DirectX 10 work on win98SE

[Link21]

It's stupid comments like that which lead to older OS's getting less support. It's easy to say that Windows 98 is an old POS if you haven't used it in 5 years. Although, it's easy to say that about Windows Me no matter what. I'm going to make an educated guess that you are an XP user who used 98 in 1998, and you most likely used Win98 Gold, not SE, with no unofficial service pack and a limited amonut of updates from MS. But your arguement is simply "windows 98 is an old POS." Mine is:

1. Windows 98SE can now be dramatically improved using the unofficial service pack.

2. There are a ton of updates from Microsoft made for Windows 98 (some of them are pretty new actually.)

3. My windows 98 computer runs perfectly and has been for about 4 days now without rebooting, and hasn't crashed since the clean install.

4. I'll agree that Windows Me is a POS. I installed that on my computer a few days ago and the installation didn't make it past the ATI driver setup before things went bad.

So, yeah, Windows 98 is old, so is XP. 98SE has been out for 5 years, while XP has been out for nearly 4. Wow, it's a freakin' dinasour!!

It's not just the age of the OS which matters. Anything Windows 9X is a POS when it comes to semi resource intensive or greater 32-bit computing and multi tasking. I always hated Windows 9X. Look, Windows ME was released right around the same time when Windows 2000 was released. But I think Windows 2000 should still be supported by hardware and software manufacturers for a long time because Windows 2000 is still a good OS. Windows 98/ME shouldn't be supported not because of their age, but becuase of their age and that they suck. Windows 2000 is over 5 years old, but it deserves to be supported for a long time because it is a quality OS. Windows 98/ME are not no matter how you look at it.

It's not just the age of the OS that matters when it comes to supporting it. I am all for continuing to support older OS's released a while back, as long as they are based on the same core and still a good OS. Windows 98/ME are completely different than Windows 2000/XP. Developers should stick to one based OS core, to ease the task of writing software. Imagine how things would be if developers had to write software compatible with Linux, MAC, and Windows 2000/XP using the same files and installer.

[georgethetee]

I too find win98se with the latest upgrades a fantastic OS, all that I want or need from an OS. I do fear it would be a total disaster without the great support which the guys on this site provide. MS are not very loyal to their purchasers.

I will never buy Vista. I will keep 98se for all my uses and if necessary get a XBOX 360 for gaming. Sure, MS still win, but they dont rip me off so much. In fact, Xbox was a loss-leader and the 360 may end up being too. Which makes its buyers winners

[azagahl]

>I will never buy Vista.

Me neither, I think XP and Vista will probably be quality OS's, although you still need tools to cut down all of the bloat and security holes. The real problem, though, is the user-hateful and intrusive DRM and activation. That's why I still use 98 SE.

>I will keep 98se for all my uses

No need to stick with one OS; there are a lot of other choices like Win2K and Linux. I use 64-bit Linux a lot.

[Jlo555]

Well, Link21, I guess you are entitled to your own opinion about OS's and such, but why don't you try 98se with every single little update and the service pack, and do some hard core usage on it, and see how it runs. You sound like you (if you did use 98se) had some bad experiences with it a long time ago. But what about today, with all of the updates and the service pack. It's easy to say that the DOS kernel is an obsolete unstable, piece of s***, and I would of course, agree with you on that. That's why we have the 98se supporters to create patches to make the entire OS more stable. The latest and greatest NT kernel is pretty stable, even though I have seen the dreaded 2000 and XP BSOD. NT OS's don't need a bunch of extra patches to make them run more stable, (however they do need a ton of security patches to fix all of windows XP's "vulnerabilities") but 98se does. And after these patches are installed, the OS runs pretty **** good. About as good as win2k IMO, as long as the hardware is stable. The fact is, 98se is STILL a good OS and millions of people worldwide STILL use it, including a ton of businesses, (ex: my dad's office.)

[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.

(please someone get rid of this guy from this sub forum if possible, it's getting well beyond boring and annoying http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...2610&pid=400297 )

[Link21]

>I will never buy Vista.

Me neither, I think XP and Vista will probably be quality OS's, although you still need tools to cut down all of the bloat and security holes. The real problem, though, is the user-hateful and intrusive DRM and activation. That's why I still use 98 SE.

>I will keep 98se for all my uses

No need to stick with one OS; there are a lot of other choices like Win2K and Linux. I use 64-bit Linux a lot.

If you don't like Windows XP, use Windows 2000. Anything Windows 9X is a POS. It is called the tremendous differences in the OS kernel which makes Windows 9X a POS!!

I persoanlly hate DRM infested crap too. But that doesn't make me ignorant enough to use an OS with a POS core like Windows 98/ME. I use Windows XP because it is the most up to date and uses a qquality kerenl Believe me, I hate all the bloat XP comes with as well including the DRM infested junk. But I strip that bloat out before using it. There is no excuse to be using Windows 98 if you don't like Windows XP becuase it always has Bill talking to your PC. Use Windows 2000. It has none of that crap in it and still uses a quality kernel.

The core OS of Windows NT/2000/XP/2003, Linux, Solaris, BSD, OS/2, and MAC OS X easily blows Windows 95/98/ME out of the water.

Well, Link21, I guess you are entitled to your own opinion about OS's and such, but why don't you try 98se with every single little update and the service pack, and do some hard core usage on it, and see how it runs. You sound like you (if you did use 98se) had some bad experiences with it a long time ago. But what about today, with all of the updates and the service pack. It's easy to say that the DOS kernel is an obsolete unstable, piece of s***, and I would of course, agree with you on that. That's why we have the 98se supporters to create patches to make the entire OS more stable. The latest and greatest NT kernel is pretty stable, even though I have seen the dreaded 2000 and XP BSOD. NT OS's don't need a bunch of extra patches to make them run more stable, (however they do need a ton of security patches to fix all of windows XP's "vulnerabilities") but 98se does. And after these patches are installed, the OS runs pretty **** good. About as good as win2k IMO, as long as the hardware is stable. The fact is, 98se is STILL a good OS and millions of people worldwide STILL use it, including a ton of businesses, (ex: my dad's office.)

Well, if you are using Windows 98SE and you say that it is easy to say that the DOS kernel is an obsolete and unstable POS, that is essentially what you are using. Windows 98 is the DOS kernel at it's very root. It was never designed for 32-bit computing and multi tasking in mind.

Actually, I have used Windows 98SE before with all the updates and service packs applied. It was only marginally better at best. It was still an unstable OS for the most part. The only time I ever got it to be stable was when running legacy or simplistic 32-bit applications. Even then, the up time was horrible if you left it on without a reboot for too long. Whenever I'd try and do anything even the slighest bit resource intenstive, performance would degrade pretty quickly or the system would lock up. This was even with the latest service packs applied. It was also with the most up to date drivers and on high quality perfectly flawless hardware. There you have it. Windows 9X will never be stable for semi resource intensive or greater 32-bit computing or multi tasking. Maybe some people who claim 98SE is very stable with the latest updates are just extrenely lucky??

Edited October 7, 2005 by Link21

[miko]

sigh, we don't care. go away.

the question was 'DirectX 10 . . . work on win98SE ?'

it was answered.

Edited October 7, 2005 by miko

[wizardofwindows]

excactly miko links 21 is like a parrot with his rountine 98 sucks speech he must be on the xp team or something this is a win9x forum start a seperate trad on why 98se sucks link21 i and many otheres are interested in applying dx10 to 98se whether its possible or not many projects delopved in this forum things like 98se2me rp etc were all pipe dreams long shots until collabration sharing the knownlegde made it a reality .why run down a os to the very people that are unable or dont wish to use a nt based os .its important in a forum 2 help those less savy in tweaking a os thus the whole reason behind msfn a place to share better a os do u think 95/98/me forum was added 4 fun i guess the creators of msfn thiught it rightly had a place hereand it must because it draws alot of posts more than 2000 or xp next to nlite its probably the most posted forum in msfn because people want help in 9x period . i like the program that come from here.long live 9x

[Jlo555]

There is no excuse to be using Windows 98 if you don't like Windows XP becuase it always has Bill talking to your PC. Use Windows 2000. It has none of that crap in it and still uses a quality kernel.

I don't want Bill talking to my pc... in fact, I don't want my pc talking to ANYONE without my consent. That is the one HUGE reason why I hate XP. And I do use 2000 (and 98se), it has proved to be a good, stable OS for most purposes, I'm not arguing with that.

So, like timeless said, this IS a 9x support forum, not an OS war forum for the NT vs. DOS people. Back on topic, DirectX 10 is not due to release for about another year, so there's not much any of us can do about it in the way of compatibility right now, except, try to prepare for the worse (ex: dx10 only running on vista.)

[Link21]

There is no excuse to be using Windows 98 if you don't like Windows XP becuase it always has Bill talking to your PC. Use Windows 2000. It has none of that crap in it and still uses a quality kernel.

I don't want Bill talking to my pc... in fact, I don't want my pc talking to ANYONE without my consent. That is the one HUGE reason why I hate XP. And I do use 2000 (and 98se), it has proved to be a good, stable OS for most purposes, I'm not arguing with that.

So, like timeless said, this IS a 9x support forum, not an OS war forum for the NT vs. DOS people. Back on topic, DirectX 10 is not due to release for about another year, so there's not much any of us can do about it in the way of compatibility right now, except, try to prepare for the worse (ex: dx10 only running on vista.)

I don't want anyone talking to my PC either without my consent. That is why I say use Windows 2000 if you don't like Windows XP.

It's not so much 9X is bad, but it is pointless to run it on high end hardware for running today's. Let 9X do what it was designed to do. Run legacy programs on slower systems. That is the place where I find it better.

Your right, it is not a war between NT and 9X. I just was stating my opinion. I guess I really just don't like 9X.

excactly miko links 21 is like a parrot with his rountine 98 sucks speech he must be on the xp team or something this is a win9x forum start a seperate trad on why 98se sucks link21 i and many otheres are interested in applying dx10 to 98se whether its possible or not many projects delopved in this forum things like 98se2me rp etc were all pipe dreams long shots until collabration sharing the knownlegde made it a reality .why run down a os to the very people that are unable or dont wish to use a nt based os .its important in a forum 2 help those less savy in tweaking a os thus the whole reason behind msfn a place to share better a os do u think 95/98/me forum was added 4 fun i guess the creators of msfn thiught it rightly had a place hereand it must because it draws alot of posts more than 2000 or xp next to nlite its probably the most posted forum in msfn because people want help in 9x period . i like the program that come from here.long live 9x

It does rightly have a place here. I am just stating that it doesn't make sense to run 9X on today's PCs for running today's software. I would expect more questions in this forum to be about older PCs with regards to Windows 9X. But people can ask whatever they want.

But it certainly isn't as actice as the nlite forum. nlite forum is far more active than other forum here as far as I've noticed.

Edited October 7, 2005 by Link21

[azagahl]

It's not so much 9X is bad, but it is pointless to run it on high end hardware for running today's.

Not really. I have a decent PC (3+ GHz, 1 GB RAM, 256 MB video card) and don't like squandering the performance on a bloated OS like XP. 98 SE has extremely low memory usage and I can do things like have a fixed FAT16 swap partition and mount a compressed volume onto a RAM drive from the command-line. Also 98 SE supports all the hardware I have like USB and Firewire devices, MP3 players, digital cameras, and SATA drives.

Overall I find XP to be slow, bloated, insecure (think Blaster) and limited and can't justify the cost and submitting myself to the communist activation schemes. Don't get me started on 64-bit XP.

I'm not sure what Link21's problem is, but I'm guessing one of the following

1. He must be very bored and frustrated, based on his going to a forum to troll and bash something he doesn't actually use. Or maybe its just an infantile ego?

2. He's associated with MS somehow and wants to bash older products hoping someone will actually be tricked into upgrading to Vista.

3. He is hoping to become an MSFN moderator like another guy with this sort of behavior in this forum became.

[wizardofwindows]

all of the above lol maybe hes like mitchellvision and he can go start his i hate 98se forum on some phb site or maybe he wants attention its not like hes giving us insight into other oses .i like 98se because its simplicity and all my stuff works on it as well .mind you i do run xp pro sp2 but use 98se on another box 75% of the time. my only beef is the nt only issue i wish someone make a program like tinhy was attempting to trick api to thinking its a nt os but then we have 3rd party appz open soucre so were not licked yet.

[modicr]

Hello!

FYI, there will be another DirectX release before DX10, called DirectX 9.0L - it's not known yet if it will work in Windows 98SE:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26656

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX#Release_history

Regarding 9x vs. XP - the main problem in 9x are limited system resources:

http://www.apptools.com/rants/resources.php

Cheers, Roman

Edited October 12, 2005 by modicr

[Link21]

I'm not sure what Link21's problem is, but I'm guessing one of the following

1. He must be very bored and frustrated, based on his going to a forum to troll and bash something he doesn't actually use. Or maybe its just an infantile ego?

2. He's associated with MS somehow and wants to bash older products hoping someone will actually be tricked into upgrading to Vista.

3. He is hoping to become an MSFN moderator like another guy with this sort of behavior in this forum became.

I am NOT any one of those!! I am not on any MS team of any sorts. If I was actually on a MS team, don't you think I would be bahsing Windows 2000 as well to try and convince Windows 2000 users to upgrade to Windows XP? Of course I would be. The fact is that I am not. I am bashing anything Windows 9X because I think it sucks and continued support for it from hardware and software vendors has only held back the quality and stability would otherwise could have had now if it weren't for POS Windows 9X support. People have the right to work on projects and try to make 98SE better as much as they want. But what bothers me, is that its people like you that actually have made the hardware and software manufacturers drag 98S/ME support for this long which I very much fear has degraded the quality and performance that software and hardware could have otherwise had if they put all of their effort into writing software and drivers specifcally for NT based platform.

[colebygr]

windows 98se maybe unstability but you need to know the 9x OS have made windows 2000 hardware and software easy to use. when windows 2000 was in beta it was called windows NT 5.0 had a windows 98 feeling to it you can't say that windows 9x POS you can say that it was a test for the up comeing of windows NT 5.0 and windows ME was a clon of windows 2000 it had some hardware stability but windows ME was never good it had alot of bugs

the windows that i like is

windows NT4

windows 98se

windows 2000

that is all

if you are runing windows xp or up i feel sorry for you

Edited October 19, 2005 by colebygr