Why run 98?

[atomizer]

oh it gets better, there's been at least 3 threads like this in the last 6 months . . .

what i don't understand is why they're allowed to persist. this is a Windows 95/98/98SE/ME Support forum, if it was a Linux forum and people kept stating that that OS was a 'POS' and everyone should use Windows they wouldn't last long before some (half decent) mod shut down the topic or banned the users who just didn't get it.

some people just don't seem to understand that the people who visit here have made their choice already.

excellent point!

i'm an XP user and i'm in here sticking up tor the 9x guys!

just look at it as entertainment

[Jlo555]

98 CANNOT take advantage of HT processors or dual core. Sorry it just cant be done.

I'm pretty sure that windows 2000 doesn't support HT processors either. Either way, I don't really care, I'm using an amd athlon xp.

Getting it to use over 512 MB of memory efficiently is just a joke.

It's not a joke, it's very possible. In fact, look back a few pages in this very SAME thread and you'll see someone who successfully ran 2GB of memory!

No NATIVE NTFS support. FAT32 just plain sucks.

NTFS, imo "feels" less efficient and overall slower than FAT32. NTFS is also a pain in the a** when it comes to recovery and all you got are recovery tools that support FAT16 or FAT32.

Very weak security.

I'm on a family network, my parents don't even realize they can access other computer on the network, I simply don't care about my computer's security. (Overall network security from the internet is a different story.)

[Link21]

I'm pretty sure that windows 2000 doesn't support HT processors either. Either way, I don't really care, I'm using an amd athlon xp.

Windows 2000 supports multiple CPUs. It actually can work with hyper threading, but the scheduler is not optimized for it. It treats it as if it were two physical CPUs. Windows NT even supports multiple CPUs.

Windows 98 cannot use more than one CPU no matter what you try.

Edited January 12, 2006 by Link21

[Molecule]

No NATIVE NTFS support. FAT32 just plain sucks.

… NTFS is also a pain in the a** when it comes to recovery and all you got are recovery tools that support FAT16 or FAT32.

you are right … fat32 is basically a flat file system, wherein everybody operates from root position — but suppose a fat32 partition was specifically designated as the internet sandbox … wherein "root" within this partition, is now converted into a heavily restricted user

because of the above cited limitation, a breach into the 98 side of a dual boot system (breaches happen, even when protected by the usual antixxx, and deepfreeze or winrollback v1 for clean reboots), cannot see the NT filesystems on adjoining partitions, whereupon the NT partitions can then be used as an internally secure work area — in fact, absent a virus programmer somehow mounting an NTFS from 98 without a reboot, the intruder cannot even know it exists … that and the fact that a fat32 partition can be examined/edited/cleaned from dos, without the secrecy of microsoft designed kernels, might the first step toward security. OTOH, a breach into an internet-connected NT partition (they also happen-lol), can also have its way all over the NT and vfat partitions as well.

Edited January 12, 2006 by Molecule

[LLXX]

98 CANNOT take advantage of HT processors or dual core. Sorry it just cant be done.

How many processors do you really need just to run the OS? Considering I've actually used 98se on a machine as lowly as a 66MHz 486 (actually used for a few weeks, not "installed and tested to see if it runs") and found that even with 32MB of RAM it's already quite fast and responsive, I can only say that on a single-core 4GHz P4, it flies. The only reason I'm using such a fast machine is mainly for the *other* bloated software I have.

Getting it to use over 512 MB of memory efficiently is just a joke.

It's not a joke, it's very possible. In fact, look back a few pages in this very SAME thread and you'll see someone who successfully ran 2GB of memory!

"someone who successfully ran 2GB of memory" right here. I can say that it works very well.

No NATIVE NTFS support. FAT32 just plain sucks.

FAT32 is a perfectly fine filesystem. It has a noticeable performance advantage due to its simpler design. If one really wanted to, they could use

the http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/NtfsWindows98.html (currently read-only, but as their DOS version already supports writing...), and it is rumored that the Chinese have written an NTFS filesystem driver for DOS, to enable DOS 7.10 to boot from and read/write to NTFS partitions. So, even though it doesn't come with 98se (then, does FireFox come with XP?) it should be straightforward to add that support.

NTFS, imo "feels" less efficient and overall slower than FAT32. NTFS is also a pain in the a** when it comes to recovery and all you got are recovery tools that support FAT16 or FAT32.

NTFS is a much more complex filesystem than FAT32, and more likely to be corrupted by an untimely shutdown. With NTFS, manual recovery is extremely difficult and automated recovery programs don't often work too well short of raw sectordumping. With a FAT32 partition... a Disk Editor, some Paper, and a Calculator is all you need to perform some data recovery - I've done it myself

Very weak security.

Name one remote exploit that does not require the user's actions on 98se. I.e., how can you exploit a virgin install of 98se that is only connected to the Internet, with no user present to visit a malicious website or download a virus etc.? How many can you name for XP? RPC vulnerability is the first one that comes to mind... and the mere fact that there are countless "security updates" that MS has to provide shows how full of bugs the OS actually is. I've had an unpatched virgin install of XP (original) infect itself with a virus within minutes of connecting to the Internet (to download the updates that were supposed to prevent that). 98se basically does not have a whole lot of "services" listening on ports in the background, waiting to be exploited.

I don't use a firewall, I don't use an antivirus scanner except my own eyes and brain, I visit some questionable websites, and I haven't ever gotten a virus, spyware, or other malware for as long as I can remember. I just secure my IE and use 98se

[bristols]

If the moderatores closed this thread it would be a good day for MSFN.

This thread has produced some good stuff though, aside from the 9x bashing and "obsessives" jibes. In contrast to the bashing, I think the obsessives here have in fact responded with mostly reasonable, well-argued and (in the case of LLXX for example, below) excellent reasons for their choice to use 9x. You have to hand it to the 9x users here who continue to experiment, document, and share what they learn. Whether you agree with them or not, you have to be impressed by their resourcefulness, knowledge and willingness to share.

WHat I mean by Windows 98SE obsessers and lover, I am referring to the fact that it is because of people like you (the ones who want to run it on the highest end hardware for the latest software) that have caused hardware and software manufacturers to support way too long. I don't mean anyone who uses the OS. People who run it on old slow machines are using it for the right purpose.

On a personal note: Link21, don't make assumptions. Until fairly recently I fell into the latter group of users. It wasn't long ago that an upgrade to XP was ruled out for me simply because of my old hardware (and, of course, by financial straits). The efforts of members of this forum to improve 9x have helped my computing experience immeasureably (witness the fact that I can hardly hold back from saying "THANKS!" every time I leave a comment here ). I am in a position now where I can upgrade - but I've no intention of using XP outside of forced situations (e.g., work).

MS sanctioned scorn?? I am not at all biased towards MS. In fact, I actually don't like MS very much. Why would anyone think just because someone bashes Windows 9X that they are someone biased towards MS??

It just so happens that your views about 9x are the ones of which Microsoft approves. Whether that means you're biased towards MS is a different matter (and you say you prefer Linux... ok). But anyway.

As a side note, someone else here (I think... apologies, I'm not sure who) compared MS and Apple in terms of their support for older OS. Apple probably would have abandoned support for an OS as old as 98 SE way before now. I'm sadly not too familiar with Apple, so I'm sure there are mitigating factors of which I'm not aware (although most obviously, one is that Apple has a smaller and, traditionally, narrower userbase than MS). But the point that MS is still releasing (critical) patches for 9x systems, in comparison to Apple's support for its older OS, seemed to me a point well made in MS's defence.

Edited January 13, 2006 by bristols

[Jlo555]

Ok, all you XP-ers who think negatively about Windows 98 or any DOS based OS for that matter. I have a challenge for you. Install Windows 98SE on relatively highend, but compatible, hardware, install ALL updates, (DirectX, IE, Critical Updates etc) and USP 2.1a. See how well it runs. As long as your hardware is stable, I'm sure many of you would be pleasently surprised by the outcome. I haven't seen the BSOD on a windows 98se box ever since I installed USP2.1a, which was at least a month ago. Now, are ANY of you pro-NT people up to the challenge? (I'm not kidding, I've read almost every post in this thread, and I can tell the people who haven't used win9x since the stoneage, because all of their views are exactly the same on the OS.)

Edited January 13, 2006 by Jlo555

[kartel]

...There's a well known company that dropped support for windows 98 on just about all of it's products in 2003. This was Adobe...

I think pdf files are kinda lame and adobe i can live without

98 gives any program that wants it access to any memory location it wants, all it has to do is ask. This means that any program can easily overwrite the OS itself.

98 CANNOT take advantage of HT processors or dual core. Sorry it just cant be done.

These are all the things I can think of of the top of my head and I know there are plenty more.

I dont think 98 needs HT does it ?

Windows 9X was a terrible OS from the very beginning. Microsoft should have designed something different for the home consumer OS market from grounds up, not some OS based on an ancient native 16-bit architecture. They should have designed an efficient full 32-bit OS that was simple from day one for the home consumer market.

Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS/2 WARP, MAC OS X, and Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 are all good quality 32-bit operating systems. Windows 95/98/ME are not.

"Ward, don't you think you're being a bit hard on the Beav lately?"

Link21, you've claimed in this thread several times that people who use 9x systems are "obsessives". Ironically, you seem to be just as obsessed yourself with 9x - indeed, you're just repeating yourself now.

Let it go. 9x systems are being supported by fewer and fewer manufacturers. You ardent desire and burning wish has become true. It seems you've had years of pain at the hands of the 9x obsessives, but surely now your pain is subsiding?

Let it go. You can't change the past. Step away from the Windows 95/98/98SE/ME forums. Re-enter your modern XPworld, and merely pity us 9x-obsessed luddites, instead of poring your MS-sanctioned scorn on us.

Homosexuality is on the rise, Windows 98 support is falling, could there be a connection ?

If the moderatores closed this thread it would be a good day for MSFN.

Please please please let this thread die!

Getting it to use over 512 MB of memory efficiently is just a joke.

It's not a joke, it's very possible. In fact, look back a few pages in this very SAME thread and you'll see someone who successfully ran 2GB of memory!

No NATIVE NTFS support. FAT32 just plain sucks.

NTFS, imo "feels" less efficient and overall slower than FAT32. NTFS is also a pain in the a** when it comes to recovery and all you got are recovery tools that support FAT16 or FAT32.

*Puts Hard Drive in pants* I dont feel any sucking ?

Windows 2000 supports multiple CPUs. It actually can work with hyper threading, but the scheduler is not optimized for it. It treats it as if it were two physical CPUs. Windows NT even supports multiple CPUs.

Windows 98 cannot use more than one CPU no matter what you try.

study these carefully

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/80686/TYPE-Pentium%20Pro.html

[atomizer]

once more...

if you need a good, free, fast, non-bloated PDF reader that runs on 95 on up...

http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

[miko]

nope, 6 (plus it's updates)

pdf is an open format now, so as you said there are plenty of alternatives (OpenOffice supports authoring for example)

edit - atomizer beat me to the post, my reply was aimed @ timeless

Edited January 13, 2006 by miko

[atomizer]

pdf is an open format now, so as was said there are alternatives (OpenOffice supports authoring for example)

where ya see dat?

i have 2.0 and i can't get it to open a PDF. save as a PDF, yeah, but not read. you have more info on OO support for PDF's?

OH! never mind! you said 'authoring', not reading.

/end daily stupidity episode

Edited January 13, 2006 by atomizer

[waywyrd]

Hello,

I use an "unpatched", but very modified Win98/98Lite for Internet surfing, simply because I can take advantage of the fact that viruses aren't aimed at it anymore! I also run XP for other programs, but I'm getting completely fed up with having to update "critical" patches let alone the "non-critical".

I know 98 is a smaller operating system (even in its virgin state), but wonder, percantage wise, what the rate of updates for XP (a supposedly "superior?") operating system is?

I've also placed my Internet 98 on a partition where, it can't "see" a second hard drive. Let alone my XP o/s.

Personally I don't really give two hoots what's the "best" o/s. I'm going to use 98 as long as it does everything I want it to. Which it does and more besides.

Waywyrd.

[Petr]

once more...

if you need a good, free, fast, non-bloated PDF reader that runs on 95 on up...

http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

But please consider much lower quality of displayed text, here is the example:

http://www.ryston.com/x/foxit/

(comments are in Czech but you will sure understand)

Especially the text in parenthesis in the middle of the paragraph is almost unreadable in Foxit Reader.

Petr

Edited January 13, 2006 by Petr

[atomizer]

But please consider much lower quality of displayed text...

i've never had a problem, any problem, reading PDF's with Foxit. granted, it may not render as well, but for people like me who hate huge, bloated, slow loading apps that are full of useless 'features' i don't need, i'll take a rendering quality hit any day - assuming the quality actually is poorer.

[suryad]

These are some interesting comments about Windows 98SE. No viruses aimed at it? Really? I kind of find that hard to believe considering the Internet is such a huge place!