Why run 98?

[wizardofwindows]

Xp is a stable good os no doubt and i too wouldnt be running vista just for the eye candy xprize etc can allow me to make xp look like vista anyway and 98se came out in 99 xp in 2001 and age is relative because the thing that dictates change is when were forced too eg.msn 7.5 google earth etc designed to run on nt only it can run on 9x if they wanted it too but you gotta sell oses so we lose out with every new os.third party apps help but people want what their friends have eg.i run 98se i want to install msn 7.5 so ill use trillium or gaim or miranda but their teasing me cause i can send winks smilies etc yet i can send text,what do you do many will upgrade just over one application.Where does it end?even thou theres a thousand sites offering pirated xpsp2 when you want to run eg.ie7beta 2 u can,t pass validation so your beat.i dont encourage using wares or do i agree with wga but were being railroaded into paying for new oses just to use appilication we dont really need. Edited February 1, 2006 by timeless

[miko]

jondercik, it has been said, more than a few times, that most people here understand the limits of the 9X OSs fully, in some cases more so than those now using XP because we are pushing up against them.

its also been said, in the cases of of most of the points you cover that they're not really relavent to the majority of people who come here.

this is a windows 9X support forum, people who come here have already made their choice, the phrase 'use XP' is an anathema (as i've said before), either because of prohibitive cost of upgrade in terms of software or hardware, or because what they have does all they need.

there are a few (zealots i lovingly call em) who think that 98SE (or even Me) is the greatest thing ever produced, and thats fine because you actually need a few people like that in a forum to keep it ticking (like say someone on a Q3 forums who might espouse it as the greatest game ever)

this forum sticks out on this site i think, because there seem to be a lot of system admins and IT people around (+ gamers) who love to have the latest/fastest/ etc thing out.

but not everyone is like that.

but i'm 35, i have no need of an alienware PC (if you'll excuse the reference) i don't want to play the latest games or run the latest apps. most of the software i do have (and make use of) i have no want to re-buy for another OS. if i could get away with it, i'd never buy another PC. it's just not that important to me.

many others feel the same.

but like i said we don't really fit in around the IT people, system admins and gamers.

whats annoying (to some) and the reason there are 30 pages of posts in this thread is the constant bashing of our chosen OS inside its support forum, by someone (not you) who it's becoming increasingly obvious has some kind of mental problem.

as was said by another poster there are better places to discuss the merits of different OSs on this site (like perhaps 'General Discussion' or the 'Software Hangout'), than inside a support forum for the OS some people (not you) are determined to slate. the simple fact is, pop up here and say 9X is a POS, and virtually the whole forum will come back with 'oh no it isn't, i use it and its fine' i really don't know what people expect other than that.

if there were any decent mods around the topic would be closed (as has been begged for repeatedly by some members here) or moved, but i'm beginning to realise there possibly aren't.

Edited February 1, 2006 by miko

[modernponderer]

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.

No. It's because WinXP is the very first and only stable, reliable, secure, and compatible system. Period. B)

It controls over 90% of the market.

Edited February 1, 2006 by andy_tek

[Petr]

It controls over 90% of the market.

I don't know how it is in your country, according to this statistics it is 77% in average.

http://www.toplist.cz/global.html

Petr

[Fredledingue]

jondercik

Below is a list of unsupported hardware:

Multiple processors

Dual Core processors

Large amounts of memory

I agree, except for the "large amount of memory. With SP2 Some poeple here went up to 2 Gb, and 1 GB is proven now.

As for dual core and multiple processors, it's true w98 will never support them. That doesn't make XP a good OS.

XP is perfect for corporate environement where computers are remotely managed by professionals and where employees doesn't have any knowledge in computering. In this case XP is far supperior to w98.

But for a home users and those geeks who like looking a little bit under the hood, XP is a real nuisance. XP is proven slowlier than w98 by a large margin, XP installation by defaut is a monster, managing services require an computer science degree just as if home users were denied the right to configurate themselves their own PC, in fact XP is totaly opposed to the do-it-yourself choose-it-yourself flexibility, using XP without a firewall is suicide but you have to disable your firewall for many applications anyway, etc

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.

All these are related to multiusers usage, and has little use at home. If I realy need to block some files there are several freewares to do that. If it's my computer, I wouldn't like the idea to give a password to be allowed in.

You can say that even at home password may be useful, but at some point, you always need some other's password to find a document, open a program you can't find in your config etc...

But as I said above, in case of several poeple who may not trust each others has to share the same machine, XP is better.

It's so true that you can't compare w98 with XP. The evolution from w98FE to w98SE-uSP2 is as big if not bigger than that of w2000 to XP.

but w98 is the last Windows OS that is not network-based. In fact there is nothing after w98. XP is a totaly different thing.

And look, now you are saying "I won't use Vista, it's too slow, too resource greedy", but in one year you will look like the w98 retards that we are. I can already hear "drop this XP piece of junk, use Vista!"

Edited February 1, 2006 by Fredledingue

[Link21]

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?

AMEN!! Couldn't have said it any better!! Come over to http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=44398&st=100. This poll needs your help. Lets make sure Windows 98/ME are trashed already. People can use what they want, but all new software and hardware should have trashed support for them at least two years ago!!

[Fredledingue]

Petr,

Is it for czechia or for the whole world?

My guess is that in the US XP is at 90%.

IMO if XP is so popular, it's because almost every PC is sold with XP pre-installed. So poeple think XP is so great and so stable because they compare XP on a new computer with w98 on the old computer.

I'm sure none of the w98 basher has tried this OS on a machine less than 5 years old.

[Lunac]

Multiple processors

Irrelevant to 95%+ users. I don't intend to run an industrial strength web server, or decode the chimpanzee genome any time soon. I have and continue to run a home web server that can handle light-to-moderate traffic, and run some seriously CPU/RAM intensive applications. My single CPU, along Win98SE handles it all just fine.

Dual Core processors

Absolute non issue. My 2-3 year old system can pretty much run anything. (Although this is probably do to the fact that the entire IT realm has slowed down to a crawl, regressed even. I mean SLI?! What is this, 1997? SLI is a pretty good indicator of what is considered "innovation" today.)

Large amounts of memory

I have 1GB or ram. That is a pretty large amount of memory I think. No problems under Win98SE.

No file level permissions.

If you want security, you might skip all Microsoft operating systems altogether. Regardless, whatever "security" features are found in NT, they are simply laughable and easily bypassed.

No security policies.

See above.

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

See above.

[Fredledingue]

Also there are no more service packs or security updates for 9x, so why would you use something that is inherently insecure?

So why is it considered as suicide to connect an XP machine to the internet without a firewall, while I never caught a virus in years with w98? Sometimes I even wonder if I realy need an antivirus at all despite the wide range of websites we are visiting...

So security updates for w98? Why? Do you XP users need some by any chance? ROTFLMAO!

Link21, you are a maniac!

[Link21]

And look, now you are saying "I won't use Vista, it's too slow, too resource greedy", but in one year you will look like the w98 retards that we are. I can already hear "drop this XP piece of junk, use Vista!"

HECK NO!! You WON'T here me saying that because I still respect Windows XP and think it is good OS. Do you here me saying "drop this 2000 piece of junk, use XP"?? NO because I think Windows 2000 is still a good OS!! It is Windows 9X that is a piece of junk!! WIndows 9X inclduing 98 uSP2 or not, sucks compared to the NT flavors of Windows and Linux. ENough said.

If Windows 2000 was unsupported very fast after Windows XP first came out, people using it would have a right to complain because Windows 2000 was still a very good OS. However, anyone running Windows 98/ME who insisted they should be able to continue and use them on the latest hardware for the latest softwrae right after Windows XP came out had NO right to complain about them not being supported because Windows 98/ME were POS operating systems!! They should have been forced to upgrade to at least Windows 2000, or be stuck with the only option of using Windows 98/ME for running old software on their older hardware until they were willing to use Windows 2000 or XP.

However, Windows XP and even 2000 still should and deserved be supported for a long long time after Vista is released because Windows 2000/XP are still good operating systems!!!

Edited February 1, 2006 by Link21

[miko]

Windows XP support was recently extended because it would have ended before Vista was released.

& MS doesn't care what something deserves, only about how quickly it can force repurchasing of its core suite of products to generate more revenue (in a near continuous stream).

[Chozo4]

AMEN!! Couldn't have said it any better!! Come over to http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=44398&st=100. This poll needs your help. Lets make sure Windows 98/ME are trashed already. People can use what they want, but all new software and hardware should have trashed support for them at least two years ago!!

Strange , either that link is rigged or something was screwed up with my forum session. Clicked the link but it indicated "You have already voted". Never made a vote to a single poll in this forum since I joined it.

Well well well, looks like win98 still wins in that poll despite that my vote was rigged.

Edited February 1, 2006 by Chozo4

[Guest Jlo555]

Ahahaha, that's awesome... Link 21 rigged his own poll... in everyone ELSES favor. That made my day.

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.

Below is a list of my responses to the first section:

I only gots one AMD Athlon XP, and I plan on sticking with one for a long, long time

I don't use dual core processors

I got one gig, anyone who needs more is a greedy bastard

Below is a list of my responses to the second section:

Most of my family doesn't even know how to access the C:\ drive

See above response

GOOD, I hate seeing the message "You do not have sufficient priviliges" or some crap whenever I try to change something on my computer. My comp is a single user pc, I really just don't care.

[RJARRRPCGP]

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?

AMEN!! Couldn't have said it any better!! Come over to http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=44398&st=100. This poll needs your help. Lets make sure Windows 98/ME are trashed already. People can use what they want, but all new software and hardware should have trashed support for them at least two years ago!!

Go ahead and trash it, because that won't do you much good! Not everyone can afford Windows XP and activation can suck! Also, not everyone has Opterons than can OC to like 3.5 ghz.

[Chozo4]

Actually... there are policies in windows 98.

Using PolEdit.exe:

http://www.zisman.ca/poledit/

You can press ESC to bypass the userlogin and gain access to the system. There is a registry tweak to bypass/disable the ESC-Key/Cancel workaround.

found here http://www.petri.co.il/require_windows_98_..._the_domain.htm

Edited February 2, 2006 by Chozo4