Jump to content

Why run 98?


colemancb

Recommended Posts

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

Why is Microsoft obsessed with the NT kernel? It seems it has to be more than them just wanting to force people to upgrade to their newest OS. Because Windows 2000 isn't their newest OS, and yet they don't treat Windows 2000 in the same boat as Windows 98. If all they cared about was trying to force people to upgrade to the newest, they would make Windows 2000 look exactly like Windows 98 and older versions of Windows.

WHile Microsoft doesn't give Windows 2000 the same attention that Windows XP gets, it is still spouted off by MS that the NT kernel based operating systems are far superior to the DOS flavors of Windows.

By 2010, will Microsoft try and make it lkook like Windows 2000 never existed, or will its support only end by then?

Or is it just the DOS based operating systems they want to try and pretend never existed, regardless of the support they were ever given?

Edited by Link21
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Link21,

They don't mind about 2000 because 2000 is a previous version of XP so to speak.

M$ wants to completely get rid of w98 stuffs and that's why it'snot in the Xbox or any other products.

2000 will die by itself because there is no sens or very little in using 2000 if you can get XP.

It's by 2005 that w98 came to maturity, if not perfectness, it took 7 years to have a good w98 OS.

I estimate that it will also take 7 years before XP become something I could enjoy to use.

Thanks to Safe XP and the SP2, XP is already an OS in front of which I agree to sit down (on days I'm in good mood).

It's only because new hardware will never be used to their full capacity under w98 whatever patch or driver comes out that one of these day we all will have to change.

Too bad the only alternative windows are XP or 2000.

Yeah, that's realy too bad. Let's hope both M$ and the freeware community will do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't mind about 2000 because 2000 is a previous version of XP so to speak.

M$ wants to completely get rid of w98 stuffs and that's why it'snot in the Xbox or any other products.

2000 will die by itself because there is no sens or very little in using 2000 if you can get XP.

If MS wanted to completely get rid of Windows 9X based operating systems, why did they release DirectX 9 for Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000/XP. Why wouldn't they have released DirectX 9 which came out in February 2003 for only Windows 2000/XP?

Why does Microsoft want to completely get rid of Windows 9X based operating systems and pretend they never existed? Why are they ok with previous versions of the Windows NT family like Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) and Windows NT 4.0? But they aren't ok with the previous versions of the different OS heritage in Windows 9X? Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:whistle: dont know Link21 .why does a nt lover waste away in a 9x world.

I am not an NT lover. I just love NT compared to 9X because it is at least a respectable OS.

I praise Linux, OS/2, Solaris, Unix variants, BSD, and Windows NT flavors. I think those are all good operating systems. I think Windows 9X is awful compared to those operating systems families I just listed above. Let DOS die already.

I know so many people who hate Microsoft and think they are a selfish company who cares about nothing but extroting more money from anyone anyway they can. They hate their business practices as well. I agree with them. They admit they think Windows 2000 and XP are both decent respectable opertaing systems from a technical standpoint and htink Windows 9X is horrible junk.

You see, it has nothing to do with MS sanctioned. It has do with the fact that many people realize the technical fact between Windows 9X and most other operating systems.

Heck, I think any Microsoft OS prior to Windows 2000 was awfully bad. Windows NT 4.0 and prior were ok, but nothing that good.

As with regards to my question about why MS wants to pretend that Windows 98 never even existed and doesn't mind prior versions of Windows NT, but does Windows 9X, I was just asking out of curiosity.

But I am in no means in bed with MS. In fact, that is the only thing I agree with MS on, just like a lot of technical people who hate Windows 9X, but think Windows 2000/XP and above are ok from a technical standpoint, even though they hate MS. I disagree with and think MS is greedy and evil on almost all fronts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, it has nothing to do with MS sanctioned. It has do with the fact that many people realize the technical fact between Windows 9X and most other operating systems.

Link21, you don't seem to understand the difference between 'facts' and 'judgements'.

Examples of Facts:

Windows 9x uses the FAT32 file system.

Windows 2000/XP uses the NT file system.

Win 2000 prior to SP3 did not support drives larger than 137 GB.

Examples of judgements:

"I think Windows 9X is awful"

"I think any Microsoft OS prior to Windows 2000 was awfully bad"

"...they think Windows 2000 and XP are both decent respectable opertaing systems from a technical standpoint" (sic)

"...(they) htink Windows 9X is horrible junk" (sic).

They are not the same. "Windows 9X is horrible junk" is neither a technical fact nor a fact of any kind. Sorry to come over all philosophical, but:

i) I would expect a person with such a firm grip on technical matters as yourself to understand this :thumbup: and

ii) you haven't managed to make adequate replies to the reasonable points put forward by other 9xers here (and an XPer or two too - e.g., Atomizer) - you're not really achieving much so far in your personal crusade. So I thought you might not refuse a bit of help. :D

But keep going Link21. NT will win for you - glory will be yours ("glory" as you define it in the OS world). ;)

Edited by bristols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :)

What?!!!?

Are you installing the latest Win2k w/ SP4 and hotfixes? I've done clean installs of Win2k and XP SP2. With IE6 Win Media Playre 9 in Win2k, the Win2k install is about 850 MB and XP with Media Player 10 is about 1.7 GB. The XP uses FAR more system memory and resources, even after I put in a real firewall on Win2k, mainly because XP has far more processes running in the background.

When I use FDV fileset and nLite on Win2k and nLite on XP to rip out all the junk, Win2k still runs leaner and faster.

Edited by saugatak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When ever I attempted anything even somewhat resource intensive, the system would be pretty fast to sh*t on itself.

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?

Windows 9X is junk for resource intesnive tasks and multi tasking period.
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.
After 3 weeks of uptime on my main machine I decided to take the test and see how many IEs I could open simultaneously. After opening 43 instances of IE it gave me an "Insufficient memory to run program" error. I managed to open another 7 notepads before it wouldn't let me go any further. At this point, the OS is surprisingly still usable - I could still browse through files in an Explorer window (of which I could open 5 before it complained) and everything appears to be functioning fine. Take a look at the system properties - 0% resources free: :yes:

0res1xh.gif

After I closed all the running processes leaving explorer and systray, resources free immediately went back up to 83%. Everything is still working perfectly, and in fact this post I'm writing is on the machine that I tested with. :thumbup

So, the claim that Windows 98se cannot handle large resource usages has been disproved. I might try this out with the XP on this same machine. :P

Edited by LLXX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does Microsoft want to completely get rid of Windows 9X based operating systems and pretend they never existed? Why are they ok with previous versions of the Windows NT family like Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) and Windows NT 4.0? But they aren't ok with the previous versions of the different OS heritage in Windows 9X? Why is that?

Commercial and psychological reasons, to begin with

One of those reasons is that Win9x was cheaper, but nevertheless

full-featured enough for most people, which is why Microsoft had

such a difficult time to trick people onto the NT bandwagon... until...

Microsoft cleverly decided to cease further development of the 9x line.

It's much like the termination of MS-DOS as a standalone product,

forcing people to buy the Win9x or move to other vendors' operating

systems, plagued with various degrees of compatibility problems as a

result of MS' anti-competitive business practices.

Another major reason is the greater simplicity of maintaining the

NT series, reducing the cost of adding more bloat to it. More

specifically:

  1. Out of DOS, Win9x and NT, that last is the only one written almost
    entirely in a high-level language - namely C++ - whereas in particular
    the kernel and device driver source code of DOS and Win9x consists
    primarily of assembly language, the mere mention of which instills
    great fear into those unfamiliar with it.
  2. Roughly speaking, DOS and Win9x were developed in response to
    market demands, in an incremental and evolutionary manner and with
    a great deal of attention to compatibility with existing software (*).
    The requirements of existing hardware, software, interfaces, standards,
    conventions, etc. inevitably demands far greater care and attention
    from software developers than does experimental and "toy" software.
    NT was written from scratch guided by the whims of operating system
    design enthusiasts and purists. That's why it took such as long time
    and so much marketing effort for NT to catch up with reality

Major psychological for Microsoft's desire to go NT-only include (but

aren't limited to):

  1. All the prestige MS invested into NT.
  2. The never-ending cheap attacks on MS by the computer
    trade press and armchair operating system designers, relating
    to keywords such as "16-bit", "DOS", "co-operative multi-tasking" (as
    opposed to "pre-emptive" ditto), with the implication that these
    terms were inherently negative. They aren't - nor are they inherently
    positive - which is impossible to grasp for those who see black and
    white only. Nor do these terms have nearly the degree of relevance
    implied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sh!t, when is this war gonna end?

I'm just gonna post my thoughts one more time, then I'm calling it quits for this thread:

Windows 98SE USP2.1a and all updates is IMO just (if not more) stable than an XP computer. Windows 98 is also much faster than XP, which just seems to crawl at the same speed the whole time you use it. Win9x is lighter on resources and runs a hell of a lot faster. I really don't care about crashes that much becasue once I've updated Windows 98SE enough, it never crashes for me. Win2k and XP seem to freeze up and crash whenever THINGS just aren't working out (in my experience, a crappily made driver seems to do just the trick.) Again, this is just my opinion on the subject.

To the average consumer, they don't even realize that they're using NT instead of a DOS based OS. NT made it to the home market to become a more stable and reliable OS. But guess what? Any consumer that I talk to (such as my grandfather, brother, dad) says that all of the OS's are exactly the same in quality and stability. The NT series is more stable, of course, but now the OS's have got massive spyware and adware issues, making them just as unreliable as a win9x computer.

these are my closing words on the subject, now someone, PLEASE lock this thread up... everyone has gotten their word out... especially Link21. good night, i'm gonna go pass out, i'm too wasted to type now.............

Edited by Jlo555
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. Windows 98 does support ACPI. And there are security updates. Probably just another troll promoting Windows XP. :realmad:

WIndows 98's support for ACPI is very limited, and security updates will be up soon as Microsoft only publishes them for two years after entering the extended support phase.

> Poor network and TCP stack.

Actually, there are in fact cases where 9x networking is vastly superior to 2K and XP.

For example, I always install a HOSTS file; my current HOSTS blocks 110,000+ malware, spyware, advertising, and porn sites. In 98 SE and Linux, this HOSTS file incurs no noticable burden; but on a fully patched 2K and XP, the unbelievably inefficient DNS service (hardly an optional service) consumes 100% CPU resources for over 10 minutes (on a 3+ GHz processor) to process this HOSTS file. The processing occurs invariably occurs at boot time (preventing log on for 10 minutes) as well as whenever the HOSTS file changes (interrrupting network access and consuming CPU resources) or when the DNS service is restarted.

Also, in many core XP executables such as SVCHOST.EXE frequently and inexplicably "phone home". I believe that XP meets the definitions of spyware and malware (capable of self-destructing your PC). This certainly makes firewall configuration trickier. IMHO the incessant security center complaints and inherent vulnerability of having such a bloated OS make networking an unpleasant experience.

A further advantage to 9x networking is that you can access the Internet and download files from text mode (real mode DOS 7.1), without loading the GUI, using a number of free software programs such as LSPPP and Arachne. I am not aware of anything similar in 2K or XP.

The hosts file is not the correct place to block sites, your firewall should handle that. Regardless, the most likely reason for the delay is not parsing the large hosts file, but attempting to contact some of the sites you have null-routed.

As for the rest of the TCP suite, 98(SE)/ME handles incoming and outgoing data with far higher priority than is necessary, which is evident when transferring large files and attempting to, for example, move windows around..

I have yet to see anything other than the windows update service and root certificate update service attempt to contact microsoft or any other external site without explicitly telling it to do so.

As for accessing the internet from DOS, you could install bartpe on your hard drive, it takes much less time to boot for me (when you have all the drivers integrated correctly, otherwise it can hang for a few moments during device detection) than xp does.

I'm sorry, you're wrong! According to the firewall I have been using, explorer.exe tries to access the internet, even when I'm just searching for files on the HDD!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, you're wrong! According to the firewall I have been using, explorer.exe tries to access the internet, even when I'm just searching for files on the HDD!
I've seen that too. It the search assistant thing. It attempts to connect to a Microsoft-owned IP (sa.windows.com, 207.46.248.249) and most likely send them information regarding your search queries etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I know that I tried to abandon this thread, but I'm actually starting to enjoy all the rants on MS os's.)

ahahaha, now thats funny! hey, Link21, you know that movie you searched for on your hdd a couple months ago, I believe it was "Hot Slippery Sluts Volume 3.avi." Guess what? Now Bill Gates knows what porn you watch!!

Edit: Sorry, I know that was way over the edge, but I just had to say it. I can only imagine why that retarded little search dog (his name's Rover Retriever, right?) would need to access the internet.

On a related topic, I remember reading a couple days ago that the Windows XP built-in backdoor myth had been busted. Maybe it was fixed with service pack 2, but I remember about 2 years ago I did a clean install of WinXP Pro SP1; it had never gone on a network or the internet. I took a port scanner to it, and it found one open port that I found rather interesting. I don't remember the port number, but the description that the port scanner gave said that the open port was a backdoor.

Maybe its just a coincidence....

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...