Why run 98?

[Link21]

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.

You don't have to use activation to use Windows XP. That is what the corporate edition is for. Also, there are easy ways around the activation, but such discussion is not allowed in these forums.

[Jlo555]

Ahh, yes, the corporate versions. I got me one of those from a well known P2P network a couple years ago. I thought I had completely dodged activation so I could use XP Pro on my laptop, but no no. As soon as microsoft inflicted the Genuine Advantage Tool, Mr. Gates found out my OS wasn't all "legit" and suddenly I couldn't get anymore updates. You know what they say: "Putting a non-updated XP box on the internet is like committing OS suicide." That's about when I shattered the XP Pro cd and ran screaming back to my win2k and 98se boxes. (I have since then got a legitimate copy of XP Pro, which I still don't have on any of my computers, because I'm too lazy to install it and I just plain don't like it.)

[Chozo4]

I thought I had completely dodged activation so I could use XP Pro on my laptop

*Listens to the unified chant of the Activation-key in a crowded room of techs.*

[miko]

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.

You don't have to use activation to use Windows XP. That is what the corporate edition is for. Also, there are easy ways around the activation, but such discussion is not allowed in these forums.

so we have to compromise our morality to get the best out an OS now ?

Corporate Edition doesn't actually exist, it's volume-licensed copies of Windows XP Professional, i doubt you have a legitimate volume-licensed copy nor could many of us legitimately attain one.

what your talking about (tempered by experience methinks) is a pirated OS.

and if so your espousing the virtues of something you don't even pay for ?

that's just great, that is.

now i fully understand why you don't see costs as prohibitive.

Edited February 2, 2006 by miko

[Link21]

Ahh, yes, the corporate versions. I got me one of those from a well known P2P network a couple years ago. I thought I had completely dodged activation so I could use XP Pro on my laptop, but no no. As soon as microsoft inflicted the Genuine Advantage Tool, Mr. Gates found out my OS wasn't all "legit" and suddenly I couldn't get anymore updates. You know what they say: "Putting a non-updated XP box on the internet is like committing OS suicide." That's about when I shattered the XP Pro cd and ran screaming back to my win2k and 98se boxes. (I have since then got a legitimate copy of XP Pro, which I still don't have on any of my computers, because I'm too lazy to install it and I just plain don't like it.)

You don't have to use WGA to get updates. There are alternative sources to download updates from. Also, WGA isn't required for the security updates. I make sure I slipstream all the updates on my installation disc before I install Windows XP. Also, if you are behind a hardware firewall, you don't have to worry about these things on a clean install when connected to the Internet.

I don't use Windows Update, even though I have a legit corporate version of Windows XP Pro which I am entitled to from where I work. I don't use it simply because I don't trust Microsoft very much. I manually download all of my updates and install them. I also strip out the vulnerable components from XP with my nlite.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Link21

[wizardofwindows]

theres only one way to beat activation and that my friends is a geniune pay for xp pro cd,no matter how many cracks etc you run bill always one step ahead.Rather clever of him lol.So you can pay or run 98se or 2000 and be mighty gratefull for the continued work of such unsung heros as gapes and mdgx and others for keeping 98se up too par in 2006. Edited February 2, 2006 by timeless

[Link21]

so we have to compromise our morality to get the best out an OS now ?

Corporate Edition doesn't actually exist, it's volume-licensed copies of Windows XP Professional, i doubt you have a legitimate volume-licensed copy nor could many of us legitimately attain one.

what your talking about (tempered by experience methinks) is a pirated OS.

and if so your espousing the virtues of something you don't even pay for ?

that's just great, that is.

now i fully understand why you don't see costs as prohibitive.

Compromise morals? There are legit ways to avoid activation. You can also buy Windows 2000 and use it. It isn't that much anymore. You can legally buy Windows XP and crack the activation, as long as you don't install it on more than one computer. You are licensed to use it one computer, so it shouldn't matter if you crack the activation or not, as long as you only install it on a single computer.

[Link21]

so we have to compromise our morality to get the best out an OS now ?

Corporate Edition doesn't actually exist, it's volume-licensed copies of Windows XP Professional, i doubt you have a legitimate volume-licensed copy nor could many of us legitimately attain one.

what your talking about (tempered by experience methinks) is a pirated OS.

and if so your espousing the virtues of something you don't even pay for ?

that's just great, that is.

now i fully understand why you don't see costs as prohibitive.

You are crazy. You all of a sudden jump to the conclusion that someone who is using a corporate edition must be pirating it? You are crazy!!! There are legal ways to get it. I so happen to be entitled to a free, yes legal copy from where I work.

You can also legally buy Windows XP and bypass the activation. You still payed for the license, and as long as you don't install it on more than one PC, you can crack the activation without comprimising your morals. It is a pirated copy only if it is not a valid licensed copied. A valid licensed WIndows XP and cracking it just to avoid stupid PIA activation does not automatiucally mean it is pirated. If you copy that same license to multiple PCs without obtaining a legal license for each new PC you install it on, then it is pirated.

It is one thing not to be able to afford to upgrade your OS, but if you can't afford to pay for an inexpensive upgrade to XP or 2000, you also can't afford to upgrade your hardware much at all if ever. So you can easily use Windows 2000 or XP on newer hardware upgraded once in a while without compromising your morals because Windows 2000 or XP are not that expensive to buy legit online. A decent piece of hardware such as a video card, motherboard, or RAM is almost always more expensive than the cost of XP Home or a 2000 Pro upgrade OS.

Look over here: http://www.9software.com/Windows_2000_Prof....htm&Click=5673

WIndows 2000 Pro upgrade is only $84.00. Anyone who can afford to upgrade hardware every now, even to just Athlon Xp, Sempron CPUs and only 512MB of RAM, can eaisly afford to upgrade to at least a decent OS.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Link21

[miko]

I'll say it again, not that it'll make much difference with that selective reading/hearing thing you have going on, Corporate Edition doesn't exist, there's no such issue of XP.

type it (Windows XP Corporate Edition) into Google and all you'll get is warez hits,

if it was legitimate you'd get a Microsoft page straight up.

type it into the search @ Microsoft.com and you'll get no hits (except ones related to the individual words).

it's a moniker that comes almost solely from the warez release.

so you see, you can't have a copy of 'Corporate Edition' (as you suspiciously keep referring to it as) from your work because, as i said, it simply does not exist.

and as for your 84 bucks, you'd be hard pushed to find a copy of Win2k where i live now, most US retailers don't ship abroad, certainly not the cheap ones, and when it was available here it cost more than XP Pro (which btw is £293.97 ($521) for full and £152.73 ($271) upgrade with XP Home coming in @ £149.98 ($266) for full and £88.92 ($157) for upgrade)

i spend £20-£30 on feeding myself for a fortnight to give you some perspective, and my new system core (3000+ SoA Sempron 512KB Cache Barton/ASRock K7VT4A Pro/512MB Crucial DDR333) purchased just recently cost less than £100.

and why would i buy an OS i don't want, that'll likely require me to upgrade most of my big apps (incurring more £), is dead already (mainstream support ended on 30/06/2005) and will be totally dead in four years time (extended support ends 30/06/2010) when btw i fully intend to be using exactly the same rig and apps, games and browser etc i have full use of now ?

don't answer that btw. i've been hearing your reply for 33 pages now and believe me i've heard more than enough.

PS. all quoted prices taken tonight from dabs.com one of the UKs best (and lowest priced) online retailers.

Edited February 2, 2006 by miko

[somewan]

WIndows 2000 Pro upgrade is only $84.00. Anyone who can afford to upgrade hardware every now, even to just Athlon Xp, Sempron CPUs and only 512MB of RAM, can eaisly afford to upgrade to at least a decent OS.

That goes without saying, considering all the freely

downloadable operating system available today, but

as far as the Windows series is concerned, anyone

who has Win98SE has the crown jewel of the family,

and would hardly find any use for Win2K upgrade.

[Lunac]

Inexpensive? Link21, how in the world can you know what is inexpensive or expensive for somebody? I mean that is so incredibly ignorant of reality. Let me guess, you are a teenager?

Telling somebody what is expensive or not, sounds very snobbish or something somebody very young and sheltered would say.

I get an impression from you that if somebody dosen't spend tons of money on upgrades, regularly, then they are "crazy" as you put it.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Lunac

[Jlo555]

hey hey hey, don't make generalizations like that, I'm 17 and I'm fighting for windows 98 support to the DEATH! Ok, maybe that's a little extreme, but you get the idea. You don't have to be a young snob to be an upgrade-nazi, that's for sure. I'm actually taking what people have said in this thread into account: People keep saying that a lot of us are satisfied with our computer power and software and don't want to upgrade anymore. I fully support that statement. Though I realize that certain people participating in this forum demand to upgrade to the latest and greatest, flushing the old sh!t down the toilet!

Edited February 2, 2006 by Jlo555

[Petr]

Is it for czechia or for the whole world?

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

This is for Czechia only, I know for sure that there are similar statistics for USA but I don't remember where.

Petr

[LLXX]

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.

1. I don't need more than one processor. The 4.17GHz Pentium IV (overclocked) I'm using right now is much more than "very sufficient" to run the OS and the programs I have.

2. Nor do I need one CPU that pretends to be two.

3. I have successfully run 2Gb of memory. I am still awaiting a third 1Gb stick so I can test 3Gb. Not that I need that much anyway, since 512Mb is currently what I'm using and it's perfect.

4. Adds extra bloat to the filesystem and is unnecessary for a single-user machine.

5. Security is unimportant for a single-user machine.

6. See #4 and #5.

If you want multiuser, run a Client e.g. Novell Netware and a dedicated Server. That is *designed* for multiuser.

The NT series were originally designed for *server* applications. That is why they have much unnecessary features that really do not apply to the context of a client. They are essentially server OSs.

@LLXX you can still use those commands in EVERY version of the NT kernel.

Explain how I can boot an NT kernel from a floppy and use a command prompt, then run WIN.COM to load the GUI from the hard drive, when the NTLDR itself is larger than the entire DOS 7.10 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.

You do not know what you're talking about. I've been writing system-level code ever since the mid 1980s. I've read most of the series of Intel x86 and IA-32 Technical References. I've memorised most of the DOS kernel21 calls. I know PC hardware and software much more than many users here. DOS was a good OS and it still is. Thousands of embedded 86+ systems still use it due to its versatility and simplicity combined with low system requirements. It's been around for a long time, so it's become a very mature OS. Just compare the number of "service packs" and "patches" that were released in the DOS times (0) with those of Windows (hundreds). DOS was developed nearly perfectly before its release. When it was released, it was already nearly completely free of any bugs. Now, especially with 2K and XP, Microsoft coding standards have dropped horribly. They have to "correct" bugs in their code that should've been corrected before it was even released.

DOS *can* do multitasking with appropriate software, e.g. Desqview, DOS SHELL SWAPPER, and DOS+MTX.

DOS 7.10 is actually a 32-bit OS. You don't believe? Just try running it on a 286 - it won't work. It needs at least a 386. Same goes for Windows. If it was not 32-bit it would've run on a 286 (16-bit PM) and had a 16M physical memory limitation (24-bit address). In fact, Windows 3.11 was already 32-bit, else how can you explain why it supports up to 256MB of RAM?

The 9x systems are certainly built on the DOS kernal. It's a 32-bit protected-mode GUI on top of a 32-bit real-mode kernel. That is what blesses 9x systems with their generous backward compatibility, flexibility, and versatility.

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?

Not exactly. In 9x systems, the "kernel" proper is the Virtual Machine Manager (VMM), while "system" DLLs such as kernel32.dll are actually at ring3. Being able to read/write to kernel32.dll's memory space is actually reading/writing to usermode. The VMM32's own memory space is protected from writing but readable - if you attempt to write to it without setting the correct page access rights, the "Access Violation" error is trapped by the OS. Also, being able to read/write to the "user-kernel" is a virtue of flexibility, as it enables extensions and patches to be easily applied to the kernel.

98se does not need security updates, not even a virgin install. A virgin install of XP is much more vulnerable to remote exploitation. A virgin install cannot be exploited remotely because it simply does not have the in-built network services that NT series have. If you install a trojan or virus, that's error of the user, not the OS. Remember the WMF vulnerability a few weeks back? All the NT-series were vulnerable to the exploit simply by visiting a web page, while all of us that used 98se stayed completely immune. On my system, I even downloaded an infected WMF file from a website that was listed as being dangerous and prohibited from visiting. Attempting to open it had no effect at all, whereas if I was on 2K or XP the mere act of visiting the site would've triggered an automatic execution even with a secured Internet Explorer. What's more "inherently insecure"? That is a rhetorical question.

Edited February 2, 2006 by LLXX

[muchlux]

I'll say it again, not that it'll make much difference with that selective reading/hearing thing you have going on, Corporate Edition doesn't exist, there's no such issue of XP.

Of course this exists,

or do you think we have manually installed and activated hundreds of XP licences in our company???

See Microsoft " Volume License Product Key "