Why run 98?

[atomizer]

root kits are not a function of the filesystem. It is a function of the OS.

you are right. i stand corrected. i thought i read something somewhere that said they were specific to NTFS, but i see that's not the case at all. even *nix and Solaris is affected.

[Link21]

Actually (if my memory serves me well) NT platform was not intended to replace 9x.

There were supposed to be two different OS lines, NT (Daytona) based OS for server applications, and 9x (Chicago) based OS for client-side.

But then M$ decided to megre both (probably to reduce development costs) and made one bloated OS with just cosmetic differences between client and server variants. This was the point when all this sh%$t started...

If there were still two separate OS lines developed, our computing experience would have been much more efficient (and simpler;) )

Windows 9X was a terrible OS from the very beginning. Microsoft should have designed something different for the home consumer OS market from grounds up, not some OS based on an ancient native 16-bit architecture. They should have designed an efficient full 32-bit OS that was simple from day one for the home consumer market.

Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS/2 WARP, MAC OS X, and Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 are all good quality 32-bit operating systems. Windows 95/98/ME are not.

[RainyShadow]

Windows 9X was a terrible OS from the very beginning. Microsoft should have designed something different for the home consumer OS market from grounds up, not some OS based on an ancient native 16-bit architecture. They should have designed an efficient full 32-bit OS that was simple from day one for the home consumer market.

Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS/2 WARP, MAC OS X, and Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 are all good quality 32-bit operating systems. Windows 95/98/ME are not.

What means "good quality 32-bit operating system" for you ? Just a simple fact: on a clean install of XP Pro, after a visit to Windows Update site and a web-based mail site, i got at least 5 spy/addwares added to the system startup. This never happened to me while using 98SE.

Not to mention the countless cryes from my friends, like "My XP system is sluggish like hell, un/installing a single app takes ages to finish, even startup/shutdown lasts 15-30 minutes. Please come and see what you can do about it..."

If you call this "good quality", then...No, thanks!... you can have it all. I'll keep my "low quality"

P.S. I'm reffering to XP/NT only. Linux and other mentioned non-MS OS-es are fine

[bristols]

Windows 9X was a terrible OS from the very beginning. Microsoft should have designed something different for the home consumer OS market from grounds up, not some OS based on an ancient native 16-bit architecture. They should have designed an efficient full 32-bit OS that was simple from day one for the home consumer market.

Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS/2 WARP, MAC OS X, and Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 are all good quality 32-bit operating systems. Windows 95/98/ME are not.

Link21, you've claimed in this thread several times that people who use 9x systems are "obsessives". Ironically, you seem to be just as obsessed yourself with 9x - indeed, you're just repeating yourself now.

Let it go. 9x systems are being supported by fewer and fewer manufacturers. You ardent desire and burning wish has become true. It seems you've had years of pain at the hands of the 9x obsessives, but surely now your pain is subsiding?

Let it go. You can't change the past. Step away from the Windows 95/98/98SE/ME forums. Re-enter your modern XPworld, and merely pity us 9x-obsessed luddites, instead of poring your MS-sanctioned scorn on us.

Edited January 12, 2006 by bristols

[Link21]

Windows 9X was a terrible OS from the very beginning. Microsoft should have designed something different for the home consumer OS market from grounds up, not some OS based on an ancient native 16-bit architecture. They should have designed an efficient full 32-bit OS that was simple from day one for the home consumer market.

Linux, BSD, Solaris, OS/2 WARP, MAC OS X, and Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 are all good quality 32-bit operating systems. Windows 95/98/ME are not.

What means "good quality 32-bit operating system" for you ? Just a simple fact: on a clean install of XP Pro, after a visit to Windows Update site and a web-based mail site, i got at least 5 spy/addwares added to the system startup. This never happened to me while using 98SE.

Not to mention the countless cryes from my friends, like "My XP system is sluggish like hell, un/installing a single app takes ages to finish, even startup/shutdown lasts 15-30 minutes. Please come and see what you can do about it..."

If you call this "good quality", then...No, thanks!... you can have it all. I'll keep my "low quality"

P.S. I'm reffering to XP/NT only. Linux and other mentioned non-MS OS-es are fine

The kernel and memory management and how efficeintly an OS can utilize a large amount of RAM for best performance. Windows XP is a good quality OS for that.

As for installing XP Pro and getting infected with spyware and malware after visiting Windows Update website and a few other websites, did you have Service Pack 2 installed? Were you behind a hardware firewall?

You know what I do, I slipstream Service Pack 2 and all post SP2 hotfixes into my XP installation. Then I don't have to worry about getting infected by anything.

And Windows 98SE is not better just because of that. The only reason it didn't get infected is because nobody writes malware for it anymore because it is such a low end old technology based OS. If hackers wanted to break Windows 98SE, believe they would easily tear it apart far more eaisly than they can tear apart Windows NT/2000/XP. Heck, if hackers were trying to target Windows 98 like they intend target Windows 2000/XP, Windows 98 PCs would probably explode. and ruin your whole OS install and possibly your computer.

[wizardofwindows]

B) how long is this battle gonna continue?I too have been hit with spyware after xp pro updates using sp2 shortly after gonning online but to be fair i recieve similar spyware like cool search etc on 98se as well.what i will agree on is the sluggage scenario of xp.noted xp is nearly 8x the install size of 98se and factoring in the boot up time id give the egde to 98se but thats expected since theirs next to nothing loading on startup in 98se as opposed to xp.as far as response sure 98se is much quicker but the hal side of xp which let all appilication run seperately to avoid complete lockup is a small price to pay but its not foolproof ived had to reboot xp pro sp2 quite a few times.but comparing win98se speed to xp is like 95-98 when the oses is triple to 8x larger(xp)of course its gonna be slower on some instances much like vista which will be closer to 3gig will probably have xp users whine about its sluggageness aswell.in closing if appilication i use on a regular bases werent nt only nowadays id still run 98se in a heartbeat as my main pc os.P.S i do run 98se on 2 or my 3 pcs.

[suryad]

That post was really hard to read....but uhh...I am taking that you are saying 98 is faster to boot but not stable...compared to XP. And that when it comes to heavy application loads XP will work better. I would not use 98 unless it was for running old games! Definitely not surf the net on that OS!

[miko]

oh it gets better, there's been at least 3 threads like this in the last 6 months . . .

what i don't understand is why they're allowed to persist. this is a Windows 95/98/98SE/ME Support forum, if it was a Linux forum and people kept stating that that OS was a 'POS' and everyone should use Windows they wouldn't last long before some (half decent) mod shut down the topic or banned the users who just didn't get it.

some people just don't seem to understand that the people who visit here have made their choice already.

Edited January 12, 2006 by miko

[Link21]

Let it go. You can't change the past. Step away from the Windows 95/98/98SE/ME forums. Re-enter your modern XPworld, and merely pity us 9x-obsessed luddites, instead of poring your MS-sanctioned scorn on us.

MS sanctioned scorn?? I am not at all biased towards MS. In fact, I actually don't like MS very much. Why would anyone think just because someone bashes Windows 9X that they are someone biased towards MS??

I praise Linux. I think Linux is a great OS. It is Windows 9X that I think is crumby. I dual boot between Windows XP and Linux. If it werne't for hardware manufacturers and software manufacturers supporting Windows 9X for way too long, those resources could have been devoted to maming better Linux drivers and software. Linux is another great quality OS. Windows 2000/XP are also respectable and fine quality operating systems. Windows 9X is not. It is Windows 9X I am bashing because it is technically a horrible OS compared to other 32-bit operating systems. It has nothing to do with me being biased towards MS. In fact, I am very skeptical of MS and don't trust them much.

WHat I mean by Windows 98SE obsessers and lover, I am referring to the fact that it is because of people like you (the ones who want to run it on the highest end hardware for the latest software) that have caused hardware and software manufacturers to support way too long. I don't mean anyone who uses the OS. People who run it on old slow machines are using it for the right purpose. It is a limited OS and should be used for limited purposes.

Windows 98SE obsessers should have been left on their own 3 years ago to have support. All high end hardware and software developed 3 years ago should have ditched support for Windows 9X and been Windows 2000/XP only when it comes to the MS OS world. Linux support would have been great too, and in fact, Iit would have been best if the whole world moved to Linux and all software was devloped for Linux. But unfortunately, it is an MS dominated OS world, throwing out any chance of that ever happening. But in the MS OS world, I feel to at least use a decent respectable 32-bit OS. If it weren't for Microsoft's marketing control, the whole computing world would have been running a superior OS compared to Windows 9X and maybe even Windows 2000/XP the last 10 years. Instead, it was Microsoft's anticompetive practices that forced an inferior OS to dominate the market.

OS/2 WARP swould have been a great OS for everyone to use had it been given a better chance 10 years ago.

[wizardofwindows]

so let me understand the world according to links 21.98se is crap ms is retarded only a dummy runs 9x oses and linux and xp only matter.if we continue to run 9x well destroy the world as you know it.my name is link i love xp but live in a 9x forum preaching repeatly over and over the evil of 9x iam the coolest vote links21 for microsoft moron of the year thx you and goodnite.

[Link21]

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!

My question is, why 98? Why not just move up to Windows 2000? It's got only a slight requirement difference to my knowledge and it's compatible with all new software and games. I understand the security issue but anyone that is relativly smart can avoid these problems.

You may a great point. Windows 2000 Professional is a great OS. If you don't like Windows XP, use Windows 2000. At least it is a decent respectable OS for multi tasking and semi-resource intensive or higher 32-bit computing.

The Windows 98SE lovers just throw out the excuses that Windows XP is too bloated and that is why they wanted to run Windows 98SE for a lot longer. They completely overlooked the fact that the archictecture in Windows 2000/XP is completely different and far superior to what the architecture was in Windows 98.

And the fact that the bloat in Windows XP could easily be removed. Or that they could use Windows 2000 which wasn't bloated. Anyone with at least a little bit of logic would have dumped Windows 9X four years ago for the sole purpose of modern gaming and resource intensive modern computing.

Support for Windows 9X when it comes to the latest hardware and software would have likely been dropped at least three years ago if it weren't for the Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers.

[Petr]

I would not use 98 unless it was for running old games! Definitely not surf the net on that OS!

I surf the net several hours a day, at home on Windows 98 SE, at work on Windows XP Professional, I use Mozilla Seamonkey 1.5a browser, and the only difference I see is that my home 1GHz PIII computer is much quicker are more responsive than my 2.7GHz P4 computer at work. I haven't seen blue screen for years. Never got any spyware/virus/dialer.

For years I was using PC with AMD K6-2/400 CPU and the speed and stability was sufficient too.

One thing that I really appreciate on Windows XP is the Remote Desktop. It's better than PC Anywhere, Rapid Remote and other remote software I was using before.

From my point of view, the only reason why to upgrade from W98SE to WXP can be the missing support for the new software and/or new hardware.

Unfortunately new operating systems and new software is very ineffective in using hardware resources. I remeber days when I was editing 200 page manual in Wordstar on CP/M machine with 2 MHz processor and 48 KB of RAM. And later 500 page manual in Ventura Publisher 2.0 on MS-DOS based machine with 16 MHz 80386 and 4 MB of RAM - and indexing was quicker than now in Word or similar applications on box with 200 time quicker processor.

So again - it depends on the use. For Internet browsing, text editing, mail reading/writing is Windows 98 SE sufficient and give better user experience on the same hardware.

Petr

[Link21]

so let me understand the world according to links 21.98se is crap ms is retarded only a dummy runs 9x oses and linux and xp only matter.if we continue to run 9x well destroy the world as you know it.my name is link i love xp but live in a 9x forum preaching repeatly over and over the evil of 9x iam the coolest vote links21 for microsoft moron of the year thx you and goodnite.

No. MS isn't retared. They had the marketting control. They just happened to not own the licensing rights to the code they would have needed to build a superior real 32-bit OS that had great emulation for DOS programs. And because having great backwards compatibility with DOS programs was so important back then, that MS couldn't market only an NT based OS to home users because NT had very poor compatibility with DOS programs. Instead, they had a build an OS based on ancient technology to retain backwards compatibility with DOS programs and add 32-bit extensions to it. OS/2 WARP which was a full 32-bit OS had very good backwards compatibility with DOS programs through excellent emulation. However, Microsoft didn't own the licesning rights to use it. And because Microsoft had the control that IBM (or whomever they sold their OS/2 division to) did not have, a superior OS in OS/2 WARP that would have blown away Windows 9X from a technical standpoint didn't stand a chance in the market place. As a result, a far inferior OS in Windows 9X became the dominating force in the home consumer market.

One of my professors who used to work for IBM and Microsoft from 1990 to 2000 told me this. That very thought on how a superior OS failed all because of a marketting control issue has really bugged me to this day about continued Windows 9X support and has lead me to believe how inferior Windows 9X was and is. That is why I feel the way I do today.

I guess you can't fret on the past on what would of, could of, or should of. Because it doesn't matter at all now, We are now 10 years into the future and what has been done cannot be undone.

Edited January 12, 2006 by Link21

[Petr]

Windows 2000 Professional is a great OS. If you don't like Windows XP, use Windows 2000. At least it is a decent respectable OS for multi tasking and semi-resource intensive or higher 32-bit computing.

I have installed Windows 2000 Professional two years ago to my father's computer - and it's hell. Although it is 1.7GHz P4 Compaq SFF computer, the boot takes more than one minute, and just dialer removal already took many hours - nor Spybot S&D, nor other anti-spyware tools were able to remove those trojans that use advantages of NT based OS for hiding themseves and virtual immortality.

I never had so many problems with W98 as with W2000.

This is my personal experience, other people may have another.

Petr

[Fredledingue]

Petr wrote

From my point of view, the only reason why to upgrade from W98SE to WXP can be the missing support for the new software and/or new hardware.

Unfortunately new operating systems and new software is very ineffective in using hardware resources.

I agree: because they believe XP will auto-fix all the buggs and avoid all the crashes, developers do't spend time designing small effective and optimized software. Instead they dash toghether chunks of megabyte-large codes. You won't find a commercial software of less than 10 Mb today.

On w98 they know they will ahve to fix many buggs and that forced them to have totaly bug free softwares. With XP these bugs are not visible and therefore ignored.

I remeber days when I was editing 200 page manual in Wordstar on CP/M machine with 2 MHz processor and 48 KB of RAM. And later 500 page manual in Ventura Publisher 2.0 on MS-DOS based machine with 16 MHz 80386 and 4 MB of RAM - and indexing was quicker than now in Word or similar applications on box with 200 time quicker processor.

They are not trying to make softwares work on low resource neither (just as if their program will be the only

one in use). They simply recommand higher and higher speed and ram.

Most of software companies make XP-only softwares (don't support w98) just to make sure the computer has enough resources (if it run XP it can run anything).