Jump to content

Link21 lives


wizardofwindows

Recommended Posts

It's not superior in any way, except for DOS compatibility. Windows 98 just does what I want it to do and nothing more. Windows XP just tries to be intuitive, which p***es me off most of the time. Yes, I know I can just disable/delete all the bloated crap of XP, but I don't really feel like it. I grew up using a Windows 3.1/95 machine also; so I know how to "deal" with a Win9x machine. I've found it considerably more of a pain in the a** to fix major issues in an XP box than with a 98 box. With 98, I can just boot do DOS or Safe Mode and do whatever I want. XP... well in my experience, it's just a b!tch to fix. System Restore is a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


If some of you people keep saying that Windows 98 is more superior than XP, then how so? Please explain. Some people keep saying that and don't give clear examples.

1. Superior DOS emulation. The DOS VM in XP is awful - for one, "close on exit" option is partially broken, secondly it's slow (setting ntvdm.exe to realtime priority doesn't help, just freezes the rest of the system too) and the speed fluctuates (run a small DOS program that just prints out a huge text file to the screen - at first it outputs quickly, then after approximately 10 seconds it slows down to a crawl). The DOS VM in 98se works well for almost all DOS programs that don't need exclusive control of the machine.

2. Can be booted to DOS to do tasks that can't be done otherwise, like swapping modified system files (XP complains afterwards even if you manage to swap kernels, for example - "system file protection") or deleting browser caches and other files that are normally in-use.

3. Faster. Simpler system architecture reduces overhead of system calls and results in better overall performance. You will notice that a minimal XP installation still lags slightly on fast hardware, while 98se has nearly instantaneous response time.

4. Fewer bugs and exploits. XP needs to be "updated" constantly (not to mention the annoying WGA and activation) - I'm not sure of the exact number, but probably several hundred "critical updates" have been issued since its release. 98se has a few critical updates, but nowhere near as many. A default install is also safer - 98se doesn't phone home to M$, nor does it have dozens of listening services waiting to be exploited.

5. Uses less system resources. An Operating System is not an application program. It should only provide basic services to application programs, not itself try to be an application program. Thus it should consume a minimum of system resources, and let the application programs use them instead. I've run 98se on a 386DX 25MHz with 16Mb of RAM and a 120Mb HDD, it doesn't need much but it still runs quite well. In comparison, the lowest hardware I've gotten XP to install on was a P166 with 64Mb RAM and 4Gb HDD, and even with lots of nLiting it still ran very sluggishly.

6. Overall Compatibility. 98se is the last OS that can support almost all legacy DOS as well as Win32 applications. Many newer programs will run on 98se, but not anything older.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody asked why Win9x was superior to NT 5.x? Many reasons, but primarily what does it for me is the HAL. NT Hardware Abstraction Layer that is. It was touted as the holy grail of hardware and OS integration. It was (and is) anything but. Interestingly enough, the acronym itself >HAL< is of that infamous psycho computer from 2001: A Space Odyssey. How appropriate.

Anyhow, this particular topic was discussed to death in a previous thread. Most of the anti Win9x arguments were something akin to: WiMXPP iZZ TeH BEST!. Which really, in a colorful way, shows the intellectual level of WinXP users, as well as their maturity. Others admitted that Win98 has its purposes, this of course after nearly 50 pages of responses and arguments. Which is for them another way of saying: You got a point! Stop pointing out that XP is a toy OS and that I am a dumbass consumer and the only reason I have XP is because it came preinstalled with my crappy KidCo system from Dell/HP/eMachines or because my friend/cousin/buddy has it! And if my friend/cousin/buddy have it, then I want it too!. Then that thread was promptly locked and "disappeared". Which is really what many of NT fanatics would like to do with this whole Win9x subforum. Which really says a lot, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If some of you people keep saying that Windows 98 is more superior than XP, then how so? Please explain. Some people keep saying that and don't give clear examples.

1. Superior DOS emulation. The DOS VM in XP is awful - for one, "close on exit" option is partially broken, secondly it's slow (setting ntvdm.exe to realtime priority doesn't help, just freezes the rest of the system too) and the speed fluctuates (run a small DOS program that just prints out a huge text file to the screen - at first it outputs quickly, then after approximately 10 seconds it slows down to a crawl). The DOS VM in 98se works well for almost all DOS programs that don't need exclusive control of the machine.

2. Can be booted to DOS to do tasks that can't be done otherwise, like swapping modified system files (XP complains afterwards even if you manage to swap kernels, for example - "system file protection") or deleting browser caches and other files that are normally in-use.

3. Faster. Simpler system architecture reduces overhead of system calls and results in better overall performance. You will notice that a minimal XP installation still lags slightly on fast hardware, while 98se has nearly instantaneous response time.

4. Fewer bugs and exploits. XP needs to be "updated" constantly (not to mention the annoying WGA and activation) - I'm not sure of the exact number, but probably several hundred "critical updates" have been issued since its release. 98se has a few critical updates, but nowhere near as many. A default install is also safer - 98se doesn't phone home to M$, nor does it have dozens of listening services waiting to be exploited.

5. Uses less system resources. An Operating System is not an application program. It should only provide basic services to application programs, not itself try to be an application program. Thus it should consume a minimum of system resources, and let the application programs use them instead. I've run 98se on a 386DX 25MHz with 16Mb of RAM and a 120Mb HDD, it doesn't need much but it still runs quite well. In comparison, the lowest hardware I've gotten XP to install on was a P166 with 64Mb RAM and 4Gb HDD, and even with lots of nLiting it still ran very sluggishly.

6. Overall Compatibility. 98se is the last OS that can support almost all legacy DOS as well as Win32 applications. Many newer programs will run on 98se, but not anything older.

#1 is the only statement that is totally correct. #3 and #5 are only partly correct. If you use Windows 98 on slower hartdware with small amounts of RAM, it will be faster than Windows XP and even Windows 2000. But on a relatively fast system with a decent amount of RAM, Windows 2000 is always faster and even Windows XP is faster.

#4 is only partially correct in that Windows XP has the annnoying activation and WGA BULLCRAP. However, IN NO WAY does it have more bugs. WIndows 98 has far more bugs and isn't even capable of being a good OS for modern computing like Windows 2K and XP are. Also, Windows 2K does not phone home, so use Windows 2K if you don't like how XP phones MS. It is also easy to remove the phone home junk from Windows XP and avoid installing WGA, and you will be fine with Windows XP.

As for #6, sure Windows 98SE is the best for compatibility with old legacy simplistic non-resource intensive poorly written applications. It is not good for anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on a relatively fast system with a decent amount of RAM, Windows 2000 is always faster and even Windows XP is faster.

It is not true - Windows 98 SE is much more responsive even on relatively faster systems - I have dual boot 98SE / XP on 2.4 GHz P4 with 512 MB RAM and it is big difference - in Windows 98 SE everything is quick, in Windows XP (optimized for speed) is everything sooo slooow....

#4 is only partially correct in that Windows XP has the annnoying activation and WGA BULLCRAP. However, IN NO WAY does it have more bugs. WIndows 98 has far more bugs and isn't even capable of being a good OS for modern computing like Windows 2K and XP are. Also, Windows 2K does not phone home, so use Windows 2K if you don't like how XP phones MS. It is also easy to remove the phone home junk from Windows XP and avoid installing WGA, and you will be fine with Windows XP.

Windows 98 SE is less complex and therefore has less possible backdoors.

The result is that Windows 98 SE is much more secure than Windows XP in terms of remote exploitability.

More functions + more remote access services + more code => less secure system.

Windows Vista takes about 8 GB on the hard disk. It means 8 GB of potential security holes.

In real life, there are always both simple, cheap and easy to use tools available as well as very complex and expensive tools for professionals.

As of computers, most people need just very simple tool - to be able to write letters, send messages, browse the web, listen to the music. In days of "real programmers", the whole comfort system would fit in maybe 100 kilobytes of memory and would be satisfied with 4 MHz processor.

Now, there are 1000 times bigger systems with many unneeded functions that pose big security risks.

It's all about the marketing - to force the people to buy things they don't need in fact.

Petr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not true - Windows 98 SE is much more responsive even on relatively faster systems - I have dual boot 98SE / XP on 2.4 GHz P4 with 512 MB RAM and it is big difference - in Windows 98 SE everything is quick, in Windows XP (optimized for speed) is everything sooo slooow....

It is not completely true. You don't have your Windows XP setup properly if that is what you are experieicning. Windows XP is so much faster on any halfway robust system with the bloat stripped out. Windows 98 may only be fast at first because of such a lite resource consumption, but it will slow to a crawl pretty darn fast because it is a low end, low quality, cheap, low performance OS that can utilize reltaively modern hardware efficiently!!

Windows 2000/XP PWNed the crap that is WIN98/ME by far!! Linux PWNed the crap that is Windows 98/ME even more so than 2K/XP. Linux is a great OS. OS/2 WARP is also a realy good OS. Windows 2K/XP/2K3 are solid. Windows 95/98/ME are pieces of junk.

Edited by Link21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm asking the same question, obviously the hitman i paid has done a runner.

Sorry, I was just going off in a rant. Basically all I was trying to state was that I'm not taking Link21's argument seriously anymore, now it's just amusing.

I'm pretty sure HAL was responsible for many of the driver issues in the NT series. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Windows 98 get hardware access directly from the BIOS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The result is that Windows 98 SE is much more secure than Windows XP in terms of remote exploitability.

In the United States in 2004, Georges W. Bush got finally elected President in flagrant contradiction with exit polls who gave the victory to John Kerry.

They had been voting on something called Diebold machines which are no more than network connected MS Windows XP or 2003 boxes with some spreadsheet software.

Something that could not have happened if Win98/ME had been used IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not true - Windows 98 SE is much more responsive even on relatively faster systems - I have dual boot 98SE / XP on 2.4 GHz P4 with 512 MB RAM and it is big difference - in Windows 98 SE everything is quick, in Windows XP (optimized for speed) is everything sooo slooow....

It is not completely true. You don't have your Windows XP setup properly if that is what you are experieicning. Windows XP is so much faster on any halfway robust system with the bloat stripped out. Windows 98 may only be fast at first because of such a lite resource consumption, but it will slow to a crawl pretty darn fast because it is a low end, low quality, cheap, low performance OS that can utilize reltaively modern hardware efficiently!!

Windows 2000/XP PWNed the crap that is WIN98/ME by far!! Linux PWNed the crap that is Windows 98/ME even more so than 2K/XP. Linux is a great OS. OS/2 WARP is also a realy good OS. Windows 2K/XP/2K3 are solid. Windows 95/98/ME are pieces of junk.

This is just propaganda what you write, not the truth. :-) You do not have to cite what Seve Ballmer said, we all know all these false claims. :-)

You must be blind if you don't see so obvious facts - Windows XP has much more instruction to execute to do the same task in comparison with Windows 98.

Very simple example - if you want to open the file in Windows XP, the system has to check the complex system of rights. In Windows 98 is no such system and therefore the execution is much quicker.

I admit that there may be some computer programs that are quicker on Windows XP, although I know none.

But the the Windows XP system itself and its user interface is definitely much slower.

I have at home two computers:

1. Pentium III 1 GHz, 512 MB PC133 SDRAM, Windows 98 SE, 60 GB ATA-100 disk, ATI RAge Xpert 2000 with 16 MB RAM

2. Pentium M 1,86 GHz, 1024 MB DDR2-533 RAM, Windows XP SP2, 250 GB RAID SATA-II disks on Adaptec controllers, ATI X300SE with 128 MB RAM

Just one click to KVM switch and I can use any of them or both together.

The work on the first one is much more comfortable than on the second one.

Both computers are equally secure from remote attack - secured by hardware firewall.

Both computers never experienced any blue screen during the normal work.

I use the second one just when I need to run a program that requires NT based operating system.

Are you able to understand how dumb are your posts where you just repeat your mantra again and again, with no relevant and true agruments?

Petr

Edited by Petr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the hell am I still alive?
i'm asking the same question, obviously the hitman i paid has done a runner.

Sorry, I was just going off in a rant. Basically all I was trying to state was that I'm not taking Link21's argument seriously anymore, now it's just amusing.

****, you said that ? i though link posted it (wishful thinking i think)

guess the cats out the bag now :unsure:

sorry Jlo555 :blushing:

if you went off the hook at Link, i can appreciate that, i nearly got banned for doing the same :}

on topic - mental health patients should have their net access restricted imho

Edited by miko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just propaganda what you write, not the truth. :-) You do not have to cite what Seve Ballmer said, we all know all these false claims. :-)

BULLSH!T!! Since when did I site what Steve Ballmer says. I stated in there how Linux is a great OS. Now would Steve Balmer who sponders MS spouted propoganda insist Linux (which is BTW a serious threat to Microsoft's business model) is a great OS. Microsoft hates Linux and I love it. So I am not spouting off MS propoganda.

Sure, maybe Windows 98 will feel fatser on a faster computer, just like Windows 3.1 will feel faster than any version of even Widnows 9X. It still doens't change the fact that the functionality is badly limited in Windows 98 as it can't take advanatge of high end resource intensive computing. It may be fast, but only for simple lower end applications that don't require a lot of computing power. Windows 2000/XP will always be faster for applications that require lots of computing power on a computer with lots of memory.

It is Windows 9X that sucks. Windows 2K/XP are respectable operating systems, but still not as good as Linux. Windows 95/98/ME are not respectable operating systems no matter how you look at it.

It is a technical fact that almost every OS released since 1994 is far better than that piece of crap in Windows 9X. So what if you can get Win98 to run stable. It still doesn't change the fact that Windows 98 is a cheap, low end, low performance operating system.

Saying that you have less problems with Windows 98 than you did with Windows 2000 or Windows XP would be like saying you had less problems with your Eagle Summit than your Lexus ES.

It still wouldn't change the fact that an Eagle Summit is a cheap, low end, low performance car, while the Lexus ES is a high end, much better quality, significantly higher performing car.

Comparing operating systems to cars with regrdas to functionality, performance, stability, capabilities, and features all rated together.

Windows 3.1 and prior would be like a low end cheap dirt bike that could carry only one person and nothing else and could only reach 50MPH top speed

Windows 95 is like a Yugo (Yugo was a cheap low end car brand that had so many quality problems)

Windows 98/ME are like an Eagle Summit (An Eagle Summit was a cheap low end car that had plenty of quality problems, but wasn't as bad as a Yugo)

Windows NT 3.X is like a Ford Escort

Windows NT 4.0 is like a Ford Taurus

Windows 2000/XP/2003 are like a Lexus ES

OS/2 WARP is like a Toyota Avalon(would have been comparable to something even higher end than a Lexus ES if only developement of OS/2 WARP was still alive and well today)

The latest Linux kernel is like a Rolls Royce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...