Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

Why run 98?


colemancb
 Share

Recommended Posts

i use win98se because it had a half-decent dos with lfn support.

in any case, if you use windows, you are using tomorrow's legacy system. all windows have a shelf life that ends on general availability. saves support cost.

W

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Oh yeah, I forgot about mentioning san andreas in my post before. Yeah, the people at rockstar games are morons; if they wanted to make their game for only 2000/XP, they should've put an OS check on the installer. But the fact is, the game DOES run perfectly, DEPENDING ON YOUR CONFIGURATION. I was using an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro for san andreas, which i accidently destroyed, while trying to replace a heatsink (don't ask about it... its a touchy subject cause I broke $200 worth of computer hardware.) So, yeah, now I'm using an nVidia GeForce4 MX 4000, which, on win2000/XP san andreas runs fine, but on 98SE... LAGGY LAGGY LAGGY. Oh, and I ran into the notorious "sound problems" on all of the operating systems at least once. I love the game, but I hate rockstar now. (I know this is off the subject, but I had to get it off my chest somehow!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kartel: Anyway I apologise if offended anyone

Don't mind me kartel - no offense taken here. (Us bitter old Amigos don't get offended, we just get loud and obnoxious :))

Jlo555: don't ask about it...

Off-topic: C'mon! I'll show ya mine if you show me yours! :D (Ignored a semi-functional fan for so long that I killed my old gfx card; was so eager to play more DiabloII that I forgot to power down before trying to fit it's replacement... Pop! BEEP-BEEP-BEEP-BEEP... $400 :wacko:)

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$400? Wow, that sucks. Well, I noticed the fan had been dying periodically, so decided to just go and replace the whole heatsink. Well, I could NOT figure out how to take off the old heatsink. I googled how to pull off the old heatsink, and after 20 minutes of pulling, shoving and yanking plastic pins, I got the thing off. I put the new one on perfectly and put the card back in my computer. I turned on my computer and saw green, red and purple dots floating across the screen, next to a disfigured "window 98" boot logo. The only reaction I had to this was slowly uttering "f***" and pulling the card out and shoving it into a box in my closet. Then, I went to Fry's and bought an nvidia geforce4 mx4000 for $50, and it works pretty **** well (and it has no fan to mysteriously die.)

Edited by Jlo555
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is this... Why use something you don't need? If you only need Win98se to do the stuff you want, why upgrade? I always hop on the new stuff software-wise when it comes out, but with the exception of a couple of programs... I could make do with Win98. Like we tell our customers at the shop, if you don't do anything but card games and email.. there's no need to upgrade. So if you are still doing dos games, why upgrade? Why change anything that still works, for something that may not? L33t1sm is not the way for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$400? Wow, that sucks.
To swing back on topic, it sucked enough to keep my ideas of dual-booting Win98/Win2k from happening... :(
Superlevel wrote: Hey all, I had a lot of troubles with XP being slow and clunky on my sub-par hardware, so I moved to Windows 2000 Professional and it runs like a dream!

You initially suggested Win2k is compatible with all new software and games but I wonder to what extent that's true. I admit to being ignorant on the matter but get the impression that Win2k is neither here nor there in the scheme of things - likely to have incompatibity issues with both Win9x and WinXP software. Have you since come across any newer software that Win2k doesn't handle, or have findings like HighPingDrifter's regarding Win2k's software/hardware compatibility and potential issues?

For example, mjc questions how well 98(SE)/ME functions on PCI express machines - I'm curious to know if Win2k would function any better/worse with that type of hardware.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only things I can think of that Windows 2000 won't run are some of the newest highend games, and of course old software/games designed primarily for Windows 9x/DOS. But, judging from the results I've seen from games like Battlefield 2, the reason that a lot of games say they ONLY run on XP is because they simply haven't been tested on any other OS. In fact, when I went to install the game on Win2k, the installer *said* that the game had only been tested on Windows XP Service Pack 2. Don't worry, you can expect windows 2000 to be mostly compatible with most stuff for years to come, because it's still an NT OS, and its practically Windows XP with all the sh!t cut out of it. DO worry about Windows 98/98SE/ME though, Microsoft is doing their best, along with other companies to faze those operating systems out. I can't say that I'm helping though, because I'm turning my primary desktop into a windows 2000 box, but I still got a good old Dell Dimension XPS T-500 that runs win98se like a charm.

EDIT: I just read the counter results for OS usage in October. I can't believe that 74% of all computer users are using XP now; that stat sends shrills down my spine!

Edited by Jlo555
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello,

I still run Win98 on a newish AMD pc, (about 18 -24 months old), because with the help of 98Lite, I don't find any need to keep updating it... unlike WinXP! I can multi-boot as many copies of Win98, any position on my hard drive... with no problems.

With Ghost I can restore a fully working copy of Win98, plus programs, in well under 5 minutes... from start to finish. Win98 is extemely hackable for personalisation. I can run a top-notch Dos based anti-virus, which can catch a virus before Windows actually boots and gets infected.

The only reason I'm running WinXp at all, on a multiboot system, is just to familarise myself with it and because my partner likes Spider card game!

Waywyrd. :crazy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just use nLite on XP Pro SP2

I don't recommend this. First of all, nLite only exists as release candidate form...

for now, and only for a short time yet. nLite has come a long way and using it, at least for me, is pure joy.

Furthermore, with XP you are playing Russian Roulette because you are installing self-destruct mechanism (WPA) that could be triggered by Microsoft or viruses at any time in the future.
WPA can easily be disabled a variety of ways.
XP means you are installing spyware that transmits your CD key over the Internet for hackers to intercept and steal, plus baggage such as Genuine Checks.

IF the product key is ever transmitted, and i'd like to see any evidence you have to that effect, i seriously doubt it's transmitted unencrypted.

Maybe you'll stoop to anything, but I refuse to phone Microsoft and type a 50-digit numbers in like a monkey just because I changed some hardware around. This is a difficult task for the hearing impaired and Microsoft should be sued for discriminating against disabled people.

the whole "activation" scheme is a flaky joke right from the beginning and i agree that MS has it's head up its behind in this regard. however, like anything else, there's ways around this crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've used almost every Microsoft OS from DOS 3.20 to Windows XP Pro, but still 98se is my favorite.

Reasons to run 98se:

- Small. A base install consumes less than 200M of disk space, and the OS can be trimmed down to <100M without excessively losing functionality.

- Simple. The architecture is simple when compared to that of an NT-based OS. This makes configuration, customisation, and troubleshooting easier.

- Compatible. It's based on the legendary DOS kernal, so it'll run most older games etc. with no problem. It's DOS emulation environment is considerably better than that of 2K or XP. It can also run most newer software as well, and certainly a large amount of software is available for it.

- Fast. On an old 386DX25 I have (250M HDD, 16M RAM), it boots to the desktop in ~20 seconds and is surprisingly usable. For older machines, it runs extremely well. On new machines (e.g. my 4.17GHz P4) it simply flies and the response time is excellent.

- Efficient. Compared with XP, 98se consumes very little resources and its minimum requirements are very low. The kernal and associated components require very little memory, leaving the rest available to programs.

- Ease of maintainence and recovery. Files such as the kernel32.dll can be edited and manipulated freely with a boot to MS-DOS 7.10, for customisation purposes. FAT32 filesystem is widely documented and data can be easily recovered, not to mention the FAT32 structure is simple and easy to fix with only a disk editor and some basic knowledge.

- Secure (as in remote-exploits). In all my years of running 98se I have never been exploited remotely or have the OS infect itself with no user intervention. There are no large amounts of background services to exploit (unless you install some yourself, like an ftpd), and the OS does not automatically access the Internet at periodic intervals. It accesses the Internet when you want it to, and only when you want it to. A firewall is definitely not needed, and a virus scanner need not continously monitor the system if you're careful of what you run. Most newer malware (including rootkits) no longer function under Win98

Reasons why I don't like WinXP

- Huge. It takes nearly 2Gb for a base install which includes many unwelcome features. It can certainly be reduced in size, but not as much as 98se can.

- Complex. All NT-based OSs tend to be extremely complex - the more complex, the more chance for bugs and exploits to be present. The amount of critical updates issued illustrates this.

- Noncompatibility. Older hardware and software are not supported well. The DOS emulator is more secure, but lacking in features and noticeably slow especially when running in a window. Many older programs for Win9x won't run on XP. (Nor does the compatibility mode help that much...)

- Slow. It's barely usable on a P133 and needs plenty of RAM. They may have improved the boottime a bit, but response time is more important. When working in WinXP the system tends to periodically freeze for brief intervals of less than a second; it's small, but noticeable. Redrawing icons and windows also feels slower than for 98se. The OS just feels sluggish. All of the (optional) fade-in/fade-out effects make it seem even worse. It also tends to access the HDD more (for the swapfile?) which further slows it down.

- Inefficient. The core components require copious amounts of memory to reside in, leaving less for applications programs. The "new" skinnable GUI with all the bitmaps takes further memory. (I disabled this on my WinXP installation) I also prefer the clean, elegant rectangles of the traditional GUI to something more fancy and totally frivolous.

- Difficulty of Maintainence. Booting to DOS is impossible without a dualboot system. The "recovery console" is not very featureful and difficult to use. Although there are utilities available for reading NTFS, it is still a proprietary filesystem of Microsoft. "Extended attributes" and "alternate streams" (which some malware use to hide themselves) are troublesome to deal with. Data recovery is more difficult than with FAT32. The NTFS filesystem is complex and easily corrupted structure.

- Insecure. The OS can be exploited remotely and thus a firewall and virus scanner is essential. I've had a virgin install become infected as I was downloading the critical updates from the MS site, supposedly to fix the vulnerabilities that the trojan exploited. Removing unneeded services is an undesirable task that must be done. Most new virii and trojans target XP.

If I am *forced* to use XP, I can, but otherwise I will keep running 98se for as long as I can :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

With regard to the above (why run Win98) I only wish I could have some up all the benefits of Win98 as well as that!

I "went off" WinXP because of the almost constant need to update. At the last count there's at least 30+ critical updates alone... since Service Pack 2!

Waywyrd :crazy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LLXX

although i like XP, i do miss the raw simplicity of 98 sometimes and agree with much of what you had to say regarding "Reasons to run 98se" (though i've never run SE, just 98).

most of your reasons for not liking XP can be easily overcome however...

size: one word: nLite - you can cut the size WAY down and still have every bit of functionality you require. a typical installation size for me is about 1/2 of the default and i'm not exactly a 'minimalist' (others cut far more out).

complex: no argument there - services, hidden services, component services, group policy editor, etc., etc..

slow: not as slow if you lighten it up, though a P133 is certainly an extreme. i ran XP on a P3 800 however and it seemed to be more responsive than 98 with very little tweaking.

inefficient: not so with minor tweaking (turning off themes, disabling unneeded services, uninstalling typical windows junk, etc.).

difficulty of maintenance: if the NTFS filesystem is easily corrupted, i have yet to experience any problem and i've been using NTFS and XP for several years (over 3). on the other hand, 98 produced filesystem errors on a regular basis. this point is moot anyway since you can format FAT if you want to.

insecure: more insecure then 98? maybe so, but this is easily overcome. 98, XP, whatever; you should be running a F/W (which is included in XP) and AV regardless. XP can be hardened pretty well because of the configuration tools it provides.

anyway, i'm not trying to disuade anyone from using whatever OS they want, just pointing out possible flaws in your argument :)

Edited by atomizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, I ran XP on my CarPC for a while, and it took a while for it to boot once my car started... I know I can use hibernation and all of that junk... but in all honesty, I installed 98se and it was perfect, i don't have any worries about my hardware setup, it runs on my CF card perfectly with no worries at all :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...