Why run 98?

[Fredledingue]

Link21

I want OpenSource software to be written for the native Windows 2000/XP only

While you seem so adamant, I'm sure you can give us very interresting informations from your experience and your knowledge on softwares and programing.

-How many computers have you tested by installing w98 then reformating the HD and then installing XP? Which versions of these OS? Which patches or service packs did you add? Please give a detailed sepcification of these machines.

-Which softwares are actualy lacking performance due to w98 compatibility?

-Have you made comparision tests between xp-only and w98 softwares? Which softwares? What were these tests? Please give details.

-Have you talked with developers and asked them about the hurdles of w98 compatible softwares actualy in developement? What did they say in favor of xp-only programs? Who are these developers? On which softwares do they work?

-In program sources to which you had access to, which lines of code have you detected that made possible conflict or lack of performance on XP and that could be rewritten so that the program run better on XP? Did rewriting these lines made the program non compatible with w98? Please post these codes (boxed in between code tags please).

Thanks.

[Link21]

While you seem so adamant, I'm sure you can give us very interresting informations from your experience and your knowledge on softwares and programing.

-How many computers have you tested by installing w98 then reformating the HD and then installing XP? Which versions of these OS? Which patches or service packs did you add? Please give a detailed sepcification of these machines.

-Which softwares are actualy lacking performance due to w98 compatibility?

-Have you made comparision tests between xp-only and w98 softwares? Which softwares? What were these tests? Please give details.

-Have you talked with developers and asked them about the hurdles of w98 compatible softwares actualy in developement? What did they say in favor of xp-only programs? Who are these developers? On which softwares do they work?

-In program sources to which you had access to, which lines of code have you detected that made possible conflict or lack of performance on XP and that could be rewritten so that the program run better on XP? Did rewriting these lines made the program non compatible with w98? Please post these codes (boxed in between code tags please).

Thanks.

I have talked to some expert programmers I know personally. They tell me that performance can and often is better if a program is written specifically for only Windows 2000/XP, especially when the program calls to lower level APIs. I am not going to tell you who they are because that would be giving out personal information. I will not give out anyone's personal information of people I know in my private life on an online chat forums, even in PMs.

The low level APIs of each OS is so different that it would seem like applications would be much better if all applications were written for the NT based OS only. But really, now that I think of it, it probably doesn't matter that much because WIN32 was ported to both platforms designed to be compatible with programs written using the same files and installer. So performance has probably already suffered for the past decade because of Microsoft's domination and porting the same API to two distinctly different operating system platforms. But guess what now. Lets not have Windows 9X stick around any longer and when extremely skilled programmers have the chance to use the known aspects of the native NT API, they should do so.

[Jlo555]

Hey, Link: Your whole life cannot revolve around the "New Technology" (NT) kernel... it is the core of a f***ing operating system created by business man, Bill Gates, among thousands of developers. Why do you care so f***ing much, anyway? Your whole argument has been the same thing: "If support for junker 9x had been dropped long ago, apps today would be much higher quality than they are now." We get the picture... now shut the f*** up, and don't bash Windows 95/98/Me in a Windows 95/98/Me forum. I don't really want to give you ideas, but create a thread in the 2000 or XP forum and rant about how much 9x sucks and how great NT would be if it wasn't for 9x, alright? f*** OFF PLEASE!

EDIT:

Hey Petr, you got the GeForce 6200? Nice... I just go the 6600 AGP 8x and ran San Andreas on that... man it runs like a dream. For a game that was designed for 2000/XP only, the game runs BETTER on 98se than on any NT OS. It hasn't lagged up at all on full graphics and resolution. I gotta try Doom 3 next.

Edited January 31, 2006 by Jlo555

[Link21]

Hey Petr, you got the GeForce 6200? Nice... I just go the 6600 AGP 8x and ran San Andreas on that... man it runs like a dream. For a game that was designed for 2000/XP only, the game runs BETTER on 98se than on any NT OS. It hasn't lagged up at all on full graphics and resolution. I gotta try Doom 3 next.

Try Battlefield 2. I bet it won't run at all on junker Windows 98/ME.

Only in your imagination does GTA: San Andreas run better on 98SE than any NT based OS. AT best, it runs the same. AT worst, it runs a heck of a lot worse!! GTA: San Andreas runs awesome on my stripped down nlited Windows XP system.

Edited January 31, 2006 by Link21

[Link21]

if microsoft hated 9x why add a compatabitity wizard to xp that allows you to run dos programs back to 95 and i bet theres something similar in vista maybe a beta user knowns.nice haircut stink21 did ya pay your mom?

Because Microsoft wants you to be able to run legacy programs on the newer opertaing systems because they want to trash junker Windows 98/ME.

[Jlo555]

Oh, wow, Link, thanks for disregarding that whole post where I bashed the hell out of you. I just went to dictionary.com to define the word "junker" by the way. I was surprised it was a word, but here it is: "Junker n. A member of the Prussian landed aristocracy, a class formerly associated with political reaction and militarism."

Seems this whole time you weren't dissing windows 98 as much as you thought you were. Perhaps you should dive head first into politics instead of technology, lol.

[Link21]

Oh, wow, Link, thanks for disregarding that whole post where I bashed the hell out of you. I just went to dictionary.com to define the word "junker" by the way. I was surprised it was a word, but here it is: "Junker n. A member of the Prussian landed aristocracy, a class formerly associated with political reaction and militarism."

Seems this whole time you weren't dissing windows 98 as much as you thought you were. Perhaps you should dive head first into politics instead of technology, lol.

I refer to junker as a shortened way of saying piece of junk. The bottom line is, Windows 9X is junk compared to other 32-bit operating systems.

Running Windows 98/ME on a relatively modern computer for the sole purpose of running software produced in the last four years would be like using your 25 year old pickup truck that was on its last legs and leaked oil, hogged gas, and ran poorly to two your brand new 40 foot trailer. It may work, but it wouldn't be reliable at all.

[Chozo4]

Running Windows 98/ME on a relatively modern computer for the sole purpose of running software produced in the last four years would be like using your 25 year old pickup truck that was on its last legs and leaked oil, hogged gas, and ran poorly to two your brand new 40 foot trailer. It may work, but it wouldn't be reliable at all.

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.

Edited January 31, 2006 by Chozo4

[Fredledingue]

Link21

They tell me that performance can and often is better if a program is written specifically for only Windows 2000/XP,

-Sure, that's seem obvious, but will a program writen specificaly for XP run faster on XP than a program written for w98 on w98?

-In what the existance of another version of the software, for w98, is making softwares specificaly written for the XP platform have les performance?

-Why do think that developers are still thinking w98-ly while XP is used by more than 90% of their software users? Aren't the developers you talked with already writing XP-only softwares with XP-specific features? If not, why?

-Don't you think that the very OS should first proof its higher performance before hoping that software written only for these OS be also more performant?

[Jlo555]

don't get ahead of yourself, luckily windows xp doesn't control 90% of the software market yet. It is true that about 75% of people use XP right now. I seriously think the only reason that XP ever became so popular was because of the new interface and the publicity. I see nearly 3 windows xp COMMERCIALS per day. That's asbolutely ridiculous.

[kartel]

Hi all, just finished installing a new mobo, pc133 up to ddr400, agp 4x up to 8x, same chip for now 2.0ghz,

all I had to do is load the usb 2.0 drivers and thats it.

from KT133 to KT600 with ZERO hassles, 98se rules !!

[LLXX]

This thread is hilarious.

Oh, wow, Link, thanks for disregarding that whole post where I bashed the hell out of you. I just went to dictionary.com to define the word "junker" by the way. I was surprised it was a word, but here it is: "Junker n. A member of the Prussian landed aristocracy, a class formerly associated with political reaction and militarism."

Seems this whole time you weren't dissing windows 98 as much as you thought you were. Perhaps you should dive head first into politics instead of technology, lol.

I refer to junker as a shortened way of saying piece of junk.

Shortened? Wouldn't that be "jun"?

Running Windows 98/ME on a relatively modern computer for the sole purpose of running software produced in the last four years would be like using your 25 year old pickup truck that was on its last legs and leaked oil, hogged gas, and ran poorly to two your brand new 40 foot trailer. It may work, but it wouldn't be reliable at all.

I know some users here are running 98se so that they can run "software produced in the last four years", but I'm not one of them. I'm running it so I can run almost all software produced in the last twenty years.

...and BTW I have a 47 year-old car that runs perfectly fine, so your analogy is flawed.

If it weren't for the rarity of DOS programs, I'd still be using DOS 6.xx (most likely modified and patched) today. In fact, I still use DOS 7.1 and the command line for doing things that are better done in DOS - e.g. how do you copy all files with the extension *.doc and *.txt to an external USB drive? Two DOS commands copy *.doc e: and copy *.txt e: work perfectly and is much faster than arranging them by extension, selecting them, copying, then pasting. By using 98SE, I'm showing my reluctance to switch to something newer just because Microsoft says so. I switched to Win9x out of necessity. Not because M$ said I have to. I might switch to XP, but that may be a long time in the future... a time I hope will never come

LONG LIVE DOS and WINDOWS 98SE!

[jondercik]

Dont people realize that 9x platforms cant even come close to utilizing all of the power of modern platforms?

Below is a list of unsupported hardware:

Multiple processors

Dual Core processors

Large amounts of memory

Below is a list of software limitations:

No file level permissions.

No security policies.

No non admin users at all. Everyone that logs on can do whatever they want to the system.

@LLXX you can still use those commands in EVERY version of the NT kernel. You are not showing reluctance to switch just because they say so, you are showing that you do not know what you are talking about. DOS WAS a good OS back in the day, but it was not able to do multitasking at all. And all 98SE is is a front end for DOS, it is NOT a 32 bit OS.

And as far as security goes how can you get any less secure than 98SE. Anyone can write a small program that can access any portion of memory that it wants, including the portion used by the kernel. This is not possible easily in NT+. Also there are no more service packs or security updates for 9x, so why would you use something that is inherently insecure?

[wizardofwindows]

Dont people realize that 9x platforms cant even come close to utilizing all of the power of modern platforms?

Below is a list of unsupported hardware:

Multiple processors

Dual Core processors

Large amounts of memory

Below is a list of software limitations:

No file level permissions.

No security policies.

No non admin users at all. Everyone that logs on can do whatever they want to the system.

@LLXX you can still use those commands in EVERY version of the NT kernel. You are not showing reluctance to switch just because they say so, you are showing that you do not know what you are talking about. DOS WAS a good OS back in the day, but it was not able to do multitasking at all. And all 98SE is is a front end for DOS, it is NOT a 32 bit OS.

And as far as security goes how can you get any less secure than 98SE. Anyone can write a small program that can access any portion of memory that it wants, including the portion used by the kernel. This is not possible easily in NT+. Also there are no more service packs or security updates for 9x, so why would you use something that is inherently insecure?

True enough but alot of 98se users are running older pcs not new board that are installed with xp.why would you replace xp installed activated with 98se you wouldnt unless certain situations arise.on the whole the people that do use 98se for simple daily tasks are general home users not coropate users in the office and security is not much conern to my grandmother reading her email or looking up recipes online.Why do people including xp users in which i too am always preach that anything a year old is ancient outdated etc,theres folks running win95 os/2 etc simply because the program that they run work and they need not update for the sake of updating.as time goes by every os becomes harder to maintain etc but not obsolete if your already use it everyday with programs you have.when vista arrives a flock of people will be in here telling xp users what they cant do without vista much like the 98se users did to win95 diehards.So in closing why point out the obivous repeatly,do u think a guy on a p2 really cares about multi procesor or wga etc.no he just want to surf yahoo and read his email play mp3s.

Edited February 1, 2006 by timeless

[jondercik]

I point it out repeatedly because everyone seems to think 9x performs so much better and they forget about many key things.

If I needed to for some weird odd reason to run a program in the 9x environment I would run in it in a VM. I am not saying anything over a year old is ancient, but something that is almost a decade old is. I know I will not be switching to Vista when it comes out. Not enough significant improvements and it is too slow. And I ran it on a high end machine. (Alienware 7700m almost maxed out). Took over an hour to install. XP is the best OS MS ever wrote. Stable and fast. What more can you ask for?