Why run 98?

[Link21]

yeah, so is my car.

think i'll write to Mazda and see if i can't get them to cease all support for my car and tell them how stupid they are for supporting an outdated model in the first place. that way i'll force myself to go out and spend $20K, that i don't have, so i can have the latest and greatest and make all the other Mazda owners happy.

actually Link, i think you could write an even better letter. could you do that for me?

Cars and operating systems aren't the same thing. Firstly, you don't write software and drivers for a car. A car serves one purpose. To get you from point A to point B and so forth.

Games and high end software are designed for high end good quality platforms. No game that requires a CPU of 1GHz or faster and 256MB or more RAM should EVER support junker Windows 9X. Applications designed to run as background tasks shouldn't support Windows 9X either primarily because performance is critical with background tasks as you want background tasks to take up the least resources as possible since they are running all the time.

Only the most simple applications that don't run as background tasks maybe should still support Windows 9X. Applications like old school 2-D games and eductaional games for little kids that don't require many resources to run.

[atomizer]

Cars and operating systems aren't the same thing. Firstly, you don't write software and drivers for a car.

heh. how 'bout that. i better rip that computer out of my car since it doesn't have any software on it.

ATTN ALL CAR OWNERS: your cars computer isn't necessary! send it back and get a refund!

seriously though, if you weren't so blinded by your one-man-crusade, you might see that the principle is exactly the same. exactly.

[LLXX]

Windows 9X isn't even a real OS. It is no more of a real OS than ancient DOS. It is a Windows manager with 32-bit extensions on top of an ancient technologically limited DOS.

No, it's a 32-bit DOS with an optional GUI. So what?

If you've seen what could be done with a 10MHz processor and a few tens of K of RAM, you'd be wondering why NT was so resource-consuming. The DOS kernel is simple and highly efficient compared to any other OS after it.

Windows 3.11 died because it was simply too limited. But we still haven't reached the limits of the 9x-series, it's just that software has gotten more inefficient so it seems that way.

[Link21]

ANother thing I thought of, if Windows NT was really more inefficient than Windows 9X, than why does the XBOX use a modified stripped down Windows 2K kernel?

Do a search. It is well known that the XBOX uses the Windows 2K kernel to run the games.

[Lunac]

Link21, you say "There is no reason Windows 9X couldn't have died as soon as Windows XP was released, especially since Windows XP was an even bigger upgrade from Windows 9X than 95 ever was from Windows 3.1 when it comes to a system level standpoint."

Simply not true. Windows 9x vs. Windows 2000/XP? No way. Now Windows 9x vs. Windows 2010? Probably. Hopefully by 2010 MS will come up with an alternative to NT core. Let's hope Microsoft will finally release something worth upgrading to. I mean, if in 2010 MS is still releasing 6.x NT cores, then you can see me running Win98SE well into 2010+.

Differences between Windows 3.x and 98SE are huge. Windows 9x improved networking and added long file names and Plug and Play. Memory limitations, plaguing users in Windows 3.1, were greatly diminished. Windows 95 also included preemptive multitasking, which allowed programs to be timeshared together more effectively than in Windows 3.1. Also, FAT32 was introduced.

Also, you got:

The Registry: All hardware and environment settings reside in the Registry, and information about files and applications is obtainable and consistent.

Safe Mode: Troubleshooting is somewhat easier because of a built-in Safe Mode for rebooting in a "clean" state with only the necessary drivers.

The Start Menu and Explorer: Program Manager was turned into a Macintosh-like desktop with folders and long file names, and Program Groups were replaced by the Start menu. File Manager has changed to Explorer. When you turn the machine off, the desktop remains intact from session to session.

DOS Is Built In: DOS is built into and boots with Windows 95/98. AUTOEXEC.BAT, CONFIG.SYS, WIN.INI, SYSTEM.INI and other INI files are maintained for compatibility.

Difference between XP and previous versions of NT are minimal to an everyday user. Slightly more stability and some increased hardware compatibility.

You say: "Applications like old school 2-D games and eductaional games for little kids that don't require many resources to run."

Hate to break it to ya, but I run everything from video/audio encoding software, to latest graphical editing applications (2d or 3d), and everything else you can think of. On Win98SE, without any major problems. In many cases with no problems of any kind. Let me repeat: All this on Win98SE.

Also, vast majority of software and games until relatively recently were developed in fact on Win9x platforms. I mean, they had to. NT device driver support for relevant authoring hardware, (whether audio or graphics), professional or mainstream, was really only rudimentary until NT 5.x. And even that was questionable early on. Remember, there were no stable drivers from either nvidia or ATI deep into 2002 when it came to NT (NT 3x-5.x), both for their professional and mainstream product lineups. This was nearly a year after official Windows XP release and years after Windows 2000 was released. Don't blame 9x for that.

Now we got .NET. In other words: Develop s***tier and bloated applications, only faster! Well that's what the offical MS PR bul***** says. Thankfully most serious developers see .NET for what it is. A bloated, buggy, and hyped architecture.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Lunac

[os2fan2]

DOS is not "built into" Windows 9x. It is comingled. You can replace the DOS in Windows 9x with another version of DOS.

The DOS files, like DOS 6.x and earlier, are version-specific. If you make a bundle of these, you can simply overwrite the DOS in some Windows with a later version of DOS (eg copy WinME DOS into Win95), with no registry fiddles or anything.

That is, there really is no difference running Windows 98 under ME-DOS than running Windows 3.1 under PC-DOS, or something like this.

Since Windows 9x checks for DOS >= a requirement, you then run any Win9x under the same DOS, and you can even multiboot multiple Win9x (of different versions) and Win3.1 from the same MS-DOS (7.1 or 8.0).

The main difference between most of the WinME and Win98SE DOS utils is that that these simply check for different DOS version numbers! Run something like fc /b and you should see what i mean.

W

[os2fan2]

The reason that people are pushing Windows 98, rather than Windows ME, is that Win98SE is the last DOS that is not specifically a windows loader.

Unlike Win95, Win98 supports very large hard drives, FAT32 drives, etc, but not long file names. The thing can be coaxed to run older Windows, eg Win3.0 and Win3.1. You can pretty much do lots of DOS stuff on modern machines with Win98SE DOS.

Unlike WinME, you can run your own command processor (eg 4DOS), and this will be loaded before the gui boots. So you can benefit from a shared loaded command processor.

Please understand, that the various DOS implementations in Win95, Win98 etc, are all much and much like DOS 6.x, 5.x etc, except they recognise varingly, FAT32. These are a mixture of DOS-version-specific stuff, and open stuff.

The DOS 8.0 in WinME does not support really, running DOS independently, and basically kills off lines in your autoexec.bat and config.sys files. You can't have a general purpose dos that can eventually get around to booting a Win9x session at the end.

W

[Lunac]

To os2fan2: Windows 9x and Windows 95 specifically is a direct result of combining Microsoft's formerly separate MS-DOS and Windows products. While it was technically possible to start the Windows 95 kernel and GUI from DR-DOS – and probably PC-DOS too, it was not a good idea considering the following: competing DOS systems were not really suited for running files under VFAT file system. VFAT (variant of FAT16) was available to both Windows programs and MS-DOS programs started from Windows (they had to be adapted slightly, since accessing long file names required using larger pathname buffers and hence different system calls). Using alternative versions of DOS to manipulate files meant that the long names were not visible and would be lost if files were copied or moved around. Competing DOS-compatible operating systems needed an upgrade to be able to see these names.

In Win9x MS-DOS was no longer used for managing the files while Windows was running (somewhat already true in Win3.x), this essentially reduced MS-DOS to the role of a boot loader for the protected-mode Windows kernel. DOS could still be used for running old-style drivers for compatibility, but Microsoft discouraged using them, as this prevented proper multitasking and impaired system stability. Anyways....

I checked my previous post and I don't see me mentioning WinME anywhere. Nor do I see how WinME relates to anything in this particular sub-topic.

Now, as for Link21....

[RJARRRPCGP]

yeah, so is my car.

think i'll write to Mazda and see if i can't get them to cease all support for my car and tell them how stupid they are for supporting an outdated model in the first place. that way i'll force myself to go out and spend $20K, that i don't have, so i can have the latest and greatest and make all the other Mazda owners happy.

actually Link, i think you could write an even better letter. could you do that for me?

Cars and operating systems aren't the same thing. Firstly, you don't write software and drivers for a car. A car serves one purpose. To get you from point A to point B and so forth.

Games and high end software are designed for high end good quality platforms. No game that requires a CPU of 1GHz or faster and 256MB or more RAM should EVER support junker Windows 9X. Applications designed to run as background tasks shouldn't support Windows 9X either primarily because performance is critical with background tasks as you want background tasks to take up the least resources as possible since they are running all the time.

Only the most simple applications that don't run as background tasks maybe should still support Windows 9X. Applications like old school 2-D games and eductaional games for little kids that don't require many resources to run.

Actually, you should have at least 1.2 ghz for Windows XP and Windows 2000.

[Link21]

yeah, so is my car.

think i'll write to Mazda and see if i can't get them to cease all support for my car and tell them how stupid they are for supporting an outdated model in the first place. that way i'll force myself to go out and spend $20K, that i don't have, so i can have the latest and greatest and make all the other Mazda owners happy.

actually Link, i think you could write an even better letter. could you do that for me?

Cars and operating systems aren't the same thing. Firstly, you don't write software and drivers for a car. A car serves one purpose. To get you from point A to point B and so forth.

Games and high end software are designed for high end good quality platforms. No game that requires a CPU of 1GHz or faster and 256MB or more RAM should EVER support junker Windows 9X. Applications designed to run as background tasks shouldn't support Windows 9X either primarily because performance is critical with background tasks as you want background tasks to take up the least resources as possible since they are running all the time.

Only the most simple applications that don't run as background tasks maybe should still support Windows 9X. Applications like old school 2-D games and eductaional games for little kids that don't require many resources to run.

Actually, you should have at least 1.2 ghz for Windows XP and Windows 2000.

RAM is more important for Windows 2000 and Windows XP, not CPU speed. Windows 2000 takes less resources than XP. If you don't like XP, use Windows 2000.

[Lunac]

I've run Win98SE on systems with only 16-32MB of RAM and a 133-200mhz Pentium CPU. By "run" I mean used actively for years. When properly configured, even with these specs Win98SE performs just fine. I dare you to install any NT 5.x on those specs. Is it even possible? Will the Win2k/XP setup allow the installation to continue under those specs?

Heck, Win98SE is even good as a home server platform. I run several dyn-ip websites from my old Pentium machine, under Win98SE. My record uptime is 48 days. It would have been longer but the power supply died after that long of a time, which is not suprising considering the machine's power supply was nearly a decade old at the time. It can handle moderate traffic load just fine, when configured properly of course.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Lunac

[Jlo555]

RAM is more important for Windows 2000 and Windows XP, not CPU speed. Windows 2000 takes less resources than XP. If you don't like XP, use Windows 2000.

Alright, I know this is not a windows 2000/XP discussion, but you sir, are wrong about that. Even on a clean install when XP still has all the bloat and 2000 is totally clean, XP still used less resources. I've experienced this many times and wondered how that could be. But it is true, the last time I checked, I booted windows 2000 and it was consuming nearly 30 more megabytes of memory than XP. But, even still, I hate XP, and 2000 is pretty good. But, I choose to stick with 98se for now.

Windows 3.11 died because it was simply too limited. But we still haven't reached the limits of the 9x-series, it's just that software has gotten more inefficient so it seems that way.

****, that's a nice way of putting it. I'm stickin that in my AIM profile!

Edited January 19, 2006 by Jlo555

[LLXX]

ANother thing I thought of, if Windows NT was really more inefficient than Windows 9X, than why does the XBOX use a modified stripped down Windows 2K kernel?

Do a search. It is well known that the XBOX uses the Windows 2K kernel to run the games.

Because Microsoft is obsessed with the NT kernel, just as you are

I mean, if in 2010 MS is still releasing 6.x NT cores, then you can see me running Win98SE well into 2010+

NT 6.x would be "Vista". It comes on a DVD and the install is 2Gb in size. From the Vista forums it seems to require at least 10Gb of hard disk space. I haven't installed my copy yet so I can't say anything about its performance, but I'd expect it to be quite sluggish.

Now we got .NET. In other words: Develop s***tier and bloated applications, only faster! Well that's what the offical MS PR bul***** says. Thankfully most serious developers see .NET for what it is. A bloated, buggy, and hyped architecture.

Definitely seems MS is wanting to make the apparent speed of computers stay the same even though the hardware is getting faster, by inventing new ways of creating inefficient software.

Unlike Win95, Win98 supports very large hard drives, FAT32 drives, etc, but not long file names.

?? Win98 has always supported long filenames...

The thing can be coaxed to run older Windows, eg Win3.0 and Win3.1. You can pretty much do lots of DOS stuff on modern machines with Win98SE DOS.

Yes, and you can also run Windows 1.x and 2.x (v2.03 fits on a single 1.44M floppy) in a DOS window inside Win9x.

Unlike WinME, you can run your own command processor (eg 4DOS), and this will be loaded before the gui boots. So you can benefit from a shared loaded command processor.

Also, you can boot the GUI from running WIN at the prompt. I still boot to a command prompt by default, so I don't have to wait for the GUI to load if I want to do something simple e.g. write and print a short text file.

I've run Win98SE on systems with only 16-32MB of RAM and a 133-200mhz Pentium CPU. By "run" I mean used actively for years. When properly configured, even with these specs Win98SE performs just fine. I dare you to install any NT 5.x on those specs. Is it even possible? Will the Win2k/XP setup allow the installation to continue under those specs?

I've tried it. Windows XP Professional on a Pentium 166 with 32Mb of RAM and a 5.2Gb HDD. It will install but seems to freeze due to the slowness. Needed over 10 minutes to boot to the desktop after the 4+hour install. Not at all "usable".

[os2fan2]

QUOTE(os2fan2 @ Jan 18 2006, 05:06 AM)

Unlike Win95, Win98 supports very large hard drives, FAT32 drives, etc, but not long file names.

?? Win98 has always supported long filenames...

While the GUI supports long file names, the raw DOS session (ie what you get from a DOS boot disk), does not.

QUOTE

The thing can be coaxed to run older Windows, eg Win3.0 and Win3.1. You can pretty much do lots of DOS stuff on modern machines with Win98SE DOS.

Yes, and you can also run Windows 1.x and 2.x (v2.03 fits on a single 1.44M floppy) in a DOS window inside Win9x.

Windows 1.x, 2.x and Win3.0 can run in real mode. That is, that you can run it pretty much as any DOS app. I ran Windows 3.0 real-mode under an unmodified OS/2 prompt.

Enhanced and Standard mode windows require a fair bit of MSDOS compatibility. You can't run Windows 3.1 standard or enhanced, or 3.11 enhanced, under any of the DOS VMs of OS/2 or Windows NT, or even Windows 3.1. You can't even run Windows 3.1 under the 32-bit DOS provided by Windows 3.1.

When you run DOS on a LFN drive, you have no access to the long file names: you have to load the LFN driver (which is hidden in VFAT32.VXD or something), to get this.

Unlike WinME, you can run your own command processor (eg 4DOS), and this will be loaded before the gui boots. So you can benefit from a shared loaded command processor.

Also, you can boot the GUI from running WIN at the prompt. I still boot to a command prompt by default, so I don't have to wait for the GUI to load if I want to do something simple e.g. write and print a short text file.

In many cases, the printer drivers are not loaded unless the GUI loads, so unless the printer is an LPT printer, that answers to > PRN or > LPT1, i don't think that you are going to print it. DOS does not support USB, so your USB printer is as usless as a metric ruler... In any case, you will find the file rather confusing to get to, unless you are using a non-standard tree.

[kartel]

Look, I dont think any of us want to use 3.1 ever again.

I thought Xp would have been ok too, but it wasnt.

Its ok if you want to continue upgrading forever and ever and ever and ever.

Yes things may be getting quicker but what about people that have gone far enough ?

I mean if I have a house that I like and suits my needs, would i have to buy a new one because the microwave oven came out ?

What if the gas station tells you to buy a new car because they dont sell gas to pre 90's models now ?

What if your driving a 57' chevy that you spent lots of time and money maintaining, you gonna junk it ?

doesnt make sense does it ?