losing out on the almighty dollar. Reason as you've noticed a slow progression of windows which is basically just the core built on even more. It costs more to build a whole new core than it does to build on it... alot more. Reason there is only 2 windows cores at the moment... DOS and NT. Each were built intially for specific reasons but have since been expanded upon. Reason most games for example are licensed... they are licensing a premade graphic engine (no, im not saying they all use the same one obviously) to build upon due to the time and cost.

Personally, I've run windows 98se on all of my systems without a single complaint and fully satisfied. I run it on my webserver, file server, and main pc with zero problems. Oh, and since I absolutely know it will annoy you to every extent link... This desktop is running windows 98SE with the unofficial Service pack. AMD ATHLON 64 4000+ (San diego core) with 1gb pc3200 DDR Ram and 160gb maxtor. It runs perfectly stable and very responsive. Current uptime is 34 days through nonstop abuse and continues ticking like it was freshly booted. Every game I have thrown at it works like a charm and then some. Like said.. if there is a will there is a way and my will keeps win98 going strong on my end of things.

If you are so concerned about the future of performance and stability... go bash another group of poeple. You're bringing a knife into a gunfight bashing 9x users in a 9x forum. It would be like a (insert non windows os here) user walking into microsofts building and calling them a POS.

Hey, this is a win9x forum afterall

Edited October 7, 2005 by Chozo4

[somewan]

All software should be for Windows 2000/XP only. That way, we will obtain superior performance by utilizing the features of a native NT based OS.

Let Windows 9X die. It should have died years ago. It's only purpose should be for running legacy games and applications that flat out won't run on an NT based OS. Dual boot if you have a need to run legacy applications that flat out won't run on an NT based OS. In NO way should one be using POS Windows 98/ME for running today's software on today's hardware!! Forcing that kind of compatible only hinders the superior performance we could be having in today's computing world which is sad.

It's true that portability sometimes results in complications and compromises. NT was designed for portability, and according to the designers' personal convictions rather than reality at the time - it is only recently that hardware has caught up with it. If I recall correctly, version 3.1 was the first to be distributed commercially rather as an internal Microsoft toy. It wasn't until 4.0 that it became widely known - perhaps because compromises were made in order to speed it up - large chunks of the GUI and Win32 subsystem were moved into the kernel or something along those lines.

Regular Windows, on the other hand, evolved step by step, firmly grounded in the realities of the industry. The only thing making the first versions of it different from a DOS shell was the APIs it provided, making it a popular platform for third party applications.

The powers of the 286 awakened dreams of Unix on the desktop, and even whole new operating systems written from scratch - most notably OS/2. The world wasn't ready for either of them. Windows, on the other hand, went on along the path of gradual refinements: In a short amount of time, it was hacked into running in protected mode, through the use of a DOS-extender, allowing it to tap the resources above the 640K and 1 MB barriers, but without tossing away the years of investments of money, time and effort of a whole industy into the PC ROM BIOS and DOS software.

Windows as a 16-bit DOS-extended application, popularly known as "Standard Mode", because a tremendous success, only surpassed by DOS itself.

In the late 1980s, the revolutionary 386, not only introducing 32-bit registers and a 32-bit address space with virtual memory features (paging / swapping) but addressing several compatiblity deficiencies of the 286, prepared the ground for the next step in Windows evolution. The project initially known as Windows/386 saw the birth of a modular 32-bit kernel, introducing features such as pre-emptive multitasking of DOS "virtual machines" (the Windows/GUI part remained 16-bit).

In Windows 3.0, wisely retaining "Standard mode" for 286-compatibility, the new operating mode was introduced as "386 Enhanced mode". The 32-bit loadable kernel modules became known as VxDs (virtual device drivers), the most important of which was (and is) the VMM (virtual machine manager).

In Windows 3.11, which dropped "Standard mode", a glimpse - albeit somewhat buggy and unimpressive - could be seen of a core foundation of the "Chicago" project: 32-bit file and disk access, implemented in the higher level VxDs IFSMGR (installable filesystem manager) and BLOCKDEV, in coordination with more specific modules such as VFAT. Under favourable conditions (such as the availability of the correct hardware-specific drivers) the new components were capable of reducing the amount of system calls passed to DOS and the BIOS to a small fraction.

Initially planned for an earlier release as Windows 4.0, "Chicago" project was delayed and renamed to Windows 95. The enhancement of VFAT and IFSMGR to support long filenames was probably he feature that iimpressed non-technical users most with the exception of the new GUI and shell, but there's a lot more than meets the eye - such as the 150+ services added to the VMM.

The most impressive improvement since Win95 must be the FAT32, which was added not only to the VxD layer but to DOS as well - certainly a greater step than DOS 5 to 6, for example. To further illustrate the flexibility of the kernel architecture, the addition of the peculiarly NT-like driver model known as "WDM" (Windows Driver Model) in Windows 98.

Indeed, anyone who thinks the "weak link" or "dark corner" of Windows 9x is the kernel does,

and/or anything having to do with DOS probably doesn't know what he/she is talking about. The debatable aspect of Windows 9x is actually the Win32 implementation. It does depend too much on 16-bit code - on KRNL386 and other parts of the Win16 code. At the time of Win95, it was an appropriate compromise, for reasons of compatibility as well as a safer alternative to attempting either a complete rewrite or a port from NT, but the Win32 layer ought to have been sorted out gradually over the years.

It's the superiority in the kernel and memory management that make Windows 2000/XP so much better than POS Windows 98/ME. I mean lets face it. Windows 98/ME aren't even native 32-bit operating systems. Should we still be running resource intensive applications on an OS that isn't even natively 32-bit. Of course not.

If you're referring to the Win32 layer, you have a point, although the problem isn't that the Win32 layer itself is not "natively 32-bit" (because it is), but the extent to which it depends on Win16 components, resulting in limitation (best demonstrated by the RSRCMTR applet.)

[Link21]

Where there is a will there is a way.

There will always be poeple running windows 98 on all systems. If it isn't possible it will be made possible by the large community of windows 98 users. Games even if written only for '2k/xp' will eventually be modified to work on win9x very shortly after it's release providing the fanbase of both the game(s) and the unsupported os (supposedly) have a big enough strive to do it. That strive is very often there in excessive quantities. The MSN forums here and the development of windows98 and linux for example are all great examples of that.

So, if there is a will, there is a way. What about the fan base of Windows 3.1 that wants to run new games released only for 2K/XP on Windows 3.1? Are you telling me that they will make it possible as well? If there is a will, there has to be a way right? So why hasn't it happened with Windows 3.1? Since it hasn't happened with Windows 3.1 except maybe for so very old and early Windows 95 only applications, it means that it won't always be possible to run 2K/XP only games on 9X no matter how hard the fan base and large number of users from the community try to make it happen.

So, can DirectX 9 be installed on Windows 95? If there is a will, there is a way right? So it must be somehow possible to make many of these games and applications run on almost anything because if there is a strong will, there is a way? What do you think?

[wizardofwindows]

i think your one man crusade to rid the planet of the evil dos infected 9x family.Whether a game maker decides to make it all platform is added up to cost it cost very little the installers there check box orcra msi editior does it matter .you dont lose fuction performance on a game because of the installer u knob.win98se is what it is we try to make it better for the 9x fans which is why were in a9x forum.sure program could be made for a xp forum i think its called nlite lol but were in here to save 9x not praise xp u tard.Have a nice day.

[miko]

Link21,

i think when i finally invent a machine to kick people in the balls via the internet not only will i make a fortune but you'll be the first to know.

note to any passing mod - i'm trying to be polite and that was ment as a joke.

Edited October 19, 2005 by miko

[Jlo555]

We are not talking about windows 3.1 here; that os is irrelevent in the discussion, because that OS is primairly 16-bit code and could barely run any new programs after 1996. The step from win3.1 to 95 is most likely gonna be like the switch from XP to Vista; some new, innovative things will run, but MS will try to faze out all old OS's quickly.

If it wasn't for Microsoft, directx 9 would run on windows 95. I'm sure it would've ran perfectly on win95. Just like you said that if the OS is good enough, it should still recieve support regardless of age. We (obviously not you) feel that it is still a worthwhile OS and should still recieve support.

[Link21]

Link21,

i think when i finally invent a machine to kick people in the balls via the internet not only will i make a fortune but you'll be the first to know.

note to any passing mod - i'm trying to be polite and that was ment as a joke.

Whatever!! What a jerk to say something like that. I simplied asked about Windows 3.1 and the if there is a will there is a way would apply to almost anything.

So just STFU while you are at it!!

Edited October 19, 2005 by Link21

[Link21]

We are not talking about windows 3.1 here; that os is irrelevent in the discussion, because that OS is primairly 16-bit code and could barely run any new programs after 1996. The step from win3.1 to 95 is most likely gonna be like the switch from XP to Vista; some new, innovative things will run, but MS will try to faze out all old OS's quickly.

If it wasn't for Microsoft, directx 9 would run on windows 95. I'm sure it would've ran perfectly on win95. Just like you said that if the OS is good enough, it should still recieve support regardless of age. We (obviously not you) feel that it is still a worthwhile OS and should still recieve support.

I doubt going from Windows XP to Vista will be the same as going from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. I hope Windows XP/2000 stay around a long time after Vista is released. Heck, why would Microsoft have released a 64-bit version of Windows XP only earlier this year if it would be phased out so fast after Vista was released? I don't see how much better Vista is going to be than XP other than a super bloated pretty GUI. I think the jump from anything Windows 9X to Windows 2000/XP was far bigger and more necessary than moving from XP to Vista will ever be. There were 32-bit extensions to Windows 3.1 that made it able to run some 32-bit Windows 95 applications.

People can do what they want and all Windows 9X supporters. What I want to bash is the fact hardware and software vendors who supported Windows 98/ME for way to long on high end hardware and software. Let Windows 9X/ME be used for what they were intended for which is legacy games and applications. They should have never had a place for high end software and hardware ever since Windows 2000 came about. I had badly hoped and dreamed of seeing Windows 2000/XP only and optimized high quality games as far back as when Windows XP was first released.

Let Windows 9X be used for what it was made for. That is running old and legacy software by today's standards. Hardware and software makers should have taken that path three or more years ago when it comes to resource intensive hardware and software.

[Jlo555]

You are very narrow minded if you think that all that windows 9x can run is "legacy applications" and crap like that. The DOS kernel continued to have the same problems with crashes and freezes all the way through windows Me, but it became more developed and usable as time went on. With your logic, the DOS kernel should've died after windows 3.1, or better yet, windows should've ran on NT only. All you think win98/95/whatever is capable of is small-coded apps like solitare or word 97. I don't believe that one bit, and there are tons of other users out there that don't believe that either. Of course, I do play games like solitare and use word 97 sometimes, I can also play GTA: San Andreas and Doom 3 under windows 98 perfectly. (Bear in mind, both those games were only designed for win2000/XP because of narrow minded individuals like yourself.)

With your way of thinking, Windows 98 is nothing more than DOS+Windows 3.1 with a revised GUI.

[Link21]

You are very narrow minded if you think that all that windows 9x can run is "legacy applications" and crap like that. The DOS kernel continued to have the same problems with crashes and freezes all the way through windows Me, but it became more developed and usable as time went on. With your logic, the DOS kernel should've died after windows 3.1, or better yet, windows should've ran on NT only. All you think win98/95/whatever is capable of is small-coded apps like solitare or word 97. I don't believe that one bit, and there are tons of other users out there that don't believe that either. Of course, I do play games like solitare and use word 97 sometimes, I can also play GTA: San Andreas and Doom 3 under windows 98 perfectly. (Bear in mind, both those games were only designed for win2000/XP because of narrow minded individuals like yourself.)

With your way of thinking, Windows 98 is nothing more than DOS+Windows 3.1 with a revised GUI.

I didn't exactly say that. What I meant by legacy are games made in 2000 and earlier designed to run on a mid Pentium III or lower class computer. Windows NT core was by far better as systems got faster. That is why Windows 9X should have been dropped all together once systems got fast enough. So when I say legacy, I meant games designed to take advantage of the latest hardware at the time when the best hardware was mid end Pentium III or less.

Windows 3.1 couldn't take advanatge of any hardware past a Pentium I.

Windows 9X has evolved and I suppose can run some of the later games maybe even well. But still, the NT based OS is far better and more appropriate for all hardware and resource intensive programs produced in the last few years.

[miko]

Link21,

i think when i finally invent a machine to kick people in the balls via the internet not only will i make a fortune but you'll be the first to know.

note to any passing mod - i'm trying to be polite and that was ment as a joke.

Whatever!! What a jerk to say something like that. I simplied asked about Windows 3.1 and the if there is a will there is a way would apply to almost anything.

So just STFU while you are at it!!

personal abuse is against the MSFN forum rules you receive one warning then a instant ban. you obviously decided to ignore the part about it being a joke much like you've ignored most of the informed replys in this thread you insist in dragging out into you continuing vendetta against windows 9X inside the 9X support forum, your on very thin ice i would shut up if i were you if you wish to be able to continue to visit the nLite forum you seem to like so much. ends.

[kartel]

WINDOWS 98SE here and it runs better than 2000pro and xp pro i spent alot of time trouble shooting all three and 2000 is xp without the eye candy.

You know people will deny the truth even when you tell them it. There will allways be people with more money than brains that can pretend whats up.

Anything new is gonna be NOT SECURE and you all know that. with terrorism and freaks its all changing quicker than you may notice with "new updates"

IF YOU ARE SMART you will back up all the good updates on roms and treat the 98se disks like the first copy of spiderman

I'm thinking of getting a Xbox and leave my computer the way it is

peace all