Why run 98?

[saugatak]

I think virtually all of the latest viruses are targeted to NTFS file systems and targeted for XP and 2k.

Another alternative to beat viruses is to run Win2k/XP on FAT32 file systems.

[atomizer]

Another alternative to beat viruses is to run Win2k/XP on FAT32 file systems.

that's an interesting point of view

dump the security of NTFS and format FAT32.

as strange as that sounds, it may be sound advise - i dunno.

[Link21]

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.)

Compared to other 32-bit operating systems such as OS/2 WARP. Linux, Solairs, BSD, MAC OS X, and Windows NT/2000/XP/2003, Windows 9X is a piece of junk. That is a technical fact.

Ask anyone who deals with the inner workings of these operating systems, and they will tell you that.

Windows 95/98/ME were by far the laughing stock of all 32-bit operating systems. Heck Windows 95/98/ME don't even deserve to be considered a 32-bit operating system. Because by definition, they are not. They are 16-bit operating systems with 32-bit extensions. I thought we left 16-bit computing a long long time ago. It is laughable that anyone would still want to run a 16-bit OS on high end hardware for running modern software to this day.

ANd syaing you had a lot more problems with Windows 2000 than you did with Windows 98SE would be like someone saying they had much more problems with MAC OS X than they did with MAC OS 9. STill doesn't make Windows 98SE a better. There are so many other factors involved.

And I will be honest with you, I did try installing Windows 98SE on a relaytively high end system. I installed all every patch and the drivers were the latest and the hardware was stable. It was only stable for a long time when doing very simple single tasking. When ever I attempted anything even somewhat resource intensive, the system would be pretty fast to sh*t on itself.

Bottom line is, Windows 9X is junk for resource intesnive tasks and multi tasking period. It is an OS based on old ancient technology. It doesn't matter how stable one can get it to run. There is an intrinsic limit to how well the OS runs period. Windows 98/ME should have never had any place in the PC world past the Pentium 3 era.

Edited January 13, 2006 by Link21

[Lunac]

Wait a minute. Has the PDF format changed somehow in the last few months, making it incompatible with Win9x? Or are you talking about software that reads PDF files? I am not being a smart a**, really.

If you are simply talking about PDF processing software, then you can always use an older version of Adobe Reader (6.0, works just fine under Win98, and it was released in 2003).

Why do you need the latest version of Adobe Reader anyways? Let me answer my own question. Again, it comes down to "user" versus "consumer". Consumers really can't stop themselves. When something new comes out, they got to have it. If it's an OS, they got to have it. If that OS requires latest hardware, they got to have that latest hardware as well.

You people really can't stop yourselves?

Anyways, this is the best anti-win9x crowd can come up with? PDFs?

Geez...

Why run 98? Myself as an experienced user, who has used Microsoft products since MS-DOS 3.x (86-87?), I can only say: Why the hell not?

Edited January 13, 2006 by Lunac

[Graz]

Let's run down the list. Off the top of my head, Windows 98 SE:

Is stable if you don't have too much stuff open at once and take good basic care of the PC,

Is more compatible with older software than 2000+,

Is more compatible with older devices,

Carries good USB support (and with the unofficial service pack and Flash drive USB support, it's as good as 2000+)

Still works with most new software,

Has a better file search utility,

Has a better scandisk utility,

Has a generally faster loading/shutting down time,

Is *MUCH* more secure than 2000+ even without a firewall,

Has MS-DOS, which 2000+ lacks, useful for lots of things,

Has more than decent networking capabilities,

No need to login each time,

Most major components still compatible,

It is easier to access deep into the system with 98SE than 2000+.

I have also had major problems when installing 2000 before: It thought I had 3 monitors and a generic TV, and the mouse locked up more than half the time on bootup. Went straight back to 98se.

[RainyShadow]

I hought we left 16-bit computing a long long time ago. It is laughable that anyone would still want to run a 16-bit OS on high end hardware for running modern software to this day.

Well, I had to use 8-bit OS a couple of times during last year

I needed to reorder the data in a text file. And as i know Applesoft BASIC much better than x86 programming languages, i just started an Apple2 emulator and got the job done in not more than a hour B)

btw. i still have a working A2 clone in my closet

[Jlo555]

****, guys, I know I was the one to first bring up Adobe, but I was only using it as an EXAMPLE for one little comment. I couldn't give 2 sh!ts about PDF files or anything that comes out of Adobe. I really don't care about software compatibility with windows 98 right now. All of the software I use now is stuff I've been using for a long, long time and I'm not willing to change. If, by chance the company that produces that software title stops supporting windows 98, i'll just say f*** 'em, I don't need the latest version, and continue using the older version. So far I've done that with MS Office, AIM, MSN IM, Internet Explorer, WMP (actually I just stopped using that because all versions after 7.1 sucked).

All you pro-NT and anti-DOS people are GETTING your wish to have support for 9x dropped, day by day, which is perfectly fine. If the company that makes the software won't support my OS, then they ain't gonna see a friekin' dime out of me for their crappy, bloated software, it's as simple as that.

However, games are a different story. I cannot find an alternative to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The game will run on 98se, it's just choppy and the lagginess gives me a **** headache. That is the only thing that will get me to upgrade my OS; even though I'm not that much of a gamer, once I get addicted to a game, I HAVE to be able to play it.

[Molecule]

Hello,

... 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.

Waywyrd-our wayward wordsmyth : that's a really great name for 98! I'm going to start refering to mine as an "Internet-98" system, instead of winders-98 -- it just might stick. That's one of its best roles.

[saugatak]

Another alternative to beat viruses is to run Win2k/XP on FAT32 file systems.

that's an interesting point of view

dump the security of NTFS and format FAT32.

as strange as that sounds, it may be sound advise - i dunno.

Yeah I know it sounds stupid but it's actually true.

I'd only recommend it on home systems used by 1 or 2 family members only. More than that and you'll need NTFS file permission security.

I still use 98 on one home laptop I maintain for old mom and dad. I stripped it of everything but FF which opens up 3 home pages at once, a Korean newspaper and 2 flickr.com pages where they can see newly posted photos of grandkids.

With virus checker running on background and download ability disabled, they're OK.

I think I'm going to switch them over to an HFSLIP'd, FDV fileset Win2k next time I go home running on FAT32.

M$ isn't releasing latest security updates for Win98 anymore and I want to set their Win2k box to automatic downloads and install so I don't have to take any more of their, why isn't my computer running anymore calls?

[bigrrl]

Hi all,

This is my first post here--I was directed to this thread doing a Google search about Windows 98 and I read almost the whole thread and I have 98SE and really like it and want to maintain it for as long as possible. I bought my computer used back in 1999 (it was custom made and had 98SE on it and I knew nothing hardly about computers when I got it). I did not really spend much time online with it until this past fall when I had problems installing some digital camera software that kept crashing a dll, and I thought it was the end of the world, so I started going to tech groups and through people holding my hand, I formatted C: and reinstalled Windows 98SE on my computer.

I didn't even know how to cut, copy, and paste in the fall. Plus, when I bought this computer, I don't think it had any anti-virus, or firewall or anything like that with it. Well, I have all that now.

I have done some of the things suggested by *kartel* back on page 2 of this thread. I already had changed it to *Network Server* just recently. I have even edited my registry once (that is HUGE for me).

I also copied his instructions on a text doc. for editing the register--and I went into my registry and in FS Templates, there is no *max cache* or *name cache* or *path cache*. Can anyone here help me with this, as I would like to keep tweaking my system to keep it around as long as possible. Thank you

[LLXX]

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.

If you are simply talking about PDF processing software, then you can always use an older version of Adobe Reader (6.0, works just fine under Win98, and it was released in 2003).

What I did to solve the problem of the huge Adobe product was similar to what I did to 98se - strip the garbage out of it and customise it. I did that to an installation of v5.1 (or was it 5.0? I can't remember) - According to Adobe, it needs 30Mb of disk space, but by deleting all of the unnecessary files that come with the default install (most of the plugins and font tables for languages that I'll never use) I got it down to 7.5Mb. By resediting the EXE and removing another load of junk, it's now down to 6Mb. Starts instantly too.

And, if you want even less bloat, get v4.05 and strip that down.

Another alternative to beat viruses is to run Win2k/XP on FAT32 file systems.

This is most importantly because FAT32 does not support "alternate streams", which malware and virii tend to reside in. Some information here: http://www.diamondcs.com.au/index.php?page...id=ntfs-streams

More interestingly...

Why does NTFS support streams?

The main (but not only) reason is for Macintosh file support. Files stored on the Macintosh file system consist of two parts (known as forks) - one data fork, and one resource fork. Windows relies on the extension of the file (eg. ".exe") in order to determine which program should be associated with that file. Macintosh files use the resource fork to do this. NT stores Macintosh resource forks in a hidden NTFS stream, with the data fork becoming the main parent file to the stream. ADS has other uses. As just one example, you could store a thumbnail image of a picture in a stream and even an audio track, allowing a single file to have several multimedia components. Some anti-virus programs store checksums in a stream under every file on your disk.

[RainyShadow]

I also copied his instructions on a text doc. for editing the register--and I went into my registry and in FS Templates, there is no *max cache* or *name cache* or *path cache*. Can anyone here help me with this, as I would like to keep tweaking my system to keep it around as long as possible. Thank you

Just get Cacheman, it's a nice program for optimising these settings, contains wizards, and the help file is explaining every option available.

btw. look at its license policy :

You can evaluate Cacheman for 15 days.

1. Private/Educational usage

The registration fee for Cacheman is $10. If you really cannot afford the shareware fee you are allowed to use Cacheman as Freeware. All updates for registered users will be free even if we should be forced to change the license to Shareware only with the next major release.

2. Commercial/Corporate usage

If you want to keep using Cacheman you have to pay a $10 (Single user license) Shareware fee. Multi User and Corporate/Site licenses are available on the registration page.

Wish more programs were licensed this way

[waywyrd]

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!

Hi,

I never meant to say that win98, or should that be "Internet98", had no viruses at all aimed at it. What I was trying to say is that most "New viruses" are aimed more at WinXP/2000. And a virus in either of those two systems is a lot harder to get rid of than Internet98. I'm no real expert, but I remember a virus that knocked out the Coastguards, along with many others, computer system here in the UK... left Win98 unaffected!

No doubt some one will sooner or later say I've got my facts wrong.

As I said before I'm no real computer expert but, I've found it relatively easy with 98Lite and a rudimentary knowledge of DOS, to remove no end of "clutter" and "bloat"... and still have a workable/bootable and very, very stable OS.

The only real thing I have against XP is you have to install everything and then try and get rid of the "bloat" etc. afterwards!

Waywyrd.

[wizardofwindows]

i totally agree my wayward son when im cruising the hiways and biways of Internet98 i rarely pick up viruses usually spyware like coolsearch variant etc but its usually on a suspicous site and i took the risk but i can remove it with copylock etc. P.S not as many cars on Internet98 with everyone on the xp express lol. Edited January 14, 2006 by timeless

[Fredledingue]

link21

They are 16-bit operating systems with 32-bit extensions. ... It is laughable that anyone would still want to run a 16-bit OS on high end hardware for running modern software to this day

What's laughable is that XP, true 32-bit OS users, have less performance than me with my "16-bit" w98 that is merely an upgrade from w95.

Even more laughable is that some poeple will be buying the most recent 64bit hardware to run a 64bit OS, and still have a computer not as fast as mine because "the interface that creates a completely new experience" will swallow up all the resources. (Just like XP but even worse).

When ever I attempted anything even somewhat resource intensive, the system would be pretty fast to sh*t on itself.

What do you call 'resource intensive"? I often run apps that make my resource meter display a 100% usage of everything, and 0% free, and almost no ram left... the OS still doing fine.

Please, concretely tell me what you were doing so intensively?

Windows 9X is junk for resource intesnive tasks and multi tasking period.

As of today, I still don't know how many apps, running processes and/or windows I can open before it crashes my w98PC. It would be nice to make a test.

lunac

Why do you need the latest version of Adobe Reader anyways?

You don't need it. But you definetly need the latest version of Foxit. HUGE upgrade!

My PC is now totaly void of any adobe product. I think even my registry could have no adobe key anywhere, but I don't know if that's possible.