Jump to content

Why run 98?


colemancb

Recommended Posts

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).

That is why you strip out the bloat from Windows XP or use Windows 2000. Windows 2000 isn't bloated and at least it is a good quality real 32-bit OS. :D:D We don't have less performance. Only in your dream world do XP users get less performance than Windows 98 users. Maybe that is what you think, but it doesn't mean it is true in all cases. Windows 2000/XP users get significantly better performance and stability than Windows 98/ME users could ever dream of. Keep living in your dream world where you think Windows 98 is such a great OS. Because it is not. Windows 2000/XP PWned 98/ME by far!!
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?

Audio encoding, video encoding, and 3D gaming. Those I would consider resource intensive. And don't even get me started on digital video editing. Windows 9X could never dream of handling digital video editing.

Edited by Link21
Link to comment
Share on other sites


w o w.

should i apologize for starting this now?

so basically...

i should run windows 98 on hardware that isn't unnecessary for 98.

not brand new hardware.

</resume debate>

Run Windows 98 on old slow systems for running old legacy software that flat out won't work well in Windows 2000/XP. There is no reason to use it for anything besides that.

Edited by Link21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Audio encoding, video encoding, and 3D gaming. Those I would consider resource intensive. And don't even get me started on digital video editing. Windows 9X could never dream of handling digital video editing.

oh well done ! pick the most processor intensive activities a modern OS can do and do them all at once, sure.

like a sub 2Ghz pc won't grind to a halt doing all that at once . . . sure

i should stay out of this but i resent the way you continually quote the weaker posts and sections of posts (my apologies to those concerned) yet totally ignore the stronger points when they are made and continue, endlessly continue, as if they were not made at all.

and yet i've done all those things on 98SE (except the digital video editing) and i've never had a problem

i don't do them at the same time (well except for video and audio encoding) but then i don't think anyones really going to master a HD-DVD and play Quake 4 at the same time.

and FYI 98SE can multitask just fine.

if you wanna talk real life usage, last night i was compressing 600MB of PSX iso into an Ultra compressed Zz file, while scanning another for errors using CDmage (which was loaded into virtual drive in daemon tools), and downloading another eh, large 'file' and surfing 8-10 webpages using Firefox at the same time with AV and a firewall running in the tray as well.

and 98SE was nimbly opening windows as i browsed for notes and files thoughout.

in emulation circles its commonly known that 9X is faster than XP (i've seen the graphs) the reason ? most emulators focus on only a very few task threads which have 'less hoops to jump through' on 9X than on XP (MAME doesn't even support multiple cores, you can't complie it to do so, nor is it ever likely to be able to, yet it represents some of the most efficient code you can find openly on the net (and there is no difference in compiling it for 9X or XP either btw))

the holes in your knowledge have been poked through many times before by people far more knowledgeable people that you or i, and the bottom line is this, you don't have that much of a clue. you never say (in essence) 'gee, that's interesting' or 'i didn't know that' and you never take anything on board. you just wait till a few posts have past (hoping, i assume, that the other readers can't remember) then turn into the wind again.

9X is a 32 bit (& 16 bit & 8 bit) OS and it can multitask (even DOS can multitask).

you shout on and on about 'the kernel, the kernel, the kernel' when really what's important (when it comes to the similarities and differences) are the APIs and the filesystem and the networking stack, you have a little knowledge and Google to hand (and god knows the internet is a gift to the slow-witted) none of which really matter because in the end your constant posting comes down to one thing - you are, at the very least, an obsessive compulsive, and at worst probably mentally ill.

you have wrote thousands of words by now on your chosen diatribe in a 9X support forum, to express your chosen view for what ? do you really expect us all to agree ? do you expect us to down tools and all go out and buy Win 2000 tommorow (which by the way costs way more than XP) do you expect to log in after you've finally (oh please God) finished and see nothing but tumbleweed blowing through these forums and then lean back in you chair safe in the knowledge of a job well done ?

because it's not going to happen.

seriously, what are you trying to achieve ?

all your doing is p***ing off some of the appreciative and constructive users of this forum.

(and the remainder are just laughing at your pontificated piffle now)

the ones who come here wanting to now how to fix issues with their OS of choice, and the ones who know far more about the OS than you and have shown so by making constructive contibutions to help the others.

they answer 'use 2000/XP' is an anathema (go look that up) and is not appreciated in anyway, shape, or form.

your not even addressing the original topic of the thread.

the question was why use it, not why not to use it.

Run Windows 98 on old slow systems for running old legacy software that flat out won't work well in Windows 2000/XP. There is no reason to use it for anything besides that.

yes there is - because we want to and because we can.

revolvearoundyou.gif

Edited by miko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CPU intensive you say? Under Win98SE I do lot of video/audio encoding. I run VirtualDub, tinra, or TMPGEnc all the time. I do it while browsing, working on one of my many websites (in LiveMotion no less which is another CPU intensive program), or even running a CPU intensive flight simulator. And yes, I do all this while VirtualDub or another encoding app is running in the background. Guess what buddy? Haven't had any problems, ever.

As for Windows 2000, it's just less clownish version of XP. And don't get me started on HAL in 2000, Hardware Abstract Layer that is. I mean HAL?! It's such an appropriate acronym. Makes you wonder if there is any relation to the fictional psycho computer from "2001: A Space Odyssey". HAL does what it wants to, and in NT it sure does, every time, quite unpredictably. I can vouch for this.

I can throw virtually any type of hardware setup at Win98SE and it will boot. In Windows 2000 when it came to hardware upgrades I had to deal with serious problems. (Yeah, I tested not only XP, but Windows 2000 as well. Throughly. Surprised?) Like adding a brand new SATA/PATA RAID PCI card to the system, which rendered Windows 2000 unbootable (can you say BSOD?) due to various hardware and software conflicts, while Windows 98SE booted just fine and recognized the card right away. So much for the vaunted 32-bit OS superiority. Or the time I installed a brand new Hauppauge TV tuner card and Windows 2000 wouldn't recognize it. I contacted Hauppauge support, and was informed that they had a lot of similar reports for Windows 2000 and XP. The tech recommended to test the card under a more "friendly" environment to determine if the card was truly defective. He said under Windows 98. Not kidding, his words. This was 2-3 years ago, well after XP was released. Guess what? It works fine under 98.

In other words, NT is simply "unfriendly" to a lot of hardware.

Did I mention the time Windows 2000 wouldn't boot after a video card upgrade? While 98 had no difficulties of any kind.

Finally, Windows 2000 partition was wiped by me last year. I just had enough of NT.

Anybody wants to start some s*** about LeeNox? Cuz, over the last decade or so, I tested the living crap out of various LeeNox distros. Throughly.

Edited by Lunac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have less performance. Only in your dream world do XP users get less performance than Windows 98 users. Maybe that is what you think, but it doesn't mean it is true in all cases. Windows 2000/XP users get significantly better performance and stability than Windows 98/ME users could ever dream of. Keep living in your dream world where you think Windows 98 is such a great OS. Because it is not. Windows 2000/XP PWned 98/ME by far!!
The performance of a computer program is inversely related to its complexity. A simple kernal architecture enables system calls to be processed faster and more efficiently.

In the NT-series of OSs, the kernel runs at ring 0 and entering it via the standard API interface takes considerably more instructions than in the 9x series, where the kernel resides in ring 3 and is directly callable in the same way as a normal DLL. Calling into the kernel on an NT-based system follows a long path, involving a priviledge-level switch into ring 0, where the kernel resides, to execute the system call, and then back to ring 3.

Notice where the kernel resides on NT:

img030.GIF

Now, notice where the kernel ("core") resides on 9x:

wrkpp01.gif

If you still disagree with me regarding the performance of 98se vs 2000 or XP, you should do the tests yourself. Call an API 10000 times on 98se, then on NT, on identical hardware, and compare the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I tried opening IE over and over and didnt get too far:

Here a file box started opening........??????

screenshot0231vv.th.gif

Start menu gone

screenshot0207xj.gif

Firewall frozen

screenshot0217rz.gif

Icons a-bye-bye

screenshot0227lf.th.gif

I had to kill a few windows before i could use printscreen it complained not enough memory, all in all i didnt like it but didnt have to reboot

Edited by kartel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link21

Windows 9X could never dream of handling digital video editing.

Realy? So how come the main purpose of my w98 PC is video editing?

I'm "DivX Wise Trusted Man" on the official DivX website and I have ran and tested all DivX codecs versions, official and beta until 5.2 on w98 without a glitch. I also tested several XviD versions and other stuffs I don't remember right now.

I did hundreds of movies, edited on various video suits, with round-the-clock encodings. While encoding in the background, I can use all the other softwares I want, edit doc's in Word, Powerpoint, even edit other videos if I want and never had a crash.

Even better, video encoding was as fast on my w98 PC as on a XP PC with faster hardware, with many useless services disabled. I have just near me, as we speak, a XP laptop with a processor of the same speed and same amount of memory as my PC. The laptop, even with many services disabled, act like a snail by comparison. I even experienced "slow typing" on this XP platform. On a 1.8 Ghz: HUH!? Needless to say that I had to have a XP computer to experience this "slow typing" again, an experience that I forgot since the w95 era. I keep XP on this laptop only because we need Corel Draw12 for our professional activities.

So I realy don't know who is dreaming here.

I do everyday video capture (from tv and camera) at 720/576 resolution 25fps with no frame drop. So please don't lie.

I also encoded about 100 audio cd to mp3: in 4 cases the computer froze because of defective CD. These 4 cases were the only cases when I had a serious crash course on w98, all uses combined. And these were even not crashes: it was CDex taking too long and refusing to be shut be the taskmanager.

I also know from several users here that even light-XP is slower than w98.

As I understand, if you want a perfomant XP, you need to strip down half of it and make it as much like w98 as possible (except windows themes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried opening IE over and over and didnt get too far:

I just tried now and I opened about 50 times IE6 with msfn forum page as home page (which is heavier than Google). No problem at all. But I don't have any firewall.

I think the only way I could possibly crash my PC by opening lots of instances of softwares like IE, would be through a script that open hundreds of windows in a very short time.

Edited by Fredledingue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you still disagree with me regarding the performance of 98se vs 2000 or XP, you should do the tests yourself. Call an API 10000 times on 98se, then on NT, on identical hardware, and compare the results.
I have. Windows XP and 2000 were always faster. A much more effiecient kernel and file system.
seriously, what are you trying to achieve ?

I want to try and mae sure that game and other software makers ditch support for piece of junk Windows 98/ME. I want all software (inclduing open source) to be written for Window 2000/XP only when it comes to the MS OS world. I want software to be written for Linux as well. That way developers will be able to focus their testing and write better performning and more stable programs by utilizing APIs in a natuve NT based OS.

I am not trying to accomplish anything but ensuring manufacturers ditch Windows 98/ME support. I had badly hoped Windows 98/ME suppoirt would have been ditched a long time ago.

Edited by Link21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:whistle: come on with less sevices running win98se gotta be faster just goes without saying much like win 95 is faster .what it comes down too is applications .if u want to run programs that run on nt only then u must get a 3rd party version to run on 9x if u want less bloat you run older versions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to try and mae sure that game and other software makers ditch support for piece of junk Windows 98/ME. I want all software (inclduing open source) to be written for Window 2000/XP only when it comes to the MS OS world. I want software to be written for Linux as well. That way developers will be able to focus their testing and write better performning and more stable programs by utilizing APIs in a natuve NT based OS.

I am not trying to accomplish anything but ensuring manufacturers ditch Windows 98/ME support. I had badly hoped Windows 98/ME suppoirt would have been ditched a long time ago.

gee, you're not asking much, are you? good luck. as far as OS dev's, i'd guess they're focusing their attention exactly where they want to - without your invaluable assistance.

like another poster mentioned, you seem to pick and choose your battles very carefully, ignoring many relevant points. for instance, in a previous post i commented that your whole argument regarding support for 9x is largely moot. why? because dev's very often offer driver and s/w downloads for a particular platform. and if they don't, there's often alternatives.

give it up already!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:yes: agreed.Ived been saying its customer base that drives decisions on drivers for platforms.link21 think whining in a forum will catch the attention of every dev in the world dream on and after vista is released you can bet win 2000 will be droped as well so why beat a dead horse unless you got nothing better to do.if eg. avg wants to make its antivirus program run on 9x its there right maybe their customers mean something to them the ones that have been with them since win 95. Edited by timeless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Link21: video/audio encoding is really a poor angle of attack when it comes to Windows 98. Video/Audio encoding is one of the primary reasons I use Win98 to begin with, as I am sure this is the primary reason for many other Win98 users.

Really poor angle of attack.

To everyone else: I still claim, as I did before, that this is a Win98 user just messing around and pretending to be some sort of Neanderthal XP weekend warrior, or it's maybe some frustrated "LeeNox" dunce trying desperately to stir up some s***.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to try and mae sure that game and other software makers ditch support for piece of junk Windows 98/ME. I want all software (inclduing open source) to be written for Window 2000/XP only when it comes to the MS OS world. I want software to be written for Linux as well. That way developers will be able to focus their testing and write better performning and more stable programs by utilizing APIs in a natuve NT based OS.

I am not trying to accomplish anything but ensuring manufacturers ditch Windows 98/ME support. I had badly hoped Windows 98/ME suppoirt would have been ditched a long time ago.

Can you stop the BS.

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.

I tried opening IE over and over and didnt get too far:

Here a file box started opening........??????

screenshot0231vv.th.gif

Start menu gone

screenshot0207xj.gif

Firewall frozen

screenshot0217rz.gif

Icons a-bye-bye

screenshot0227lf.th.gif

I had to kill a few windows before i could use printscreen it complained not enough memory, all in all i didnt like it but didnt have to reboot

The symptoms you have are probably a sign of not having enough virtual memory.

Edited by RJARRRPCGP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i should stay out of this but i resent the way you continually quote the weaker posts and sections of posts (my apologies to those concerned) yet totally ignore the stronger points when they are made and continue, endlessly continue, as if they were not made at all.
the holes in your knowledge have been poked through many times before by people far more knowledgeable people that you or i, and the bottom line is this, you don't have that much of a clue. you never say (in essence) 'gee, that's interesting' or 'i didn't know that' and you never take anything on board. you just wait till a few posts have past (hoping, i assume, that the other readers can't remember) then turn into the wind again.
you have wrote thousands of words by now on your chosen diatribe in a 9X support forum, to express your chosen view for what ? do you really expect us all to agree ? do you expect us to down tools and all go out and buy Win 2000 tommorow (which by the way costs way more than XP) do you expect to log in after you've finally (oh please God) finished and see nothing but tumbleweed blowing through these forums and then lean back in you chair safe in the knowledge of a job well done ?
the answer 'use 2000/XP' is an anathema (go look that up) and is not appreciated in anyway, shape, or form.

your not even addressing the original topic of the thread.

the question was why use it, not why not to use it.

Well said. The title of this topic is Why use Win98, and there's been some good answers as to why.

And no really good reasons why not.

Waywyrd.

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...