Why run 98?

[Link21]

Yeah, I know what you guys are saying. I've really noticed this with any Microsoft OS. My computer is still pretty highend (imo), and I've run Windows 98/Me/2000 and XP. Windows 98 was zippin by, Windows Me was zippin buy, but froze every ten minutes, windows 2000... I can't really find a way of saying it... Win2k is like Windows 98 after smoking 3 blunts. It feels slow and unresponsive, it rarely gets p***ed off and crashes and yet somehow it manages it's own stability. Windows XP made me laugh. When I first used XP in 2002 it looked like a frieking cartoon, it was REALLY slow and even slower to respond. All compared, Windows 98 is the best. The fact is, I do the EXACT same things on XP that I do on Windows 98... so why would I need to upgrade? Just so Bill can get more money?

If you were running Windows 2000, you can do the exact same things that you can do on Windows XP for the most part. If you were running Windows 98, eveyrone should have upgraded to at least a decent OS in Windows 2000 at least four years ago. There is an intrinsic limit to how well Windows 98 runs. Windows 2000 and XP don't have that limit.

http://www.apptools.com/rants/resources.php

That is what the Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers don't realize. If you don't like XP, use Windows 2000. Everyone should have been required to upgrade to Windows 2000 four years ago if they wanted to run the latest games and applications on the latest hardware. That way, all applications would have been native to one MS OS heritage the last four years, and cross platform compatibility with two disticntly different Microsoft OS cores wouldn't have had to be dealt with, thus not hurting performance.

Why did all software developed the last 4 years have to be native 9X applications that just rely on backwards compatibility in Windows 2000/XP just so they work in Windows 2000/XP. So all people who were running Windows 2000/XP weren't even running applications natively written for the OS they were running, rather just relying on the automatic backwards compatibility in Windows 2000/XP that provides emulation to run Windows 9X applications the last 4-5 years. That is just sad. That would be like all applications written for MAC OS 9 and also supporting MAC OS X, but only running on MAC OS X because of the simulation MAC OS X provides to run MAC OS 9 and prior applications, and thus the application written wouldn't even be considered a native MAC OS X application. Almost all applications written for the MAC the last two years at least have been native to the OS heritage sold on Apple MAC computers.

WHy in the heck couldn't almost all applications written the last four years for the Microsoft OS PC be native to the OS heritage sold on almost all PCs since then. If Windows 2000/XP were from the same OS heritage as Windows 98/ME, then it would be ok to continue and support them. But the fact is, they were from a completely different OS heritage.

[kartel]

When I had 2o00Pro, I noticed the 3D engine didnt exist, I think I needed a agp patch or amd patch or something.

It's quite obvious that "they" want "everyone" to use XP and on now 2000 isnt supported.

Why ? Well I'm no expert

I just got windows 95 whith IE and USB support still in the box, I really want to load it and see what happens but I'm not sure if it will do fat32.

If it does work, I'm that much farther from XP

[Jlo555]

if it's Windows 95 with IE, then its probably OSR2.5, in which case, yes, it would definately support FAT32. As for the USB support, in Windows 95, that support leaves MUCH to be desired. For "adequate" USB device use, you really should just use windows 98SE.

[Link21]

you run 98se simply because your cant afford xp or you run a P2 or less or you might be in emerging countries that still rely on 98se like korea for one ,at least 10% of bussiness do and thats just the tip of the icebergand lets not forget older laptops etc.you should normally run the os that best perforances on your pc/motherboard/ram etc.those that run it on new mobo are probablydiehard fans and i dont blame them abit if u dont play dvd based major ram comsupting pig games then u could use 98se to surf chat etc.i realize its 2006 soon but i know so many new pc users that are given second hand pcs from friends or family usually with 98se on it.so i guess if your ok with what u got ride it out .

That is another good reason to run Windows 98SE. If all you use is older and slow PCs to play old games, and basic e-mail and Internet browsing, then Windows 98SE will be ok and in fact may be required to run some much older games on much older hardware.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Link21

[wizardofwindows]

ive never claim that any os was superior but im glad u noted that lots of newbies etc might be on a older 98 box simply because their only occasional users surfers,email,older games,im pretty techy and i nlite make autorun cds etc.collect all the patches fixes etc for most oses but theres 2 camps of windows users.1=power user whos always up 2 date on top of all updates program versions etc. 2=joe user maybe a grandparent aunt someone who couldnt give a flyin flip about techinal mumbo jumbo inside a perticular os just want to send a smilie or a wink to a friend or hang in pogo games. so the ones in #1 camp will generally opt 4 latest os etc. and #2 those who just wanta surf. Gamerz now thats competely different animal lol.

[miko]

you run 98se simply because your cant afford xp or you run a P2 or less or you might be in emerging countries that still rely on 98se like korea for one ,at least 10% of bussiness do and thats just the tip of the icebergand lets not forget older laptops etc.you should normally run the os that best perforances on your pc/motherboard/ram etc.those that run it on new mobo are probablydiehard fans and i dont blame them abit if u dont play dvd based major ram comsupting pig games then u could use 98se to surf chat etc.i realize its 2006 soon but i know so many new pc users that are given second hand pcs from friends or family usually with 98se on it.so i guess if your ok with what u got ride it out .

That is another good reason to run Windows 98SE. If all you use is older and slow PCs to play old games, and basic e-mail and Internet browsing, then Windows 98SE will be ok and in fact may be required to run some much older games on much older hardware.

By Jove, i think he's getting it

now if your favourite game is something like say Dungeon Keeper 2 (still rated the best ever 'god' game in some PC mags) which isn't compatible with XP and you still have occasional trips to Dungeon Keeper 1 (which really doesn't like newer systems), and you have already paid good money for perfectly capable apps which do all the things you want and run on 98SE but probably not on XP, and maybe your a little older and are actually growing out of games (except the ones you used to play, say for example 16 bit console emulation, and your still working at those 96 stars) wouldn't it be nice also to be able to do all that on the fastest hardware you can find which is probably now dirt dirt cheap (seriously, my SoA 3000+ core (CPU/MB/Mem) cost less than £100 total (although i have changed the board once)).

and if these things are true then a forum full of nice people willing to help you with support and tips for this retro OS (and the others) is maybe a good thing then ?

anyway microsoft has ended support so your old arguments no longer stands really, 98 is holding no one back anymore.

guess were kinda like classic car enthusiasts now, having to fashion replacement wings from sheet metal and store the last remaining spare parts (which reminds me i must download .net 2.0) and somewhat thankful for the few companys still producing compatible bits (like Firefox)

me offers um peace pipe . . .

[Jlo555]

Just to reiterate what others have said, Microsoft is doing their best to forget that windows 98 ever existed. As far as I'm concerned, they don't support the OS anymore and all they really have in the way of "support" is the original Windows 98 website, which hasn't changed since 2002. So, Link21, don't b***h about how Windows 98 is suckin away the NT series support. It is now the beginning of 2006, and in the world of modern technology, still using such old software like windows 98 so long after it has been realeased is just plain crazy, I'll admit that. But, see, I just don't care. I think that today's windows 98 users still use the OS because we simply FEEL like it. We like the environment, the look and feel, the simplicity, and see no real reason to upgrade. You think that MS is still supporting the DOS based OS's, and that is putting a dent in the NT support. You have got nothing to complain about, just think about what it must be like to be a Linux or Mac user, and the latest highend software or hardware doesn't support those OS's at all.

[Link21]

Just to reiterate what others have said, Microsoft is doing their best to forget that windows 98 ever existed. As far as I'm concerned, they don't support the OS anymore and all they really have in the way of "support" is the original Windows 98 website, which hasn't changed since 2002. So, Link21, don't b***h about how Windows 98 is suckin away the NT series support. It is now the beginning of 2006, and in the world of modern technology, still using such old software like windows 98 so long after it has been realeased is just plain crazy, I'll admit that. But, see, I just don't care. I think that today's windows 98 users still use the OS because we simply FEEL like it. We like the environment, the look and feel, the simplicity, and see no real reason to upgrade. You think that MS is still supporting the DOS based OS's, and that is putting a dent in the NT support. You have got nothing to complain about, just think about what it must be like to be a Linux or Mac user, and the latest highend software or hardware doesn't support those OS's at all.

I am not talking about just Microsoft. I am talking about third party hardware and software vendors who support operating systems. Third part hardware and software vendors have supported Windows 98/ME much longer than Microsoft ever did. Or so it seemed. If Microsoft really wanted to try and act as if Windows 98 never existed, why was DirectX 9.0 made compatible for Windows 98/ME. Why is .NET framework 2.0 compatible with Windows 98/ME?

Here is my take on the issue. There are always going to be multiple platforms that vendors will support. I am all for continued and increased Linux and MAC OS X support. Basically, vendors had a choice of three primary operating systems to support. It was the Microsoft OS world, the MAC OS world, and the Linux Open Source OS world. So vendors have to support three different operating systems used in the home consumer market by three different entities. But one of those entities has two completely different OS platforms with one intended to replace the other. The NT based OS from Microsoft was intended to completely replace the 9X based OS. So now, developers had to write drivers and software compatible with four different operating systems, and not just three. Why should developers have had to focus on supporting two completely different operating system kernels developed with the same OS market name made by the same company? That probably hurts performance. If Windows 2000/XP were based on the same OS platform as Windows 98/ME, it would have been totally fine with me if they continued supporting them. But why support two completely different OS cores made by the same company for way too long after the newest NT core came out and was intended to replace the old completely different OS kernel for the Microsoft computing world? It was one thing if your applications were designed to run on slow and old hardware that they supported Windows 9X because most older systems had Windows 9X on it back then anyways. But the newest hardware and cutting edge games even as far back as three years ago? I mean come on. The newest hardware and cutting edge software should have supported only Windows 2000/XP at the very latest three years ago.

It took all the way until the NVIDIA NForce 4, Intel 9XX chipsets, GeForce 7800 video cards, and the Radeon X600 series video cards for Windows 9X support to be dropped. That was irritating. As far back as the Intel 855 chipset, the NVIDIA NForce 2 chipset, the Radeon 9000 series video cards and higher, and the GeForce 5200 series video cards and higher, all drivers and support should have been for Windows 2000/XP only on that hardware I listed and higher end. When I say for Windows 2000/XP only, I mean when it comes to the Microsoft OS world!! Of course Linux and other high quality 32-bit opertaing systems should have been supported as well.

Look at what developers did once MAC OS X came out. MAC OS 9 support and prior quickly went away probably because MAC OS 9 was a completely different OS platform than MAC OS X. I am sure it was easy and not a problem at all to continue supporting MAC OS 8 once MAC OS 9 came out because MAC OS 9 was based on MAC OS 8. Same thing with Windows 95 once Windows 98 came out. Because Windows 98 was based on the same OS heritage as Windows 95, it was probably very easy for developers to support both Windows 95 and Windows 98. But Windows 2000 and Windows XP aren't even close to the same OS heritage as Windows 98/ME. And with the release of Windows XP until present, the whole MS OS world was supposed to migrate to the much better and superior NT based platform. Then developers were stuck in a situation to add the burden of supporting another completely different OS made by the same company sold under the same name and same interface.

Stick to one based OS platform with the same name and designed by the same company. Why didn't MS design one real32-bit OS heritage 10 years ago, and stick with it until this day? That way, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

People can run what they want on whatever they want. I just wish hardware and software manufacturers stopped supportiung Windows 98/ME a long time ago. Shouldn't the majority of applications written be native to a specific OS for performance to be best? So for almost the whole time over the last four years, applications written weren't even native to the OS sold on almost all new PCs since then, and rather were native Windows 9X applications that would just run on Windows 2000/XP only because Windows 2000/XP have emulation to run Windows 9X applications? That is just sad if that is the case. Is that really truthfully the case in all aspects? The mere thought of specifically this has bugged me about continued Windows 9X support. Or you know, how about this. If Windows 9X support was to continue on for this long, why didn't software devlopers write a separate version of the same application with one version specifically for Windows 98/ME, and one version specifcally for Windows 2000/XP. For instance, why didn't games have separate version with one version specifcally for Windows 2000/XP and one version specfically written for Windows 98/ME? Instead, all games were written natively for Windows 98/ME, and just relied on the backwards compatibility in Windows 2000/XP to run 9X applications so that those games would run on both of them. The mere thought of all applications being emulated on Windows 2000/XP and not being real native 2000/XP based applications the last few years has drove me nuts to this day.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Link21

[Lunac]

To Link21:

Okay, I'll bite.

You, sir, are quite insane. (Hey, somebody had to say it.)

"Linux and other high quality 32-bit opertaing systems".....Awful grammar and vocabulary aside, but that right there says it all.

This has to be a sly Win98SE user, messing around and pretending to be a rabid/psycho WinXP consumer. (Notice that I used the words "user" and "consumer" quite explicitly for Win98SE and WinXP.) Or some frustrated LeeNox dunce. (Howz dat SATA support coming? That LG optical drive mess ever got fixed? How many LG drives fried? 20,000-30,000? )

[Link21]

To Link21:

Okay, I'll bite.

You, sir, are quite insane. (Hey, somebody had to say it.)

"Linux and other high quality 32-bit opertaing systems".....Awful grammar and vocabulary aside, but that right there says it all.

This has to be a sly Win98SE user, messing around and pretending to be a rabid/psycho WinXP consumer. (Notice that I used the words "user" and "consumer" quite explicitly for Win98SE and WinXP.) Or some frustrated LeeNox dunce. (Howz dat SATA support coming? That LG optical drive mess ever got fixed? How many LG drives fried? 20,000-30,000? )

I am not by any means a Windows 98SE user. I ditched Windows 98/ME over four years ago. It has been all Windows 2000/XP and above ever since for me when it comes to the MS OS world. I do use Linux as well.

[LLXX]

Look at what developers did once MAC OS X came out. MAC OS 9 support and prior quickly went away probably because MAC OS 9 was a completely different OS platform than MAC OS X

Macs currently make up a very small number of the computer "population". There has to be a reason for that. Apple's decision to force everyone to have to use the latest OS and hardware is partially responsible.

Why should developers have had to focus on supporting two completely different operating system kernels developed with the same OS market name made by the same company? That probably hurts performance.

Kernel != API. The Win32 API, which was introduced with Windows 95, has been expanded throughout the version releases but otherwise basic functionality is the same. Applications programs do not care about the structure of the kernel. They access system services through the same API, whether on NT or 9x. Of course, the NT kernel has more services than the 9x one, but are those services really used? My point is that almost all applications that were "designed for Windows XP" will run fine on 9x systems, excepting those system utilities that need to have an intimate relationship with the kernel and thus need to use the extended set of services not available on Win9x. Did you know 9x had an NTDLL.DLL? You could even say that 98se inherited some of its functions from the earlier NT series.

One could argue that drivers are different between 9x and NT series. To a certain extent, that is correct, as the NT driver interface provides more services than the 9x one. However, 98se and 2000 basically both employ the same KMD driver interface and structure. Writing a driver for NT and for 98se is only very slightly different. (Excepting the annoyance of preferring digitally signed and "authenticated" drivers for XP+)

[Jlo555]

It took all the way until the NVIDIA NForce 4, Intel 9XX chipsets, GeForce 7800 video cards, and the Radeon X600 series video cards for Windows 9X support to be dropped. That was irritating. As far back as the Intel 855 chipset, the NVIDIA NForce 2 chipset, the Radeon 9000 series video cards and higher, and the GeForce 5200 series video cards and higher, all drivers and support should have been for Windows 2000/XP only on that hardware I listed and higher end. When I say for Windows 2000/XP only, I mean when it comes to the Microsoft OS world!! Of course Linux and other high quality 32-bit opertaing systems should have been supported as well.

Oh, you chose the wrong thing to say that time! Alright, I googled the release date of the ATI Radeon 9000 series. According to my "sources", Radeon 9000 was released in July, 2002. Guess what? That also happened to be the time when there were approx. 54% of the entire population using windows 98 as their computer OS! The stats for windows 2000 and XP COMBINED were less than 22%. And you think support should've been dropped then? You really ARE crazy! Also, windows 98 is still the third most commonly used OS, and it is now 2006. It's been 8 god **** years since the release of windows 98. 8 years after windows 95 was released, 2% of people were using it, and as I recall, most support for windows 95 was dropped completely at about that same time. As long as there's still pleanty of people using the OS, it'll be around for a LONG LONG LONG time!

[kartel]

Ya know, i have to laugh thinking about mcintosh and trying to finish police quest and crap, ya know ?

I think my GF's parents spent 3 grand on that garbage and thats why I'll never go mac, but to tell you something, personally, I hated computers and wished they'ed go away, but obviosly, i was ignorant.

Facts are if I would have paid more attention, I probably would not be worrying about what vesrion of windows i run.

But I didnt and played with Cb's and cars and so on.

Now with no licsene, eviced numurous times from my cb and boot, in 2004 i found a p133 with 16megs, the soundcard im using and some other crappy stuff.

I hooked it up and my buddy gave me 98se and said "use this disk and format c: and type setup "

ok, this is after i tried for a week surfing the bios, i knew nothing, zilch zero. I knew this :

10 print " i am a comadore 64 "

20 goto 10

run

a hurting attitude and 2 years later, I have tried xp pro, home, 2000pro , 98, 98se, 3.1 and 95 on found 98se to be the best all round. IT WORKS ! simple, it works it does what i want and not what i dont want or need or may or may not use ever in a million years. best of all, i've got to know it, very well indeed, and I guess I like being in control of things

I guess 98se is the closest i can get with all my needs and demands in check, nothing more needed i'm not a computer geinius , i still type with 1 finger per hand, but i feel i've come a long way and have only seen the tip of the iceberg, BUT in 1999 if I knew what i know now, i probably would have been considered a computer geek or a least a handy guy to have around.

I will however support 98se to the bitter end because IT WORKS WHY F**K WITH IT ?

But then from the $$$$$$$$ end of it, how can you make more money using the same OPS for almost 10 years ?

All the third parties would have all the cash

I'm just happy I can maintain my own computer and can get Hi and play games or dump a hangar or 2 on yahoo and p*** someone off from the comforts of my own home, priceless.........

[kartel]

1999 doesnt seem that long ago does it ? these are good for a laugh, 839$ for a Pentium 550......maybe thats why i hated computers, lol

police quest

Edited January 11, 2006 by kartel

[muchlux]

Reasons for using W98:

1) no money to buy a new highend XP machine

2) having only a processor of 500 MHZ or lower

3) startup time only a few seconds, with W2k up to minutes, XP only little faster than W2k

4) shutdown time only very few seconds (W2k up to a minute)

5) restore the OS from backup in only 10 minutes

I'm quite happy with my Celeron 500 and 128Megs of Ram.

It's enough for Internet surfing, eMails and some old Games.

Even video capture with cards like the old Matrox Rainbow Runner is still exciting

(due to missing driver support on W2k/XP ;-)

On ebay, you can get a 500MHZ machine + valid W98 licence for under 50$ thats cool!

Of course I would not recommend using W98 on a modern hardware anymore.