Jump to content

Why run 98?


colemancb

Recommended Posts

You really need to put some spaces at the end of sentences. And some capitalization - or even Paragraphs/Hard-enter wouldn't hurt either, heh. I couldn't even finish reading your post, it just hurt my brain.

Cain't spel, cain't punktuize and cain't paragraff. :whistle:

These people would have never passed my 7th grade English class.

(maybe they've not gotten up to 7th grade yet...if so I appologize)

Crash,,,,,I'm with you.....it hurts my brain too, not to mention my eyes.

But they do have a computer. Too bad spell checking doesn't work in these forums.

I'm sure not the world's best speller but I do edit every post at least three times.

If a mistake misses my scrutiny, it ain't cuz I didn't try. ;)

OH Yes,,,,Why use 98?

Well, because the computer it came on was specificly designed around it. NOT for W2k or XP.

Now if you've just built your own version of the HAL 9000, go for a more up to date OS.

I do love 98/SE and still install it on older systems. It does however have a max ram and max HD upper limit. XP does not. Even just to FDISK a large HD, I need to break out the Windows ME boot disk.

Even though I've been forced to put XP on my main PC, I kept what I thought was the best part of Win 98/SE. That is....the FAT-32 file structure on my HD.

I'm kind of a Control Freak and being able to boot my system from a DOS floppy or CD just gives me 100% control over every file on my HD. There's absolutely NO such thing as a virus, spyware or other bogus file that I can't get rid of.

My advise to anyone who, for whatever reason, has to upgrade to XP is:

Use an XP-Pro Upgrade CD and if it asks you, tell it to keep your existing file structure.

Enjoy 98 while you can,

Andromeda43

Link to comment
Share on other sites


For those who are going to keep their Windows 98, 98SE OS,,,,you might just as well get all the performance out of it that you can. Here's a couple of 'tweaks' I've been using for years with very good results.

*******************************************

Tweak Win 98,or '98/SE, to make it run more effeciently:

1: START---Settings---Control Panel

Double Click "System"

Click "Performance" tab

Click "File System" Button

Set, "Typical Role of this computer" to 'Network Server'

Click the Apply button

Then:

Click the "Floppy Disk" tab

Un-Check the little box in 'Settings' window

Click "Apply",,,,,,then click OK

Click OK again

(this change will become permanent after a Re-Boot

2: START---RUN--- type in Sysedit , and then press ENTER

Maximize the "System Configuration Editor" window

Maximize the "System.ini" window

Scroll down till you can see the entire [386Enh] grouping

Place your mouse cursor on the first blank line at the bottom of the group

Then, type in the following line....

ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

(type the line exactly as shown,,,with NO spaces and caps where I've put them)

Then press enter.

The above line will help Windows to use RAM more effectively.

Click "File" in the upper left corner of the Editor window. Then click "SAVE"

Close the Editor window and Re-Boot your computer.

After a re-start, windows will now operate at 15% to 30% faster and more efficient than it did before. :thumbup

Happy Computing,

Andromeda43 B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who are going to keep their Windows 98, 98SE OS,,,,you might just as well get all the performance out of it that you can. Here's a couple of 'tweaks' I've been using for years with very good results.

*******************************************

Tweak Win 98,or '98/SE, to make it run more effeciently:

1: START---Settings---Control Panel

Double Click "System"

Click "Performance" tab

Click "File System" Button

Set, "Typical Role of this computer" to 'Network Server'

Click the Apply button

Then:

I do this copy and paste this on a new text document on your desktop. name this file tweak.reg and double click it and reboot, now you got tricked out options more than network server

-----Begin cut & paste here-----

REGEDIT4

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates]

@="Max Cache"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Super Cache]

@="Super Cache"

"NameCache"=hex:00,ff,00,00

"PathCache"=hex:ff,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Max Cache]

@="Max Cache"

"NameCache"=hex:00,18,00,00

"PathCache"=hex:c8,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Huge Cache]

@="Huge Cache"

"NameCache"=hex:80,13,00,00

"PathCache"=hex:90,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Large Cache]

@="Large Cache"

"NameCache"=hex:a0,0f,00,00

"PathCache"=hex:80,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Medium Cache]

@="Medium Cache"

"NameCache"=hex:20,0f,00,00

"PathCache"=hex:50,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\control\FileSystem]

"NameCache"=hex:00,18,00,00

"PathCache"=hex:c8,00,00,00

------End cut & paste here------

and this is in View/Folder Options/View and look under Advanced Settings in windows explorer, reboot needed

REGEDIT4

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\Advanced\IconCache]

"Text"="Icon Cache Size"

"Type"="group"

"Bitmap"="SHDOC401.DLL,6"

"HelpID"="update.hlp#51140"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\Advanced\IconCache\Small]

"RegPath"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer"

"Text"="1024 Icons"

"Type"="radio"

"CheckedValue"="1024"

"ValueName"="Max Cached Icons"

"DefaultValue"="2048"

"HKeyRoot"=dword:80000002

"HelpID"="update.hlp#51140"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\Advanced\IconCache\Medium]

"RegPath"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer"

"Text"="2048 Icons"

"Type"="radio"

"CheckedValue"="2048"

"ValueName"="Max Cached Icons"

"DefaultValue"="2048"

"HKeyRoot"=dword:80000002

"HelpID"="update.hlp#51140"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\Advanced\IconCache\Large]

"RegPath"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer"

"Text"="4096 Icons"

"Type"="radio"

"CheckedValue"="4096"

"ValueName"="Max Cached Icons"

"DefaultValue"="2048"

"HKeyRoot"=dword:80000002

"HelpID"="update.hlp#51140"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\Advanced\IconCache\Huge]

"RegPath"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer"

"Text"="8192 Icons"

"Type"="radio"

"CheckedValue"="8192"

"ValueName"="Max Cached Icons"

"DefaultValue"="2048"

"HKeyRoot"=dword:80000002

"HelpID"="update.hlp#51140"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer]

"Max Cached Icons"="2048"

Edited by kartel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Poor network and TCP stack.

Actually, there are in fact cases where 9x networking is vastly superior to 2K and XP.

For example, I always install a HOSTS file; my current HOSTS blocks 110,000+ malware, spyware, advertising, and porn sites. In 98 SE and Linux, this HOSTS file incurs no noticable burden; but on a fully patched 2K and XP, the unbelievably inefficient DNS service (hardly an optional service) consumes 100% CPU resources for over 10 minutes (on a 3+ GHz processor) to process this HOSTS file. The processing occurs invariably occurs at boot time (preventing log on for 10 minutes) as well as whenever the HOSTS file changes (interrrupting network access and consuming CPU resources) or when the DNS service is restarted.

The hosts file is not the correct place to block sites, your firewall should handle that. Regardless, the most likely reason for the delay is not parsing the large hosts file, but attempting to contact some of the sites you have null-routed.

You should get an immediate "connection refused" or "network/host unreachable" error for such attempts, as on the other systems. Besides, why would waiting for a reply from unreachable

sites consume 100% CPU?

As for the rest of the TCP suite, 98(SE)/ME handles incoming and outgoing data with far higher priority than is necessary, which is evident when transferring large files and attempting to, for example, move windows around..
My tests don't seem to confirm that. However, there are numerous variables involved (the

hardware itself, the drivers, TCP/IP config. parameters, choice of application to perform the

transfer, etc.), so all in all, not much (if anything) is evident at all about Win9x network

transfer priorities or other details from such limited data.

Even though I've been forced to put XP on my main PC, I kept what I thought was the best part of Win 98/SE. That is....the FAT-32 file structure on my HD.

I'm kind of a Control Freak and being able to boot my system from a DOS floppy or CD just gives me 100% control over every file on my HD. There's absolutely NO such thing as a virus, spyware or other bogus file that I can't get rid of.

My advise to anyone who, for whatever reason, has to upgrade to XP is:

Use an XP-Pro Upgrade CD and if it asks you, tell it to keep your existing file structure.

On the other hand, if you must have XP, I think it would be a better idea

to put it on a separate partition (or disk) rather than overwriting your

Win9x install.

For those who are going to keep their Windows 98, 98SE OS,,,,you might just as well get all the performance out of it that you can. Here's a couple of 'tweaks' I've been using for years with very good results.

2: START---RUN--- type in Sysedit , and then press ENTER

Maximize the "System Configuration Editor" window

Maximize the "System.ini" window

Scroll down till you can see the entire [386Enh] grouping

Place your mouse cursor on the first blank line at the bottom of the group

Then, type in the following line....

ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

(type the line exactly as shown,,,with NO spaces and caps where I've put them)

Then press enter.

The above line will help Windows to use RAM more effectively.

It's a very good idea if have 128 MB or more, as it will drastically reduce unnecessary

swap usage. Basically, Win98 (not 95) tries to be smart and allocate swap space

ahead of time, during times of low system load, which may improve performance

on low-memory systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is, why 98 ? Why not just move up to Windows 2000? It's got only a slight requirement difference to my knowledge and it's compatible with all new software and games. I understand the security issue but anyone that is relativly smart can avoid these problems.

What is a Rootkit?

The term rootkit is used to describe the mechanisms and techniques whereby malware, including viruses, spyware, and trojans, attempt to hide their presence from spyware blockers, antivirus, and system management utilities. There are several rootkit classifications depending on whether the malware survives reboot and whether it executes in user mode or kernel mode.

Persistent Rootkits

A persistent rootkit is one associated with malware that activates each time the system boots. Because such malware contain code that must be executed automatically each system start or when a user logs in, they must store code in a persistent store, such as the Registry or file system, and configure a method by which the code executes without user intervention.

Memory-Based Rootkits

Memory-based rootkits are malware that has no persistent code and therefore does not survive a reboot.

User-mode Rootkits

There are many methods by which rootkits attempt to evade detection. For example, a user-mode rootkit might intercept all calls to the Windows FindFirstFile/FindNextFile APIs, which are used by file system exploration utilities, including Explorer and the command prompt, to enumerate the contents of file system directories. When an application performs a directory listing that would otherwise return results that contain entries identifying the files associated with the rootkit, the rootkit intercepts and modifies the output to remove the entries.

The Windows native API serves as the interface between user-mode clients and kernel-mode services and more sophisticated user-mode rootkits intercept file system, Registry, and process enumeration functions of the Native API. This prevents their detection by scanners that compare the results of a Windows API enumeration with that returned by a native API enumeration.

Kernel-mode Rootkits

Kernel-mode rootkits can be even more powerful since, not only can they intercept the native API in kernel-mode, but they can also directly manipulate kernel-mode data structures. A common technique for hiding the presence of a malware process is to remove the process from the kernel's list of active processes. Since process management APIs rely on the contents of the list, the malware process will not display in process management tools like Task Manager or Process Explorer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a dual-boot system, running Win98SE SP2.02 and Win2k SP4.

I use Win98Se to run old games, plus my scanner doesn't have 2k drivers, so I am forced to run it under Win98SE to use it.

Win2k is great for running everything else, especially when I have several programs open at once while I'm manipulating large graphix. Win98SE would bog down and crash.

Best of both worlds on one computer. Works for me!

.H*P*D.

"When in doubt, I whip it out!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why run 98? Because I don't actually run it... I mean, I use Virtual machines, and some old hardware from my collection, here and there... but I really don't use it, because I have better things to do with my time than fix problems with new hardware and old software...

I do, however, try to help out this community with Win98 compilations... I guess I help some people....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would there be even a minor security advantage to having a dual boot setup, using (a) an "out of date" 98se-FAT32 partition for browsing (which inherently, e.g. without modification, cannot anticipate let alone read or write on a NTFS partition), and (B) a w2k-NTFS partition for personal work?

the 98se-FAT partition would have only a browser installed, with no or deceptive personal information, and even if "uncle bill" grabs the "root" he is limited to the 98-FAT partition you voluntarily give up to him -- OTOH, when the w2k user logs on, he could see the FAT partition, so he or she could access any downloaded files etc (but not vice versa, absent hassles by an attacker)

then again, *if* a hacker figured out that there was a silent NTFS partition lurking behind the FAT, he might find it easier to attack a NTFS partition from the 98 platform, because the w2k system which would normally protect it, wouldn't be running ...

??

Edited by Molecule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Superlevel: My question is, why 98? Why not just move up to Windows 2000?
That "why not just" makes the "why 98" come across as a loaded question (like there's a need to upgrade from 98 that us ignorant technophobes haven't quite grasped yet) but the simple answer I have for you is that my Win98SE system currently does all I need it to, and any benefit Win2k might offer over Win98 would be marginal at best and certainly not worth the cost as far as I'm concerned.
mjc: Large hard drive support is nonexistant.
Native large hard drive support is nonexistant but third-party solutions do exist (like this one), and I can't envisage needing a single partition larger than 127.53GB. (Yeah that's right, I don't ever plan to install Vista. :*)
Jlo555: Just because something is old, doesn't mean it's bad or obsolete.
Amen to that.
Molecule: ...98se-FAT32 partition for browsing ... w2k-NTFS partition for personal work?
I actually considered the opposite for a while, though I intended using FAT-32 thoughout.
kartel: It [Win98] was ahead of its time for sure.
Bend over so I can thwack your ignorant butt with my dead Amiga keyboard. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That "why not just" makes the "why 98" come across as a loaded question (like there's a need to upgrade from 98 that us ignorant technophobes haven't quite grasped yet) but the simple answer I have for you is that my Win98SE system currently does all I need it to, and any benefit Win2k might offer over Win98 would be marginal at best and certainly not worth the cost as far as I'm concerned.

Well I'd say that part of the issue lies with Microsoft's naming scheme...

'Windows 98SE' just sounds to be older than 'Windows 2000' despite the

fact that Win98SE was released near the end of 1999...(which is why I

suspect that we'll eventually see the return of year based releases at a

point in the near future.)

Now contrast that with 'Windows 4.10' versus 'Windows 5.0' and the gulf

doesn't seem as wide...especially for those of us running with one or more

of the unofficial service packs or third party system updates...it seems to

be largely at matter of perception.

--iWindoze

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bend over so I can thwack your ignorant butt with my dead Amiga keyboard. :P

Ya my friend has two amigas and they are pretty powerful with 2 mb of ram and you can make music and graphics. Supposedly some startrek movie was made with one.

Impressive ? yes

Capable of playing GTA SA or sending a reply to this forum ? I dont think so.

Wanting to bother and try to get online with one ? not in your life.

Went out with the 8-track ? 10-4

:whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bend over so I can thwack your ignorant butt with my dead Amiga keyboard. :P

Ya my friend has two amigas and they are pretty powerful with 2 mb of ram and you can make music and graphics. Supposedly some startrek movie was made with one.

Impressive ? yes

Capable of playing GTA SA or sending a reply to this forum ? I dont think so.

Wanting to bother and try to get online with one ? not in your life.

Went out with the 8-track ? 10-4

:whistle:

Perhaps he should check out AmigaOS4.0 which has internet and browser support then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We ain't talkin about Amiga here, we're talkin about windows 98. I can feel the days of windows 98SE fading off into the distance support wise. Once Vista comes out, all of us who still want to run Windows 98SE using any new software or high end games will be totally screwed. Oh well, no one's gonna stop me from running the OS of my choice. I know in the world of technology, the developers are the ones that are continuously progressing further and further; but frankly, I don't see much progress anymore. All I see now are old ideas getting bloated and somewhat more "user friendly."

Examples: Windows, AOL, AOL Instant Messenger (actually anything made by AOL these days), Norton AntiVirus, *Any* store bought pre-loaded computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bend over so I can thwack your ignorant butt with my dead Amiga keyboard. :P
Capable of playing GTA SA or sending a reply to this forum ? I dont think so.

Wanting to bother and try to get online with one ? not in your life.

Went out with the 8-track ? 10-4

:whistle:

Windows98:

Throws balls and voices instead of bricks and beeps with Speedball II? I dont think so.

Entire OS fits on a 512K ROM and a floppy disk? Not in your life.

Pattern matching and Command Line Interface that Catweasle would feel at home with? 10-4

78 RPM vinyl record?

What suprises me about your response was that it sounds way too much like the sophistry XP trolls like to throw at us Win98 users. I was angling at humour kartel, and didn't mean to be offensive, nor to start a flame war or shift the conversation off-topic.

Do I think Windows98 impressive? Sure. All OS have their pros/cons, and the "best" is the one that sit on your desk and works well enough to do what you want it to.

We ain't talkin about Amiga here...
All this Amiga talk, as off-topic as it seems, at least reinforces the point you made earlier about old<>bad, and highlights how things that can be done "out of the box" on later OS are often equally possible (and sometimes better handled) with older OS and third-party software.

I can't agree more with your comments about rehashed technology though. I figure many like to re-invent the wheel just to get the chance to whack their own ©'s ®'s on it. In newspeak that's called Consumerism...

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok it was Babylon 5,not star trek.

My friend had a 2000 and a 2500 with itchy and scratchy and stuff look like 3.1.

Anyway I apologise if offended anyone, I am just very pro-98 and am impressed that i can do things that "apparently" it's not supposed to.

I wanted to play sa on my pc but it says 2000 and xp only.

I mucked around with xp pro and 2000 pro and I'm not going to lie to you, they didn't make me happy,,, at all.

I found 98se the best choice "for me". I am happy with it and i don't have to spend coin on it.

AND it plays GTA san andeas without a problem.

Which I "should" have had to spend large for a new computer and operating system just to play it, which offends me, to be honest.

I don't like being suckered into anything and the way its going Its whats happening to lots of people.

I am sorry if I offend anyone, that's not my intention.

I just want people to understand that 98SE works mint and if there is a problem, it not, cause you have a back-up copy of your hard drive, using , say , data lifeguard from WD at least I do.

If something out of the ordinary happens, back up your recent documents and format, then restore your "mint back-up" from last week or month and your set. Problem solved, just a few AV updates later your done.

It beats a cd reinstall hands down.

I tried doing this with xp and 2000 and it wouldnt boot.

Too many problems to list, for that matter.

Data Lifeguard Tools 11 for Windows http://support.wdc.com/download/index.asp?...&pid=999&swid=1

Edited by kartel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...