Jump to content

Why continue to use Windows 9x?


DukeBlazingstix

Recommended Posts

"Why continue to use Windows 9x when you could just use Windows 2000?"

Who "could just use Windows 2000"? Windows 2000 is not freeware, you have to pay $219 or $199 for the license (official upgrade price from Microsoft for W2000 and for WXP respectively).

(not mentioning how slooooow Windows 2000 is and that the mainstream support was already discontinued by Microsoft)

Petr

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Windows 98 can run on 5 processors (6 if you count Opera)
:lol::lol::lol:

What is it with these "Why use xxxx?" threads?

We've had too many of these already and the same points get repeated over and over, all these threads seem to do is benefit users who want to increase their postcounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why continue to use Windows 9x when you could just use Windows 2000?"

Who "could just use Windows 2000"? Windows 2000 is not freeware, you have to pay $219 or $199 for the license (official upgrade price from Microsoft for W2000 and for WXP respectively).

(not mentioning how slooooow Windows 2000 is and that the mainstream support was already discontinued by Microsoft)

Petr

Windows 98 is not freeware either.

Windows 98 is not supported with Windows Updates and

Windows 2000 still is, but you're saying the opposite?

I don't really understand your logic.

Regarding prices - Windows 98 costs £58 here in the UK.

You can buy Windows XP Home for the same price.

None of these are upgrades, they are the full OS.

Don't you want to be able to plug things in and they work?

Windows 98 never did that! It isn't even compatible with

DVD drives either. But nevermind, its all been said before

as LLXX said. dry.gif

For people who still use Windows 98 I guess it is like a sort of religion?

There is no feasible argument in my eyes for using it. Don't like the theme

in XP? It can be put on classic theme. Don't like WPA? Well, you got me there,

its a kicker. But the advantage to XP is... all your devices are instantly recognized,

all your networking works with barely any setting up to do, heh, you have support for

DVD drives and of course, you can still get Windows Updates.

Edited by LeveL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really understand your logic.

Regarding prices - Windows 98 costs £58 here in the UK.

You can buy Windows XP Home for the same price.

The fact is we're on a Win98 forum so we all already have it... :wacko:
I don't really understand your logic. Windows 98 is not supported with Windows Updates and Windows 2000 still is.
Don't worry, this won't last. :sneaky:
[Windows 98] isn't even compatible with DVD drives either.
lol What did you smoke man?

Seriously, that just proves you don't know what you're talking about...

There is no feasible argument in my eyes for using it.
Just like there is no feasible argument in our eyes for using Win2k. The difference is we respect that.
For people who still use Windows 98 I guess it is like a sort of religion?
You're the one coming in a Win98 forum to make 2k proselytism...

We really should have a sticky topic saying this forum is for Win98 USERS to avoid this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By Atmosphere XG Dec 10 2006

No Phoning Microsoft to Activate

Freedom. I can wipe my hard drive clean, add/remove hard drives, processor, memory, sound cards and don't need to phone Microsoft why I'm doing so.

Windows 2000 does not phone home, why not just use that?

Because Windows 2000 offers more security in which I don't need or want. I'm the only one that use my Computers. And if I want Security, I'll use My Windows XP Computer. Bare in mind I use my 98 computers primarily for Audio, which doesn't need the extras that Windows 2000 offers.

Originally Posted By Atmosphere XG Dec 10 2006

Software Adaptability

I'm shocking a lot of developers that I'm using Windows 98 FE to try out their software, vst plug-ins, etc. when they specify Windows XP requirements. Most (If not all) the programs I use or demo work fine on Windows 98 FE

Yeah but I bet even more stuff works on Windows 2000.

As I mentioned before, I'm using Audio. Audio doesn't require the extras Windows 2000 offers.

Originally Posted By Atmosphere XG Dec 10 2006

Less Cluttered

When using XP (Yes. I own XP) I find myself going through a whole ordeal to get where I want to go.

For my requirements Windows 98 FE is simple clean and to the point. And this is why I use it. I've actually changed Windows XP to "Classic Mode." Never liked the kiddie controls Windows XP offered. I don’t need eye candy, Administrator Logins & all the other perks XP offers. I just want something that works.

Heh, Windows 2000 works and is vastly superior to Windows 98 and its

FAT32 limitation. How do you store a 4Gb+ ISO file on FAT32? The answer

is you don't, because you can't.

Why would I need a 4GB file ISO for Audio? That's Video (DVD) in which I have no interest of. The Fat 32 limitation is not an issue for me because I use separate internal Hard Drives. I'm into Audio, and it's common for guys to use multiple Hard Drives for Audio purposes. So, relying on one Hard Drive to do it all is not what Audio Professionals do.

This topic is called "Why continue to use Windows 9x?" but for me the

full question would have to be "Why continue to use Windows 9x when

you could just use Windows 2000?"

What I mentioned previously says it all. I use my Computer primarily for Audio Purposes. Which doesn't need Windows 2000. Operating systems don't hold any factors when it comes to the quality of sound. What matters is the sound card. My sound cards offer 96Khz/24 Bit with MIDI. So I'm not losing anything remaining on Windows 98.

Edited by Atmosphere XG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows 98 can run on 5 processors (6 if you count Opera)
:lol::lol::lol:

What is it with these "Why use xxxx?" threads?

We've had too many of these already and the same points get repeated over and over, all these threads seem to do is benefit users who want to increase their postcounts.

lol, so true

I use whatever I need wherever I need. Windows 98 was alright for its tme, but if your going to buy a brand new computer, go with XP or Vista. Then at least your system is running the OS it was meant to be using.

(I know I'm using XP on a 7 year old laptop, but it works better than 98 does. If that isn't saying something, then I don't know what is)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it with these "Why use xxxx?" threads?

We've had too many of these already and the same points get repeated over and over, all these threads seem to do is benefit users who want to increase their postcounts.

This thread is a fantastic waste of time and energy with only very few relevant answers. I'm new to this 9x forum but ...amazed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows 98 is not freeware either.

Most of computer users older than 30 have already purchased w98.

Don't you want to be able to plug things in and they work?
Sure. Try to plug in a pre-XP era Creative Webcam in an XP computer. Good luck.
There is no feasible argument in my eyes for using it. Don't like the theme

in XP? It can be put on classic theme. Don't like WPA? Well, you got me there,

its a kicker. But the advantage to XP is...

The problem is that on XP I can only change the things I don't want to change (why removing XP themes and skin, seriousely) but I can't change what realy annoys me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might enjoy this MozillaZine thread. Looks like I'm insane. :P

Nope. You're not insane. You gave your reasons why you use Windows 95. Unfortunately, it seems the Moderator on Mozilla forums needs some growing up to do.

I didn't need a dozen quote rebuttal as to why you don't need those things. I'm not going to rise to it because this is someone else's thread. I can PM you plenty of reasons why you're wrong if you prefer.

I rest my case. :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a switch. A forum with a Windows 98 section that actually gets posted in more than once a month.

Maybe the thread title should be "Why not continue to use Windows9X?"

I haven't found any reason to switch to anything newer, save the Linux distro that's also installed on this old box.

My reasons for not switching or "upgrading":

  1. My 98 box is stable. Runs 24/7 with no problems.
  2. It's fast, even on low power systems. On good hardware, it screams!
  3. It performs all the tasks I ask of it.
  4. Much less bloat.
  5. It isn't vulnerable to many of the exploits and pests that take down the newer "more secure" operating systems.
  6. I can perform multiple tasks using less resources that XP can even run on.
  7. I have full access to all system files without interference from Windows.
  8. It's easier to stop "calling home" and other forms of "babysitting-ware". No DRM problems. No validation issues.
  9. I can deny the operating system internet access with no ill effects. No "services" trying to connect out.
  10. I don't have to worry about kernel rootkits
  11. There's more than enough freeware and Open Source software available to cover all my needs.

I'm shocking a lot of developers that I'm using Windows 98 FE to try out their software, vst plug-ins, etc. when they specify Windows XP requirements. Most (If not all) the programs I use or demo work fine on Windows 98 FE

Developers do tend to underestimate the old DOS based systems. Fortunately, a few recognize it's potential and the fact that millions still use it, whether by choice or necessity, and chose to support these systems. I do a fair amount of beta testing with this old box too, primarily security software. Testing the early beta versions of System Safety Monitor was pure joy. As long as apps like SSM are available, 98 can be used very securely for whatever the user chooses to.

It's my hypothesis that the paranoid communists, and the Microsoft monopoly that they protect, will eventually disallow 98 connections to the internet, precisely because 98 allows a HDD owner full control of his system. Thus, the main reason to keep 98 alive, is to keep the concept of a purchaser have a right of full ownership of his or her HDD alive (free of MS restrictions and peeking rights).

That's pretty close to what's happening. Operating systems are becoming spyware. Windows has always had some spyware capabilities, but they're far worse than earlier versions. With 98, it was index.dat files and hidden history folders. Now it's ADS, DRM, and rootkits.

Now consider Vista and M$ locking security-ware out of the kernel. It's already proven that they haven't actually secured the kernel, but they've made it illegal for security software (or users) to hook it. It wouldn't suprise me at all to find this is government ordered to allow for NSA snoopware under the guise of national security. Think about where that leads. Anyone who 'discovers" such an item in the kernel had to comit an illegal act to do so. Maybe I am paranoid, but the "official" answers to questions regarding kernel security don't hold up.

It isn't so much Win98 that concerns them. It's DOS and its ability to access files free from interference from windows. Windows can't defend or hide files/processes when it isn't running.

Why keep using 98? Because it runs good for me and I don't trust anything newer from M$. Besides, I can always boot to Linux.

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might enjoy this MozillaZine thread. Looks like I'm insane. :P

WOW... what a forum ! :rolleyes:

I have a friend of longstanding, who was a programmer long before many people here were born....When I first met him, 27 years ago, his reason for not buying a portable then, was the bloat caused by IBM's software.
Or he could have been waiting for august 1981 and IBM to invent the PC at first. Then wait for the portable. :whistle:

This guy obviously also was first to get one:

I've been using PCs daily at work since 1981
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have something to throw into the mix...

I currently admin a tiny spec of a network for a custom engine shop.

The shop has to have DOS compatibility- the dyno machine uses a DOS program to read all the ports and whatnot.

While there *is* a version that will run on XP, it does NOT give similar results. The DOS version will make a jagged line across the graphs, showing every little lag in power over the curve...

The XP version shows a clean, constant curve. Methinks it is the HAL (mentioned ealier in this thread), which just sucks. I mean, because of the lack of detail, the XP version is virtually useless.

This poor guy running the shop is STUCK having to use '98.

And in that respect, I must thank everyone that keeps this place running, and everyone working still on keeping the OS alive...

Now if we could keep the hardware alive...

Or make the DOS and Windows 9x work on the brand spankin' new hardware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really understand your logic.

Regarding prices - Windows 98 costs £58 here in the UK.

You can buy Windows XP Home for the same price.

The fact is we're on a Win98 forum so we all already have it... :wacko:

What about everyone else in the world who might not have ever bought Windows 98

and are considering seeing what all the "fuss" is about HERE?

I don't really understand your logic. Windows 98 is not supported with Windows Updates and Windows 2000 still is.
Don't worry, this won't last. :sneaky:

Thats missing the point that Windows 2000 is still supported with Windows

Updates and yet Windows 98 is not.

[Windows 98] isn't even compatible with DVD drives either.
lol What did you smoke man?

Seriously, that just proves you don't know what you're talking about...

Its not me that had the issues with it, it was a guy I worked with who spent

weeks trying to work out how to get his DVD drive to work with Windows 98.

One day I went in work and he had got it working eventually, but he had been

asking me for weeks how to make it work with Windows 98, so it obviously

doesn't just work - like with most things that "work" on Windows 98 he had

to mess about spending weeks to make things compatible that with Windows

2000 or XP you'd just plug in and it works.

So maybe I should ask the guy that told me this what he has been smoking?

There is no feasible argument in my eyes for using it.
Just like there is no feasible argument in our eyes for using Win2k. The difference is we respect that.

I never said I didn't respect using Windows 98. Just pointing out how pointless it is

now its 2006.

For people who still use Windows 98 I guess it is like a sort of religion?
You're the one coming in a Win98 forum to make 2k proselytism...

We really should have a sticky topic saying this forum is for Win98 USERS to avoid this...

Well hold on, the topic is called "Why continue to use Windows 9x?" as if to say,

someone give one good reason why Windows 98 is any use these days. Personally

I cannot come up with any reason to still use it.

Maybe its this thread that should not have been posted in a forum that will only ever

glamorize Windows 98 and never discuss the reasons/label it as "disrespectful" when

anyone points out these obvious shortfalls of using Windows 98?

The person posting this thread even follows the title with the words "An honest question,

searching for an honest answer." Hahaha! Thats sounds like he has read through this

Windows 98 forum and is SCARED TO ASK because he knows he will get blasted for

even suggesting that Windows 98 and attempting to make it work these days is just

plain wrong when we have better NT based OS's.

Indeed, why continue to use Windows 9x? dry.gif

Edited by LeveL
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...