Why run 98?

[modicr]

The bottom line is, why did Microsoft decide to build all future Windows operating systems based on NT rather than 9X? If performance was really better with 9X, Microsoft wouldn't have decided that the NT platform was by far better for future versions of their product. They did so for a reason.

Main reason why NT based OSes are more stable are limited GDI resources in Win9x:

http://www.apptools.com/rants/resources.php

http://aumha.org/win4/a/resource.php

Another good feature of NT is built-in unicode support:

http://www.eventreporter.com/Common/en/Art...why-unicode.php

Roman

[eidenk]

Windows 2000 is a good OS

Maybe Windows 2000 SP4 is finally a good OS (stable and everything such as large hard drives support introduced only in SP3) but not Windows 2000. It has benefited from 4 massive service packs in 4 years to give it stability while the latest 9x declination, Windows ME, published the same year as Windows 2000 benefited from none at all which is scandalous especially as far as support for 128GB+ drives is concerned. It's just all a matter of policy.

[Thunderbolt 2864]

I only liked Windows 98 because of the DOS support, mainly for games. I wonder why ME hardly had any decent DOS support at all.

I wished Windows XP had DOS support, like DOS Mode for games. Well, since it is based on the NT kernel, well, not much of a suprise really.

[bristols]

Windows 2000 is a good OS

Maybe Windows 2000 SP4 is finally a good OS (stable and everything such as large hard drives support introduced only in SP3) but not Windows 2000. It has benefited from 4 massive service packs in 4 years to give it stability while the latest 9x declination, Windows ME, published the same year as Windows 2000 benefited from none at all which is scandalous especially as far as support for 128GB+ drives is concerned. It's just all a matter of policy.

Absolutely. This helps put into context the fantastic efforts of members of this forum to improve 9x systems, via the various and growing number of Unofficial Service Packs and modifications available here. They offer an idea of the possibilities had 9x continued to be developed officially.

[Link21]

I only liked Windows 98 because of the DOS support, mainly for games. I wonder why ME hardly had any decent DOS support at all.

I wished Windows XP had DOS support, like DOS Mode for games. Well, since it is based on the NT kernel, well, not much of a suprise really.

Are there any free DOS emulators that you can download that are for Windows 2000/XP? I thought there were some of those?

Maybe Windows 2000 SP4 is finally a good OS (stable and everything such as large hard drives support introduced only in SP3) but not Windows 2000. It has benefited from 4 massive service packs in 4 years to give it stability while the latest 9x declination, Windows ME, published the same year as Windows 2000 benefited from none at all which is scandalous especially as far as support for 128GB+ drives is concerned. It's just all a matter of policy.

Windows 2000 has been rock stable since SP2. It is a very impressive OS overall. Uses little system resources by today's hardware standards and is still a very good quality OS. Windows XP doesn't take up too many either by today's hardware standards, but it still takes up more than 2000.

[azagahl]

Are there any free DOS emulators that you can download that are for Windows 2000/XP?

Yes, I've tried a few. Unfortunately they are all non-functional or unbearably slow.

If you want to run a DOS app/game, Windows 9x is often the only real choice.

I recommend 98 SE with USP2.1a and 98SE2ME.

Windows 2000 has been rock stable since SP2.

I don't agree. 2000 locks up easily on me when alt-tabbing from full-screen apps. The OS may not crash but the PC is still rendered unusable.

Windows XP doesn't take up too many either by today's hardware standards

If you could help me figure out why svchost.exe takes up 100+ MB on my PC I'd appreciate it. Stopping services doesn't seem to help.

[Link21]

If you could help me figure out why svchost.exe takes up 100+ MB on my PC I'd appreciate it. Stopping services doesn't seem to help.

There is more than one svchost.exe process. Are all of them together eating up 100MB+ of system RAM, or just one of them?

I have 5 svhost.exe processes running on my system. One of them takes up about 14MB of RAM. All the others take up about 3-4MB of RAM

[Thunderbolt 2864]

Yes, there is a DOS emulator, but as azagahl said, its slow, and its not even compatible with some DOS applications.

I wouldn't really use Windows ME to run DOS applications. Some of them isn't even compatible with ME, how crappy is that.

I liked Windows 98 because of the advanced DOS mode support for games only.

[somewan]

Windows 2000 has been rock stable since SP2. It is a very impressive OS overall. Uses little system resources by today's hardware standards and is still a very good quality OS. Windows XP doesn't take up too many either by today's hardware standards, but it still takes up more than 2000.

By today's horrendously inflated standards, nothing takes

up a lot of resources.

However, if you've seen what can be done in < 64K on

a Commodore, or when you've experienced games that

were fast enough on a 286 or 386, you know there is no

valid excuse for the resource consumption of 99% of

the software released in the past 10 years or so.

If you could help me figure out why svchost.exe takes up 100+ MB on my PC I'd appreciate it. Stopping services doesn't seem to help.

There is more than one svchost.exe process. Are all of them together eating up 100MB+ of system RAM, or just one of them?

I have 5 svhost.exe processes running on my system. One of them takes up about 14MB of RAM. All the others take up about 3-4MB of RAM

Are you sure some of them aren't viruses or spyware?

[LLXX]

By today's horrendously inflated standards, nothing takes

up a lot of resources.

However, if you've seen what can be done in < 64K on

a Commodore, or when you've experienced games that

were fast enough on a 286 or 386, you know there is no

valid excuse for the resource consumption of 99% of

the software released in the past 10 years or so.

"The software expands to fill up the available hardware."

It definitely seems that way. Software manufacturers are deliberately making their products more inefficient to try to force consumers to buy the latest hardware, creating revenue for the hardware manufacturers. It seems so unethical to me. Windows Vista being the latest example of this.

[Link21]

What about games and high end 3-D graphics programs? Do you think those take have taken up too many resources the last 10 years?

[Lunac]

Indeed LLXX. Windows XP requirements (actual ones, not MS twaddle) were ridiculously high. Vista requirements are simply surreal. (A 1GB of RAM?!)

Also, you have to take into account that Microsoft has the tendency to put out lower system requirements than actual ones. Example: Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000 system requirements were 166mhz CPU, 16MB RAM and 4MB RAM Video card. In actuality you needed a minimum 450-500mhz processor and at least 128 MB of RAM to get the product running at mimimal frame rates. That is a big discrepancy, don't you think?

I actually tried running that version of MS Flight Simulator on several old machines 166-233mhz, with ram ranging from 32-128MB, and several 3d accelerators that had much more than the required 4MB of video RAM.

Results? It just didn't run. I mean, as in NOT AT ALL.

[LLXX]

What about games and high end 3-D graphics programs? Do you think those take have taken up too many resources the last 10 years?

Of course. I have a little 3d graphics demo - 5 minutes of software-rendered animated scenes - which runs on any computer from a 286 @12MHz and up, with only VGA graphics, but very good graphics. Most surprising is the fact that this demo is not some multi-megabyte set of files; it's a single 4096 bytes file.

Seeing what could be done in 4096 bytes of program code on a 12MHz CPU and 512K of RAM, and comparing it with what is being done today with processors several hundred times more powerful, several thousand times more memory, one can't help but think about what the true abilities of today's hardware are.

[Jlo555]

Yeah, I know what you guys are saying. I've really noticed this with any Microsoft OS. My computer is still pretty highend (imo), and I've run Windows 98/Me/2000 and XP. Windows 98 was zippin by, Windows Me was zippin buy, but froze every ten minutes, windows 2000... I can't really find a way of saying it... Win2k is like Windows 98 after smoking 3 blunts. It feels slow and unresponsive, it rarely gets p***ed off and crashes and yet somehow it manages it's own stability. Windows XP made me laugh. When I first used XP in 2002 it looked like a frieking cartoon, it was REALLY slow and even slower to respond. All compared, Windows 98 is the best. The fact is, I do the EXACT same things on XP that I do on Windows 98... so why would I need to upgrade? Just so Bill can get more money?

[atomizer]

What about games and high end 3-D graphics programs? Do you think those take have taken up too many resources the last 10 years?

Of course. I have a little 3d graphics demo - 5 minutes of software-rendered animated scenes - which runs on any computer from a 286 @12MHz and up, with only VGA graphics, but very good graphics. Most surprising is the fact that this demo is not some multi-megabyte set of files; it's a single 4096 bytes file.

look at HL2 for instance; i don't know what the install size is, but i know my HL directories have measured up to several GB in the past. currently at just over 5 GB.

then look at CUBE. installation size: ~30 MB.

from a graphics standpoint, CUBE isn't exactly state-of-the-art, but it's really not bad.

from an efficiency standpoint, there is no comparison - CUBE loads lightening fast, it's small and everything works! it runs on multiple platforms and isn't dependent on screwy windows components, Steam, or any other such crap. it uses the OpenGL standard and, to top it off, it's free and open source and has won several awards.

from a 'fun' standpoint, well, i've probably had as much fun with CUBE as any game.

Edited January 8, 2006 by atomizer