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 continue to use Windows 9x?


DukeBlazingstix
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was reading a thread here with somebody asking if they can build a modern system and still use Windows 98, and I thought "Why?" I wasn't the only person, as somebody did ask such a question, but responses were primarily brought with a bit of heat and, let's say, resentment.

I was actually about to press the issue there myself, but I didn't want to hijack that person's thread, since I sure they wanted a specific answer to their inquiry, and this is going a bit offtopic.

I'm not trying to start a flamewar (which given the forum I'm in, will undoutable be rather one-sided), but I'm genuinely curious.

I mean, I used to do the whole DualBoot Win98SE/WinXP, but after a time, that grew too cumbersome for me, so I adopted full-force, and overall have been quite pleased. And just recently I've given the Vista RC2 beta a go, and it was a very rocky adjustment, but on the whole I've grown accustomed to it, and will probably buy it when it comes out.

In fact, all my original misgivings about XP, and Vista have given way. I'm sure part of that is because I've gotten myself two moderatly-large (1440×900) monitors, so I'm no longer put off by the increasing amount of desktop real-estate everything takes now.

I even installed Microsoft's beta of Virtual PC 2007, and I have (over the last three days) installed Virtual machines of a wide range, including Windows 95B, Windows 98SE, WindowsMe, Windows2000, and given each a small run through. It was merely a refresher, since I had used each and every one of those extensively in their decade+ history.

And after having used WindowsXP for as long as I have, I could not imagine going back to those older Windows OSes.

So, now that you have a small bit of my background, and where I'm coming from, why continue to use Windows 9x?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Use the search function. There was a master thread in this sub-forum on this exact topic, 20-30 pages long. Somebody asked your question already, and got an answer.

Edited by Lunac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You Know Why To Use Windows 9x?

1)Most of the Bugs is worked out...you don't need many patches anymore.Even without Mzoft' Support, Windows 9x can still be updated by Private Projects.

2)Its Does not carry all the unnecessary whistles and bells that come with Windows Xp.At least in 9x, you can choose what components to use

3)I have tried All of the OS's Made By Microsoft(Even Windows 3.1 and a little bit of the DOS 1.0) and by far the 9x series was the least buggiest.

4)Unlike the new OS's Windows 9x doesn't Sap your precious resources.I went to the task manager and saw all these programs...

5)There was no protection.Windows XP, after installing the OS, as I connected to the net for the first time these annoying popups came up.Later I found out that People can manipulate the Windows XP Alert Messenger(not MSN Messenger) to send targeted ads.

6)There are so many viruses made for XP and Vista(Even With SP2) there are many ways to easily go through the security.

7)Many Virus Developers forgot about 9x so theoretically its much safer.

I'd Post More reasons but I have to go to sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a master thread in this sub-forum on this exact topic, 20-30 pages long.

That's perfect, a nice long discussion to read... you wouldn't happen to know what the thread was called, do you... I ran a quick search, but couldn't see it for looking.

Edited by DukeBlazingstix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows 95 is the only OS Microsoft made a real effort on. They spent a lot of money on usability research. The result is a clean interface with no fancy bells and whistles, for maximum productivity. My Software Engineering teacher agrees that Windows 95 is a good system, and that it went downhill from there.

Win95 only has the minimum of services and processes necessary. It's not bloated. Right now I'm running 9 processes.

SYSTRAY.EXE

KERNEL32.DLL

-MSGSRV32.EXE

--EXPLORER.EXE

---PROCEXP.EXE (just to be able to look at these)

---SEAMONKEY.EXE (my web browser)

--mmtask.tsk (Multimedia background task support module)

--MPREXE.EXE (WIN32 Network Interface Service Process)

--SPOOL32.EXE (Spooler Sub System Process, for whenever I want to print)

That's it. I don't need anything more.

Windows 95 never really got IE integration, unlike newer Windows OSs. It was just a forced install. However, by editing the install files, you can fix that. I'm running IE-free since months, with no lost functionality, and more free memory.

The lack of many network services and a secure web browser make Windows 95 pretty secure. Additionally, it's behind a router, as no matter what Windows version you run, you should close most ports for maximum security.

As for applications, there's a long history of freeware you can run. I can also still run my older games flawlessly. My web browser is a fresh one from a tinderbox.

In short, I'm happy with it and how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scenario you're describing only happens to people who don't have a clue. Most exploits nowadays are social engineering that Joe Blow runs into because he doesn't know much about computers. NT5's layer won't do anything to protect him from that.

Knowledge is power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wrote this in another thread, but I think it applies here as well:

The issue is this: (and I have said this many times in many threads before) Windows 98SE does everything for me an NT based OS could (photo/audio/video editing, website design, gaming, word processing, web browsing, you name it) , plus Windows 98SE does some things an NT OS can't (primarily legacy DOS support and support for legacy hardware as well), and does all of it with much higher overall performance and less fuss. By fuss I mean the lack of a crappy Hardware Abstraction Layer which can be found in NT based operating systems. (2000/XP included of course)

Hardware Abstraction Layer is one of the primary reasons I stay away from NT based operating systems. I've said this before in a previous thread but, HAL was a half-assed attempt at pushing NT into the mainstream by attempting to correct the obvious lack of hardware support NT kernel had at the time. HAL was supposed to assist developers in creating device drivers much faster by writing less code and letting HAL itself deal with any portability and compatibility issues. One way HAL does this is by emulating hardware and/or hardware features that are not even there to begin with. (Which is not unusal for an OS) In theory this was a dream come true. You could write minimal code with maximum results in record time. In theory of course. Problem is, the abstraction layer in NT operating systems is seriously flawed and simply inadequate when it comes to what it was designed to do. Also, HAL depended (and still does) on the driver creator to be responsible and create a retail strength driver in the time it would take to create a alpha driver for the same device. This is many times impossible, which ends up giving the user or consumer a buggy alpha strength driver.

For basic information on what HAL is and what it does go here:

http://www.answers.com/topic/hardware-abstraction-layer

I can throw virtually any type of hardware setup at Windows 98SE and it will boot, it might not support the hardware in question, but it will boot. In Windows 2000/XP when it came to hardware upgrades I had to deal with all kinds of issues that are non-existent on Win9x platforms. Can you say Windows Stop Messages? I can! Nothing nicer than installing a new piece of hardware and then having a nice Windows Stop Message induced BSOD, courtesy of s***ty implementation of HAL. Sure, I got hardware induced BSODs on my Windows 98SE system every now and then, but not nearly as many as I did under NT based operating systems.

Another primary reason I stay away from NT based operating systems is the clownish bul*****. XP is a toy OS, Vista is even more of a toy OS. Only Vista is even more bloated and restricted, and colorful. All the hallucinogenic color themes and LEGO-like shells are a major turn off to me. When XP was released one of the first things I noticed was all the colors, almost neon in their intensity. The window bars were over sized, all the buttons were huge and illustrated, there was even an animated dog in the search window! My first thought was: how clownish! It looked like a toy OS, something for kids to play with. Then I noticed the bugs, lack of performance, and lack of software and hardware compatibility. It was a toy alright, not even a good one.

As for the multi-core CPUs, well, my single CPU along Win98SE handles everything just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i use windows xp because i really like it. but, for some people, they may not have hardware that can handle XP so i see why they would use 98. but the reverse can happen. where they have a system that handles xp much better than it can 98 (like my inspiron 7000 laptop)

on my laptop, xp runs a lot better than 98. its faster and handles my video card a lot better.

however, my armada 1700 laptop runs with 98 a lot better than xp, it boots faster, runs programs faster, and handles the hardware just better.

so it vastly depends on your hardware configuration.

Edited by Cygnus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those that have the funds, then need, the intellegance, training, or whatever to keep up with Microsoft and their continued updates then so be it. For the rest of us that are trapped in limbo with Win95, Win98, Win98SE, WinMe, NT, XP, 2K, 2K3, or whatever you are happy with then so be it again. I, for one, like working with somethingy I have done some learning on and know a little about and can keep it running without having to reinstall every year, 6 months or whatever you are having to do it. AS my system stands there has been only one re-format and re-install of Win98SE, since Dec. 1998 not saying there have not been other crashes, but; they were recoverable.

I thank those that are doing this site, and "98SE2ME" and any other they are working with because I plan on testing, testing, testing, well you get the picture.

My postings will have to be plain jane without any flowers, bells or whistles as I use text only and if I do any capitalizations to accent any word there has been the threat that I will be banned, so be it if that is what the powers to be want. I do not flame, but they probably will think this is a flame and no matter what I say or do will make no difference, so be it.

I enjoy reading and posting to some of these forums, Croatia does not like me and I will have to go when they tell me so.

Thank you for reading my post,

Edited by NativeTexan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ NativeTexan, i know what ya mean. i have the same way of looking at things. i run an old dell inspiron 7000 with windows xp and i love it. it may be a little slow, but its **** reliable and i have no need to update/upgrade to the latest version.

i like using my laptop, and it runs very well for what i want to be able to do. i can do email, browse the web, and chat with my friends. does what i want. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello!

Windows 95 is the only OS Microsoft made a real effort on. They spent a lot of money on usability research. The result is a clean interface with no fancy bells and whistles, for maximum productivity. My Software Engineering teacher agrees that Windows 95 is a good system, and that it went downhill from there.

Win95 only has the minimum of services and processes necessary. It's not bloated. Right now I'm running 9 processes.

Windows NT 3.51 is the best Windows:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/n...p.mspx?mfr=true

Windows NT 3.51 is recognized throughout the industry as having hit a "sweet spot" in operating system design. It is both incredibly robust and stable as an application server and workstation platform, yet fast and nimble from the perspective of core operating system services, such as virtual memory management, file I/O, networking, and file and print sharing.
http://pclt.cis.yale.edu/pclt/OPSYS/NT.HTM
With Release 4.0, Windows NT will have essentially the same look and feel of Windows 95. However, the most important structural change was to rethink the role of the microkernel and the WIN32 subsystem.

In previous releases of Windows NT, any application had to do a Local Procedure Call to the WIN32 subsystem to perform any operation on the screen.

Regards, Roman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use 98 because I provide free computers to the disabled. I collect any old computer parts and assemble them into working computers. The fastest computer that has been donated so far is a 500MHz Pentium III. Windows 9x OS’s are the only ones that have been donated and are the only OS’s that will run on these old machines. These machines change the lives of many of the recipients and I’d like to thank everyone here for keeping the old OS’s working. You’re helping a lot of people who otherwise wouldn’t have computers 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...