Why run 98?

[Link21]

@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!

All thanks to people like you, the dreams and hopes for the PC enthusiast to see games and applications optimized for Windows 2000/XP took way too long to become a reality. I had badly hoped to see some games and applications optimized for good quality operating systems like Windows 2000/XP as far back as 2002. But all thanks to the ignorant Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers who lived in this fantasy world where they blindly believed Windows 98SE was by far the best version of Windows ever released and would continue and use it on the latest and greatest hardware while completely ignoring the tremendous differences in the internal architecture of the OS compared to the superior architecture of Windows 2000/XP, it was never going happen. That is just sad!!

Imagine how much better performance would have been since 2002 in the PC industry if Windows 98/ME support was ditched at least for high end applications and hardware a long time ago.

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.

I'd love to see Windows XP and 2000 go open source. Imagine how much better those good quality opertaing systems could be made if they were open source. The bloat could be stripped down even farther.

[Tihiy]

Link21, please, give examples instead of nude words.

games and applications optimized for Windows 2000/XP

What do you mean? Which old applications? new applications? Which newer APIs? obsolete APIs?

I'd love to see Windows XP and 2000 go open source.

Just another agressive dreamer.

[Link21]

What do you mean? Which old applications? new applications? Which newer APIs? obsolete APIs?

Native NT based APIs. More robust. I mean applications and games written to take advanatge of the latest hardware as far back as 2002.

[Fredledingue]

Link21

Lets start from your link

Okay, so you've got this fancy 2GHz Pentium IV with 256Mb of RAM and Windows 98. Still, applications seem to be running out of memory.

IMO it will be very difficult to have this effect on such platform, if you have W98SE-uSP2

Further on they give the limitations of the w98 systems: limitations that are even more difficult to reach outside experimental missions.

And maybe some of these limitations are already bursted with the upgrades.

Imagine how much better performance would have been since 2002 in the PC industry if Windows 98/ME support was ditched at least for high end applications and hardware a long time ago.

How much better? Zero. maybe even worse.

Simply because the performance of a software/hardware doesn't depends on the OS but on the guy who designed it.

If a software works fine on w98, it will work like a charm on XP. The oposite is not true.

A developer on w98 will be very careful of not clogging the resources, not leaking the memory while an XP developer will lose these good habits and make monsters that will cause the OS to eventualy slow down to manage all the errors in the program.

In fact the survivance of w98 and of the w98 minded development has helped the sftware world keep on making high performance products.

Softawre made for w98 will always be more performant than those for XP because on w98 they are obliged to be performant, not on XP.

Unfortunately, commercial software companies are dropping w98 support because it's cheaper to create crappy softwares that will just work albeit slowly on XP than sate-of-the-art bug-free low-resource-proof jewels of programing.

Fortunately, available upgrade allow these software, when installable) to run fine on w98.

---> to others: I'v never seen such anti-w98 maniac like him!

[Tihiy]

Native NT based APIs. More robust.

Yes? Give me examples. Any.

Also: you want to say Win9x APIs are emulated in NT? Give me examples.

[Link21]

How much better? Zero. maybe even worse.

Really? So how come GTA:San Andreas runs great on Windows 2000/XP but runs like crap on Windows 98?

And developers can still write excellent software that is only 2000/XP compatible. Just because Windows 2000/XP provide more features for software writers to get lazy when writing programs, doesn't mean they will. They can still write state of the art bug free low resource-proof jewels of programming and make it even better by it being only Windows 2000/XP compatible.

Just look at NOD32. It is the best AntiVirus software there and uses the least system resources. Guess what. They do support Windows 9X, but they have a separate version for the native NT based OS and a separate version for the native 9X based OS. They don't write the same verison using a standard API that is available on both opertaing systems. That is why performance is probably better with NOD32.

http://www.nod32.com/download/download.htm

to others: I'v never seen such anti-w98 maniac like him!

I am an anti- Windows 9X OS person. I hate Windows 9X inclduing Windows 98. It has nothing to do with it just being Windows 98. I hate Windows 9X all flavors. Windows 9X was junk compared to other 32-bit operating systems period.

[Link21]

Yes? Give me examples. Any.

Also: you want to say Win9x APIs are emulated in NT? Give me examples.

Read this here/ Read the last sentence in the first paragraph. It says how many system utilities have to be written twice with one specific version for Windows NT and one for Windows 9X.

http://www.noccc.org/bytes/articles/v01/414.html

Also take a look at NOD32 AntiVirus program

http://www.nod32.com/download/download.htm

It has an excellent virus detection rate and takes up the least system resources. It is not well known and often overlooked. but it is clearly the best AV program you can get.

Guess what. It has a native NT version and a native 9X version. I'm sure it uses some OS heritage specific APIs and thus why it has better performance. Pretty much every other AV pplication I have used is a resource hog.

[LLXX]

When that article you linked to was written, Windows 2000 and XP were not even introduced! Look:

Last update: 12/28/99

How many normal applications programs can you think of that use the NT Native API? Not many. Win32 is the standard. Also, don't forget that many of the native APIs are undocumented.

http://www.sysinternals.com/Information/NativeApi.html

[saugatak]

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?

I initially removed a lot of crap with nLite. Was delighted.

Then I had to use a program which used a feature I removed. ****, you can't re-install something once you've removed it with nLite. This happened a few more times plus making coasters because I thought something worked OK on VM machine but in reality it didn't work on real machine.

Finally, I said screw it, I'll downgrade back to Win2k since programs installing on Win2k have fewer dependencies (for example, lots of XP programs use the system restore point feature which requires COM+ and a bunch of other services that I had previously removed).

I was also using XP pre-SP1 and after SP1 when it was flaky compared to Win2k. Supposedl post-SP2 XP got better and more stable, but it's still slower than Win2k.

I'm now having to switch back to Win XP on a few machines from my beloved Win2k, which p***es me off, because they use hardware for which there are no Win2k drivers.

[somewan]

Yes? Give me examples. Any.

Also: you want to say Win9x APIs are emulated in NT? Give me examples.

Read this here/ Read the last sentence in the first paragraph. It says how many system utilities have to be written twice with one specific version for Windows NT and one for Windows 9X.

http://www.noccc.org/bytes/articles/v01/414.html

http://www.nod32.com/download/download.htm

Guess what. It has a native NT version and a native 9X version. I'm sure it uses some OS heritage specific APIs and thus why it has better performance. Pretty much every other AV pplication I have used is a resource hog.

Neither of those examples comment on the supposed NT emulation

of 9x APIs. And for a good reason: although NT includes some half-

hearted attempts at emulating DOS, Win16 and Posix (Unix subset)

APIs, it doesn't even begin to address the issues of supporting any

Win9x kernel mode components, which includes, among other things,

the the file system activity "spy" modules that background virus

scanners depend upon. Hooking and adding time-consuming

overhead to a number of frequently used system calls is one of the

reasons why virus scanners slow the system down.

By contrast, Win95 includes relatively extensive emulation for

NT network and block device drivers - usually so-called Miniports.

Win98 and Me extend that support even farther - *all* of the

USB and Firewire support in those systems is based on emulating

NT/2K kernel APIs.

Apparently, the NTKERN VxD plays the role of NT kernel in

Win98/Me, and if Microsoft had only wanted to, there's no

doubt that even greater degrees of emulation could have been

possible.

[Fredledingue]

Really? So how come GTA:San Andreas runs great on Windows 2000/XP but runs like crap on Windows 98?

Because it was written for 2000/XP. What's the point?

Just look at NOD32. It is the best AntiVirus software there and uses the least system resources. Guess what. They do support Windows 9X, but they have a separate version for the native NT based OS and a separate version for the native 9X based OS.

Yes, two separate versions are the best. (One, small, simple and fast for w98 and another heavy, slow and complicated for wXP. )

These two example YOU gave, illustrate how your fears of performance loss are unfounded.

It's been several years already when all softwares are designed primarily for XP with even no w98 compatibility in mind, but fortunately still working on w98 because w98 is a great OS with a wide software compatibility potential unlike XP.

The only reason why software companies are dropping the w98 support is because they want to make sure the machine has 256 Mb of ram and at least 1Ghz of speed (nothwithstanding that w2000 machine may not have these requirements but ruling out w98 reduce this risk substantialy).

Only large and heavy software suits (like Premiere or CorelDraw) could make use of XP OS elements and other softwares too, but most softwares are too sefecific and need their proper code or don't need these componants except for fancy options.

There is no reason why a component included in OS, because it's included in the OS, would be more performant than a componant in the program itself. In fact it will be more likely less performant because the native XP component may not be fully approriate or fully optimized for the task called by the program.

I'v told you that already in another thread.

[Link21]

Because it was written for 2000/XP. What's the point?

My point is all games and all other high end software should be written for Windows 2000/XP so that it runs best on Windows 2000/XP. There is a reason they made it only Windows 2000/XP compatible. It is because it took them less time to make it run well on only Windows 2000/XP than they would have had to spent to make it run well on both Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000/XP. Therefore, it was easier for them to make a good quality game by focusuing on making it only run well on Windows 2000/XP and not on garbage Windows 98/ME.

That is my point. I got you on that one. I want all software to be written for Windows 2000/XP just like GTA: San Andreas was. That is why it only runs well on Windows 2000/XP but doesn't run well on Windows 98/ME.

I caught you off guard on that one.

[Chozo4]

Edit in: Sorry, went a wee bit off topic. Tried at a bit of humor\truth\venting at once.

----------------------------------

What a broken record....

I'm sure alot of us remember these spout-offs as being just a repeat of the same old gander of his such as this in this thread.

New Games, Where's the support???

DirectX 10 work on win98SE

Sounds like a real personal issue really. So we use what we want. Nothing going to stop us. Certainly not him at least. Sure, alot in his mind could have been better off if things were written specifically for NT. Granted, the structure of the OS's are different. However, alot of system calls I'm very sure are similar in practice but just slightly patched to handle the NT architecture for compatibility with the different kernel.

From a business viewpoint, it is cheaper to just patch an existing GUI\OS and add onto it rather than start over from scratch. The only thing they did was overhaul the kernel while reusing the same GUI. Just adding on over time to what it's now become. Windows is becoming what it is from a user standpoint. Reason they are making other versions of the NT systems. Such as those strictly for server use to those for workstation\home use. More diverse yes but they can't do it all and make it 'user friendly' all at the same time under a single version.

It's a consumers market. Windows 98 exists and we use it because we want to. I find it funny how you only bash 9x and not some other OS. Especially considering that alot of software are also ported over to other O\S's such as Linux and beOS and\or being merged into a single unified program to cover multiple OS's under the same script. So, are programs for other OS's besides '9x' being written affecting YOUR precious performance too just because they don't support NT only? I think not (but if you think they are, go bash them and not us).

The NT kernel isn't the only base of an OS my friend. There are other Operating systems out there such as OUR windows 98 (9x). You're not going to make them stop writing programs for those other OS's just as you can't stop porting over to 9x. If you were bill gates, you would be trying to monopolize and kill off every OS out there because of your unexplainable hatred for the 9x kernel.

You say how support should have stopped for 9x because you don't like it. If it were your way, there would only be a single version of the OS out which means no more development of it. Where would the advancement be then? There would be none. So, just as there are older versions of windows poeple will use them, soon windows XP will be in the same predicament as 9X is now. Then what would you do? Bash NT kernel users because it is no longer the best despite you now currently protecting it like a newborn child?

Windows is Windows and newer is not always better

A day in the life of two *system error, contact customer support for rest of title*:

Person 1: OMGZ! MS just released the new RG (Really Good) kernel!

Person 2: Really? WOW Lets use it. I no longer need this trashy NT kernel. It's not new anymore.

Person 1: Yeah, lets go bash those NT and 9x kernel users for still using it!

Person 2: It's new so it's so much better than NT. NT is just like so.. last week. It must be garbage.

Person 1: Your right, even bill gates said so!

*both go off to some older kernel user forum such as 9x and NT to bash them because the world revolves around them.*

Gates: Yes my children. Like sheep you too are to be herded to the slaughter. If you only new what Windows RG really was... *evil cackle*

*They return from their bashing*

Person 1: haha! Those losers. Still using their older wimpy OS's.

Person 2: Gawd! My computer seems to run so fast now. It only requires a 13 terrahertz cpu to run it.

Person 1: I can do everything on here but it runs a bit slow now. Even though the older systems do the same exact thing and faster.

Person 2: yeah my old stuff wont work on it. I need to install a new version.

*Person 2 upgrades his old app @ 1mb to a new similar app 1GB+ in size*

Person 1: Ah well, it's new so it must be better anyway. I'll blow all my money and then some for something that does the same thing. But yet it has that new shiny RG symbol on it and is version 99.8110 unlike the older version 99.819.3

*both persons get targeted by a new viral*

Both: WTH?!~?!? what's happening to my new perfect superior OS?

*systems give a warning screen*

system: Windows has detected a virus on your system. It will now be repaired. Press OK to begin with repair.

Both: *press OK*

system: To protect your privacy and important personal information, microsoft will collect your data to back it up. Press 'OK' to continue.

Both: *press ok*

system: Windows will Low-Level format your harddisk in 3 seconds. When done, microsoft support will contact you for billing information to reinstall windows RG edition. We have your information so don't call us... We'll call you.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Chozo4

[Link21]

It's a consumers market. Windows 98 exists and we use it because we want to. I find it funny how you only bash 9x and not some other OS. Especially considering that alot of software are also ported over to other O\S's such as Linux and beOS and\or being merged into a single unified program to cover multiple OS's under the same script. So, are programs for other OS's besides '9x' being written affecting YOUR precious performance too just because they don't support NT only? I think not (but if you think they are, go bash them and not us).

It is because Windows 9X is junk. Developement should be focused on good quality operating systems like Windows NT flavors, BSD, Linux, and MAC OS X. Windows 9X should have died a long time ago because it was a horrible OS compared to others. People like you in the consumers market can use whatever they want, but it is developers that should have stopped supporting an outdated crumby OS a long tim ago. Devlopers should focus on writing software for much better and much more capable operating systems like I said above.

Windows 3.1 died as soon as Windows 95 was released. 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.

Windows 9X is based on an ancient kernel. You are right that newer isn't always better. When was the first GUI version of OS/2 WARP released? Before Windows 95. Guess what, OS/2 and Linux were far superior to that piece of junk called Windows 95. When was Windows ME released? A few months after Windows 2000 was released. Windows 2000 was far superior to that piece of junk Windows ME.

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.

Devleopers should spend their time on writing stuff for good quality platforms like Linux, Windows NT flavors, BSD, and other more modernized well designed opertaing systems.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Link21

[atomizer]

It is because Windows 9X is junk.

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?