Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I did answer why.

The only reason is if you have old slow hardware that has no drivers for Windows 2000/XP and/or the need to run old applications that won't run on Windows 2000/XP. That is the only logical reason to do so.

The OP asked why. And I answered my own opinion on why. And I will repeat to the OP that I think no other reasons are valid except what I said.

So to the OP. There is no logical reason to run Windows 98 besides what I mentined above.

Those who say differently are only 98SE diehards who refuse to switch to something better based on newer technology because they are obsessed with Windows 98SE and reluctanatly believe that anything else is better.

Edited by Link21

Posted (edited)

Not sure why so many (or maybe it's just a vocal minority :} ) are bashing Win98. There are a lot of MSFN members who have done work like put together unofficial Win98 service packs or provide advice and help on how to remove IE from Win98 (makes Win98 a lot faster and more stable).

Win98, as an OS, has its advantages and disadvantages compared to the NT based OS's.

I think the only real legitimate beef against Win98 is that M$ will cut off security updates for it soon (if it hasn't done so already), since most people seem to be able to find a tweak or a software package that will run on 98 to fit their needs.

Edit: 1 thing about Win98 if you can make it work is, no need to do a software and hardware upgrade. If it works, why get new stuff? Keep the $. If I had working Win98 systems, I'd keep 'em until M$ completely abandoned us, and even then, as long as Win98 fans put out their hotfixes that worked, I'd still hang on. Who needs M$'s "Genuine Advantage" crap and "Proudct Activation"?

Edited by saugatak
Posted (edited)
Not sure why so many (or maybe it's just a vocal minority :} ) are bashing Win98. There are a lot of MSFN members who have done work like put together unofficial Win98 service packs or provide advice and help on how to remove IE from Win98 (makes Win98 a lot faster and more stable).

Win98, as an OS, has its advantages and disadvantages compared to the NT based OS's.

I think the only real legitimate beef against Win98 is that M$ will cut off security updates for it soon (if it hasn't done so already), since most people seem to be able to find a tweak or a software package that will run on 98 to fit their needs.

Edit: 1 thing about Win98 if you can make it work is, no need to do a software and hardware upgrade. If it works, why get new stuff? Keep the $. If I had working Win98 systems, I'd keep 'em until M$ completely abandoned us, and even then, as long as Win98 fans put out their hotfixes that worked, I'd still hang on. Who needs M$'s "Genuine Advantage" crap and "Proudct Activation"?

I hate product activation myself. Fortunately, I don't have to deal with it because I am entitled to a free legal corporate copy of Windows XP Pro from where I work.

There are many more legitimate beefs against Windows 98 than just MS cutting off cirtical security pacthes soon. It is not a real 32-bit OS. It handles system resources very poorly. There is an intrinsic limit to how well the OS runs period. http://www.apptools.com/rants/resources.php Those are more than enough reason not to use Windows 98.

Use whatever you want on whatever you want, but that doesn't mean it makes the most sense.

Hey all, I had a lot of troubles with XP being slow and clunky on my sub-par hardware, so I moved to Windows 2000 Professional and it runs like a dream!

My question is, why 98? Why not just move up to Windows 2000? It's got only a slight requirement difference to my knowledge and it's compatible with all new software and games. I understand the security issue but anyone that is relativly smart can avoid these problems.

You know what, the OP answered his/her own question. Use Windows 2000. You will be the most happy with it. There is no reason for the OP to run Windows 98 unless they need to run legacy softwrae that flat out won't run on Windows 2000.

Edited by Link21
Posted (edited)
I did answer why...

yeah, you sure did... and then some.

i think the 9x folks are looking for relevant answers though - answers that actually make sense.

i don't even use 9x anymore, yet i've managed to poke a few holes in your misguided thinking and wayward opnions. however it appears you choose to not to deal with questions for which you have no good answer, choosing instead to repeat -- over and over and over -- how flawed it is and how it's no good and how dev's shouldn't support it anymore and how there's no good reason to use it... yada yada yada.

interesting, don't you think - that in spite of your intimate familiarity with 9x and what a big pile of junk it is, a lot of people seem to be using it quite successfully. and using it for applications that you stated it's useless for. matter of fact, i think just about every point you've made has been proven wrong.

Edited by atomizer
Posted
I did answer why.

Yes... yes you did. Now please, shut the f*** up.

Why are you getting so p***y over us windows 98 users. Haven't we told you enough about why we use the OS. The only thing you keep responding with is that Windows 98/Me are obsolete pieces of crap, basing your responses on "oh, we got a series of new and innovative NT OS's out now, better dump that win9x crap" out the f***ing window.

You also keep calling us "98 Diehards..." so does that make you an NT Diehard then?

EDIT: Oh, wow, look at all them stars... I was angrier than I thought!

Posted

Hi,

I think atomizer's hit the 'nail on the head', that for me being a fan of Win/Internet98 until the o/s is completely unusable there's no pressing urgency for me to spend £/$'s just because MS and the PC manafactureres are in a technological race to beat each other. I'm all for progress but, not for continually upgrading while the previous version still works.

With regards to XP being 'superior', how come it's got so many 'holes' for hackers and virus writers to exploit.

Win98 may not be perfect in that respect but I bet most reasonably savvy users could update Win98... without being infected by viruses and spyware in less than 10 minutes!

Waywyrd

Posted

Link, I agree with your general viewpoint and think that the NT OS's are better in general. That's why I run Win2k (with suitable FDV fileset and nLite modifications).

But given a choice between XP and 98SE on my personal systems, I'd go with 98SE because the bloat and crap on XP is just unreal. Even nLite doesn't take out all the $hit I hate on XP. Plus I hate prodict activation.

Also, I just don't see the point of upgrading just to upgrade. There are some very smart and talented forum members who have come up with ways to make 98SE work very well for them. As long as it works on their hardware and runs the software they want to run, why upgrade?

I think we all need our $ more than Bill Gates does.

Posted
With regards to XP being 'superior', how come it's got so many 'holes' for hackers and virus writers to exploit.

eh, be careful with that one :)

if 9x were as popular as NT, i'm sure the virus writers would be focusing on it instead. not so many years ago it was under heavy attack.

now which is inherently more secure, i don't know. if you assume a completely vanilla, default installation, i would guess 98 on up *may* be more secure overall. however, with a few 'adjustments', NT can be hardened pretty well IMO. as crappy as it is, at least it has a firewall, the group policy editor (missing in 'home' i guess), easy access to the services and a more secure filesystem - although someone else brought up a point that may make the latter questionable. however, all of this means more complexity as well, and more complexity can mean it's easier to screw up.

Posted
But given a choice between XP and 98SE on my personal systems, I'd go with 98SE because the bloat and crap on XP is just unreal. Even nLite doesn't take out all the $hit I hate on XP. Plus I hate prodict activation.

What in Windows XP is it that you hate that even nlite cannot remove? What bloat are you referring to?

Posted

With regards to XP being 'superior', how come it's got so many 'holes' for hackers and virus writers to exploit.

eh, be careful with that one :)

if 9x were as popular as NT, i'm sure the virus writers would be focusing on it instead. not so many years ago it was under heavy attack.

Point taken.

Win98 was as you rightly point out under attack from virus writers. But I dispute the point that XP is superior, when it needs as many, if not more, 'critical' updates than a supposedy inferior Win98.

Surely if XP is a superior o/s than it should at less risk of attack from viruses... from day one? One example that springs to mind is the XP 'Firewall'. There were/are enough examples from smaller companies with far more secure firewalls... before XP was released!

Posted
...But I dispute the point that XP is superior, when it needs as many, if not more, 'critical' updates than a supposedy inferior Win98.

Surely if XP is a superior o/s than it should at less risk of attack from viruses... from day one?

i didn't say it was superior, that was Link21 :)

however, what OS is better is a personal choice. to flatly say one is better than the other is just plain wrong. it depends on what your needs are.

Posted
@kartel - what firewall is that you have there?

I think the icon was frozen, sorry

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.

YOUR FIRED!

Posted
i didn't say it was superior, that was Link21 :)

however, what OS is better is a personal choice. to flatly say one is better than the other is just plain wrong. it depends on what your needs are.

My appologies. :( I should have made it clearer that my comment about XP being 'superior', was directed towards members, (I won't mention names, I don't want to get into pointless arguments), who seem to be slating Win98 just because it's older.

They seem to refuse to acknowledge that while Win98 may need some 'tweaking' to improve it... it can be done relatively easily. And without the need for constant updates!

Posted

I think overall XP is better technologically. But yes performance will be better in 98 because it is way lighter and not running on the NT kernel. 98 was a sweet OS for its time....especially 98SE. That s*** was fast and ran on underpowered systems like a dream. I honestly wish however that MS started up a 98SE development project to add new features like XP has but without the bloat...that would really really rock in terms of a gaming OS. But peronally I would not want to go back to 98se because XP does everything for me.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...