Fredledingue Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 This thread is getting to be just like cigarettes... it's pointless and retarded, but it's gotten very addictiveI must agree with that. That's the most popular topic on msfn. Looks like they don't dare locking them up anymore.
Lunac Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 Jlo555 you said: "A lot of the main points that the pro-NT people are mostly what has made me COMPLETELY switch back to 98se."What points? So far these points can be summed up in "XP r0x0r d00d!!!" and "wIN98 is junker!!!"
Guest Jlo555 Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 Below is a list of unsupported hardware:Multiple processorsDual Core processorsLarge amounts of memoryBelow 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.That post in particular comes to mind. After reading that post the thought came to me that I was using (at the time) an OS (winXP) that had all of those extra features that I never used. Basically I saw no point in upgrading to a newer OS if the old one I had did everything I needed.
kartel Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 EVERY POST WITH ME!CLOSE THIS THREADThis thread is a sore on the face of the forum. arrrrrrggggghhhhhhhhhhh You know, yahoo has a rumor that big font = small p****
LLXX Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 (edited) This has become quite a thread! Over 10000 views!I think this thread is actually beneficial, it's getting normally XP and 2K users to try 98se to see if the "disadvantages" and "inherently insecure" features that Link21 is claiming will manifest themselves, as a few users so far have posted...Keep this thread open! Edited February 3, 2006 by LLXX
Chozo4 Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 (edited) 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.That post in particular comes to mind. After reading that post the thought came to me that I was using (at the time) an OS (winXP) that had all of those extra features that I never used. Basically I saw no point in upgrading to a newer OS if the old one I had did everything I needed.Welcome to the dark side, Jl If you need any of those security features, just use win9x's own Policy Editor "poledit" anyway .http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=60251&st=300#File level permissions = allow/deny method. Only allowed programs can run.Security Policies = Disables many portions of the users ability to use their acct.No Non-admins = cured by editing the default account+users accounts with a policycancel/esc bypass= cured by a registry tweak or two (or using poledit). Require validation. Edited February 3, 2006 by Chozo4
modicr Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 Hello!BTW, here is new version of software that works not only inWindows 95 / Windows 98, but also in Windows 3.1/3.11.http://www.ghisler.com/whatsnew.htmRoman
Guest Jlo555 Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 Heh, I guess it doesn't surprise me that Total Commander would work on Win3.1, I mean, it's basically windows explorer reloaded.I have heard of that registry tweak, Chozo, to force logon to windows, though because I'm on a fresh windows installation, which still hasn't even frozen yet, I don't really wanna mess around with regedit right now. Perhaps in the future...
somewan Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Dont people realize that 9x platforms cant even come close to utilizing all of the power of modern platforms?I think everyone who has used 9x recently on a "modern platform"has noticed that it was designed for older hardware - either thesystem runs surprisingly fast, or drivers for some hardware arenowhere to be found. Such findings are not unusual for oldersystems.Below is a list of unsupported hardware:Multiple processorsDual Core processorsMuli-processor PCs were extremely rare at the time Windows/386 wasdesigned, and multi-processor support in a kernel has a rather highcost in terms of complexity and resource consumption. That's whyreasonable MP support wasn't introduced into any of the Linux,FreeBSD or NetBSD x86 kernels until fairly recently, and can stillbe disabled at build-time. An additional reason why MP was neverintroduced into the Win/386 series is commercial: MS would ratherhave you "upgrade" to NT Workstation (2 CPU) or ideally NTServer (2+ CPU) or their modern equivalents. (Multi-core x86CPUs is a kind of multi-processing that postdates even WinMe,and thus not worth addressing separately.)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.You are comparing totally different categories of operating systems -apples and oranges, as they say.The real-mode, 16-bit protected mode (286+) and 386-enhanced versionsof Windows were designed for single-user systems, and thus all of theabove were not worth the cost of implementation.The NT project did have multi-user ambitions, and although fullsupport was present in the kernel, it has always been used in a verylimited manner in practice. (For comparison, a typical use of thesame feature in more serious server operating systems - like VMS orUnix - is to support multiple users logged in via serial lines or thenetwork and running interactive commands.)DOS WAS a good OS back in the day, but it was not able to domultitasking at all.DOS offers no general purpose multi-tasking, but does provide theconcept of separate processes with unique IDs (PIDs) that the DOSkernel uses to track resource allocations (such as file handles andmemory blocks), which is one prerequisite for multi-tasking. What itdoesn't implement is automatic context switching and time-slicing.Nevertheless, background processes (device drivers and TSR programs)have always been common.And all 98SE is is a front end for DOS, it is NOT a 32 bit OS.386 enhanced versions of Windows have always been more than front-ends to DOS. They all build upon a modular 32-bit pre-emptive multi-tasking kernel known as the VMM. The reason why it is oftenoverlooked is that implementations prior to that of Win95 multi-tasked virtual machines only, and since all Windows tasks run inthe same VM (every DOS box is a separate one), they didn't benefitfrom the VMM's time-slice scheduler.The Win16 subsystem (KRNL386) wss the provider of the infamousco-operative multi-tasking - it's a 16-bit protected mode (DPMI)DOS "shell" that implements the Windows operating environment -but it's was never the operating system.Since Win95, the VMM supports multi-threading, and the thread controlblock (THCB) has become the primary data structure for multi-tasking.The Win32 subsystem makes the most extensive use of the facility, toimplement pre-emptive multi-tasking for Win32 apps. Anothermult-tasking improvement of Win95 was separate event queues for eachtask.As to reliance on DOS, it's mostly a matter of whether the rightdrivers are installed. If not, Win9x will use BIOS and DOSservices - faced with that situation NT/2K/XP or Linux/ BSD wouldfail to boot. Such flexibility make the system much more faulttolerant, and is the means through which "safe mode" can get theGUI loaded under conditions far beyond the point where you wouldhave re-installed NT.Some may regard the fact that Win9x bootstraps via DOS a weakness,but it isn't - on the contrary! No other operating system has suchan powerful bootstrap loader - a fully usable operating system in itsown right at little extra cost. Among other benefits, DOS servicesallows the VMM to load kernel modules and configuration files fromthe file system - and indeed, LKMs was a core feature of the VMMyears before its appearance in more advanced operating systems -systems that still have to catch up fully.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 memorythat it wants, including the portion used by the kernel. This is not possibleeasily in NT+.Yes, especially the NT series is so obsessed with it's own principlesand integrity that it obstructs even the superuser, and you may haveto write a small device driver to cut through the crap - somewhatmore complex and definitely more prone to hanging the system than a"regular" program. At times, the same procedure is necessary on theUnix systems, but under DOS or VMM-based Windows you always haveoptions, making those platforms ideal for testing special kindsof software. When they crash, they are up an running again in afraction of the time of NT.No operating system is perfect, complete or appropriate forall imaginable purposes - not even Win9x or DOS. They do, however,provide unique features not found in any of the systems suggestedor marketed as "upgrade" paths. That's why they stick around.Incidentally, those features are oftem more or less exactly theones NT fans love to ridicule, perhaps only to divert attentionfrom the role of the NT series, which seems rather unclear (exceptfrom Microsoft's point of view). Which NT features lack superioror more cost-effective equivalents (or both) in other operatingsystems?For all uses where high reliability, security and/or multi-userfeatures are desired, I use (and always have used) one of the opensource Unix-like operating systems.It seems that almost all great designs are ones characterised bya common theme of modest (but useful) beginnings, validationthrough a long period of incremental improvement, reaching heightsbeyond what could be imagined or hoped for in early stages. Unixis an excellent example - so are the IBM PC, DOS, and both the"DOS shell" and kernel parts of classic Windows."Revolutionary" designs tend to face uphill battles - Intel'sItanium architecture predated AMD64, only to be quickly surpassedby it, leaving Intel with no other option but to clone it. NT'sshare of the desktop market remained small as long as the moresensible Windows designs were kept up to date. The history isfull of such examples.
somewan Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Heh, I guess it doesn't surprise me that Total Commander would work on Win3.1, I mean, it's basically windows explorer reloaded.I have heard of that registry tweak, Chozo, to force logon to windows, though because I'm on a fresh windows installation, which still hasn't even frozen yet, I don't really wanna mess around with regedit right now. Perhaps in the future...Remember Microsoft's free "Win32s" add-on for Windows 3.1?
hougtimo Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Q: Why run 98?A: So you can upgrade to Windows 2000 Cheaper! THIS ISNT MEANT TO BE A JOKE
modicr Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Hello!Remember Microsoft's free "Win32s" add-on for Windows 3.1?Of course: http://stephan.win31.de/w32slist.htmI needed it for running Derive 4 in Windows 3.11:http://www.chartwellyorke.com/dfwsysrq.htmlAlso Freecell was included with it!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell#HistoryCheers, RomanP.S. Why there is no "Windows 3.1/3.11" discussion forum on MSFN?
os2fan2 Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 Total Commander is compiled into separate Win16 and Win32 versions. The win16 stuff is still maintained.
rayden Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 Windows 98/ME is not good OS. Tell me why it installs ot Celeron 300 MHz with 32MB RAM for the same time as a Pentium D 820 with 2x512 MB DDR-2 667 MHz RAM?? Is this NORMAL? 98 should be dead a long time ago (when XP came IMO). Sorry for my bad lang.
LLXX Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 Windows 98/ME is not good OS. Tell me why it installs ot Celeron 300 MHz with 32MB RAM for the same time as a Pentium D 820 with 2x512 MB DDR-2 667 MHz RAM?? Is this NORMAL? 98 should be dead a long time ago (when XP came IMO). Sorry for my bad lang. So you think an OS should always consume most of the available resources?
Recommended Posts