Link21 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Well, since this is a Windows NT based operating systems forums, I thought it would be best to make this topic here.List reasons why Windows 98/ME are piece of junk operating systems and why support for them should have stopped a long long time ago.I can think of a few reasons. Firstly, Windows 98/ME have next to nothing in common with Windows 2000/XP. Windows 98/ME have more in common with Windows 1.0 than they ever did with Windows 2000/XP. Windows 2000/XP have much moe in common with Windows NT 3.1 than they ever did with Windows 98/ME. Therefore, performance suffers when applications continue to support those opertaing systems. Since the release of Windows XP, the whole Windows OS market was meant to be shifted to the completely different Windows NT based OS. Therefore, applications should have been written to be native to Windows 2000/XP so performance would be much better.Also, they are not true 32-bit opertaing systems, but rather native 16-bit opertaing systems with 32-bit extensions. Many technicians would consider Windows 95/98/ME to be a flat out piece of junk compared to other native written 32-bit operating systems. I would agree with them.People who consider Windows 95/98/ME to be by far the worst core 32-bit operating systems are NOT necessarily spouting off MS propoganda!! They are spouting off technical facts. In fact, I think Linux is a great OS and maybe even better than Windows 2000/XP. Now, would Microsoft say that? Of course not.I hate Windows 9X for what it was. It wans't even a real OS. It was a complete and utter POS. It always was, and always will be, no matter how you look at it, nor no matter how stable someone claims they can get it to run. Linux, OS/2, and MAC OS X are all very good operating system cores. Windows NT flavors are also fine and respectable.So, this a thread to praise Windows NT based operating systems. I praise Windows NT based opertaing systems just compared to POS Windows 9X/ME. It is because Windows NT based operating systems are the only operating systems ever produced by Microsoft that I find respectable and halfway decent, even though I am not a big fan of MS.Now to take it a bit offf topic, I had to decide whether to post this topic in this forum or the Windows XP forum. Why isn't Windows XP included in this forum? It is also an NT based OS after all, so why does it have its own forum which is separate from the Windows NT/2000/2003 forum. I think Windows 2000/XP/2003 would make the most sense to group together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redxii Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 9x is junk. I heard Vista removes support for 16-bit setups... woohoo! Don't get me started on how even the mighty Mozilla still programs Firefox et al for DOS because of their lack of use of Long Filenames. Other programs simply don't work because of unquoted paths (Paint Shop Pro 9 comes to mind, you can't be in a folder with a long filename and launch an image with PSP). That's all if 8.3 name creation is disabled for NTFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link21 Posted March 11, 2006 Author Share Posted March 11, 2006 9x is junk. I heard Vista removes support for 16-bit setups... woohoo! Don't get me started on how even the mighty Mozilla still programs Firefox et al for DOS because of their lack of use of Long Filenames. Other programs simply don't work because of unquoted paths (Paint Shop Pro 9 comes to mind, you can't be in a folder with a long filename and launch an image with PSP). That's all if 8.3 name creation is disabled for NTFS.9X is junk. Not only Mozilla, but also Microsoft. Internet Explorer 6 is compatible with piece of junk Windows 98/ME. And so is DirectX 9. It was a huge mistake by Microsoft to make DirectX9 compatible with Windows 98/ME. A flat out huge mistake!! DirectX 9 should have been for Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only!! Performance would have been so much better that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redxii Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 I do believe IE and DX have seperate binaries. There is one in DX for NT based and another for 9x. I think IE (6 SP1) has different binaries for NT, 2000, and XP because if you do a Download Only they are seperate cabs. Mozilla is, however, one install and set of binaries fits all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link21 Posted March 11, 2006 Author Share Posted March 11, 2006 (edited) I do believe IE and DX have seperate binaries. There is one in DX for NT based and another for 9x. I think IE (6 SP1) has different binaries for NT, 2000, and XP because if you do a Download Only they are seperate cabs. Mozilla is, however, one install and set of binaries fits all.What about games that are compatible with noth Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000/XP. How come they use the same files and installation program for the two completely different OS architectures? Why not one native version of the game for Windows 2000/XP and another native version for Windows 98/ME? For instance, C&C Generals should have been native for Windows 2000/XP only. So should have earlier EA Games like NFS: Underground 2, and the EA Sports 2003 and above series. I just cringed in disgust to see EA Sports games support all the way up to the 2005 series still support piece of junk Windows 98/ME. FInally the EA Sports 2006 series is Windows 2000/XP only!! It was about time!!Do games that run on both NT and 9X really have separate binaries, they just use the same installer and some of the same files to run on both, but also have separate binaries for both as well?Well, it is good to know that the newest games at least are Windows 2000/XP only. Games that come to mind that will only run on an NT based OS are Battlefield 2, NHL 2006, NBA Live 2006, Madden 2006, NFS: Most Wanted.That really sucks for Mozilla, because as much as I like the freedom of the Firefox browser, the performance would probably be so much better if it were written using binaries native to the Windows NT based OS. Edited March 11, 2006 by Link21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redxii Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Might be technical reasons (perhaps the devs wanted to take advantage of NT's superior kernel/resource management without having to cram backward compatibility for 9x in there) or "just because". Funny you should mention BF2.. EA denies that it will work in 2000, only XP, even though it will run on 2000 just fine. When I used 9x it always sucked my memory dry in no time flat. People were like "Oh, you have to do this and that and the other thing to keep 9x from doing that." But I shouldn't have had to do anything.The deal with Mozilla is that their programs fail to launch. By default, attempting to launch Thunderbird from IE using the mail icon produces "Cannot find 'C:\PROGRA~1\MOZILLA' ..". 8.3 (max of 8 characters in the name, and 3 letters for extension) is a DOS limitation that doesn't exist since 95 or NT4 atleast. 2000 and XP keep a 8.3 record in the MFT and this behavior can be disabled. I so happen to disable it to get rid of the legacy nonsense. During install, Firefox and TB will correctly put the long filename and quoted, but for some reason when the user chooses "yes" to make it default the paths stored in the registry turn to 8.3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link21 Posted March 12, 2006 Author Share Posted March 12, 2006 Might be technical reasons (perhaps the devs wanted to take advantage of NT's superior kernel/resource management without having to cram backward compatibility for 9x in there) or "just because". Funny you should mention BF2.. EA denies that it will work in 2000, only XP, even though it will run on 2000 just fine. When I used 9x it always sucked my memory dry in no time flat. People were like "Oh, you have to do this and that and the other thing to keep 9x from doing that." But I shouldn't have had to do anything.The deal with Mozilla is that their programs fail to launch. By default, attempting to launch Thunderbird from IE using the mail icon produces "Cannot find 'C:\PROGRA~1\MOZILLA' ..". 8.3 (max of 8 characters in the name, and 3 letters for extension) is a DOS limitation that doesn't exist since 95 or NT4 atleast. 2000 and XP keep a 8.3 record in the MFT and this behavior can be disabled. I so happen to disable it to get rid of the legacy nonsense. During install, Firefox and TB will correctly put the long filename and quoted, but for some reason when the user chooses "yes" to make it default the paths stored in the registry turn to 8.3.That is because WIndows 2000 is still an NT based OS. They just didn't test it on 2000, so it said it wasn't supported. Now, I'm sure it won't stand a chance to run on Windows 9X.Do you know if games use different binaries with one binary set being for Windows 2000/XP and one set being for piece of junk Windows 98/ME? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
os2fan2 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Windows NT, even from 3.1 days, tends to be larger because it is sheilding the hardware from the apps, and doing a lot more downstairs.For example, the IO.SYS file in Windows NT is 6 MB, and the corresponding config.sys is something like up to 24 MB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchoNoise Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 hahaha... if vista removes 16-bit processes... no half-life for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomcat76 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 WinNT is "better" because it's based on VMS (now OpenVMS).If Vista doesn't support 16-bit apps, then Canon will have a lot of work to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemonforce Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 hahaha... if vista removes 16-bit processes... no half-life for me When 32-Bit processes are finally removed, I'm screwed. I don't think NTVDM is a good solution in a 64-Bit environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluberti Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Windows Vista x64 and future client versions of the OS (Vista will more than likely be the last 32bit client OS released by Microsoft) will not have support for 16bit code at all. Note that this will not be new - Windows XP x64 does not support 16bit code either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link21 Posted March 13, 2006 Author Share Posted March 13, 2006 Windows NT, even from 3.1 days, tends to be larger because it is sheilding the hardware from the apps, and doing a lot more downstairs.For example, the IO.SYS file in Windows NT is 6 MB, and the corresponding config.sys is something like up to 24 MB.There is no real DOS system code in Windows NT. What would IO.sys be for then? I thought IO.sys was for DOS based opertaing systems only.Anyways, lets here why Windows 9X is a piece of junk OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link21 Posted March 13, 2006 Author Share Posted March 13, 2006 (edited) Windows 2000 and Windows XP are so so much better than junker Windows 98/ME ever were. You can't even compare how Windows 98 was in its heyday to how Windows 2000/XP are today. I am not saying just how each OS is overall, but even each OS for its time!! Windows 2000 and Windows XP are so much tremednously better even for their time than Windows 98/ME ever were for their time. Its called the tremednous differences in the core OS technology and the fact one flavor is a real 32-bit OS while the other is not!!Anyone who compares how WIndows 98 was in its heyday to how Windows XP is now doesn't know what they are talking about. Windows 2000/XP easily blow Windows 98/ME away even for their time!! If the whole computing world was using Windows NT 4.0 or 3.51, or some other good quality real 32-bit OS back in the mid to late 1990s, than you could definitely compare how Windows 2000/XP are now to how the older versions of good quality true 32-bit opertaing systems were back in their heydays.Windows 95/98/ME don't even deserve to be considered a 32-bit OS, because by definition, they are not. They are a 16-bit DOS hacked with a large 32-bit extended shell!!Trash those piece of junk Windows 98/ME opertinag systems already!!! They should have been trashed at least four years ago!! Edited March 13, 2006 by Link21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJARRRPCGP Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 (edited) 9x is junk. I heard Vista removes support for 16-bit setups... woohoo! Don't get me started on how even the mighty Mozilla still programs Firefox et al for DOS because of their lack of use of Long Filenames. Other programs simply don't work because of unquoted paths (Paint Shop Pro 9 comes to mind, you can't be in a folder with a long filename and launch an image with PSP). That's all if 8.3 name creation is disabled for NTFS.9X is junk. Not only Mozilla, but also Microsoft. Internet Explorer 6 is compatible with piece of junk Windows 98/ME. And so is DirectX 9. It was a huge mistake by Microsoft to make DirectX9 compatible with Windows 98/ME. A flat out huge mistake!! DirectX 9 should have been for Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only!! Performance would have been so much better that way.First off, Windows 9x does support long file names, second, Mozilla isn't 16-bit! Mozilla probably can support long file names. I dunno why it can't.Also, DirectX under Windows 2000 and Windows XP more likely wouldn't perform better by dropping support for Windows 9x.Why would it? Edited March 14, 2006 by RJARRRPCGP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now