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

Ok, I will try to add something original to this "annoying topic" (which almost everybody participate in anyway).

Why using w98? Because computer hardware progress has reached sort of a plateau.

Vista has been conceived with the idea that processor speed and other device capacity double every 6 months. Yet Vista still waste several percents of the largest HD and a few machines can't realy run the aero stuff. And that's not going to change anytime soon. Not until they commercialize DNA-based processor or the even crazier quantic-state based ones.

The time when you can load up Vista and have the same speed and no significant resource waste as compared with w98 is not yet there.

And the internet connection required for the activation is not yet a given worldwide.

Fact is that XP is going to be the alternative for "low end" computers. XP is going to be the "poor guy" OS. It soon won't be the "smart guy" install anymore.

That means that w98++ will have a new friend and not be the laughing stock of the internet anymore.

But XP will be abandonned as an alternative, just like 2000 was because there are merely earlier versions of Vista while w98 will keep its adepts.

Then we have the Linux alternative.

In the old days, poeple switched to Linux because there was only the official M$ w98.

But today Linux is still Linux. It means no direct windows software support.

Today poeple can choose as alternative between Linux and w98.

Many will choose w98 IMO.

Edited by Fredledingue
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Well Windows is the top dog, and the only reason their still the top dog is because none of the made for windows apps will work in linux. I read someone state, why everyone always say linux is better but never gives any reason.

Well, for what linux has to do, to make their OS better is amazing. I used windows all my computer using life, until this year. Yes linux is free. And yes they can do everything windows do (but) run made for windows apps. Thats it!!! Linux is not bloaded, or a ram hog and just wait when vista is released, you might as well throw your computer away, as it will most likely not be fast enough. Linux is more secure, i'd bet you this server is using BSD or apache as it's server. Sure linux is not as user friendly as windows, but it's getting there, and if anyone nowdays aren't computer savvey enough to run linux, than they need to stick with windows, as linux is not hard. I'm no Bill Gates and this is my very first year using linux and i'll never use windows again. Now the question of the posting was (why continue to use win98) and I replied just like all others. I'm not bashing 98, it's a fact 98 is dead! Programmers are using their time on something they can't even write in the code, so they have to stack, wrap, glue and hammer on it, to get things working. You say free is not a issue, Everyone alive and dead has a copy of 98 or can get one, if they got a shovel and dig one up. So everyone still want to use 98 because they have it. Your telling me to keep driving a 1998 windows model caddie when I can have a 2006 linux model for free.

The Difference? Take your fine set of 3 ,4 or 5 way satellite speakers and put them in a box and plug in your old 2 speakers that came with your windows 1998 caddie and have a listen, thats the difference!

I won't reply to this as I agree, it's the same-o same-o

thanks everyone for reading and replying to this post even tho I did not start it,,,,,it was good reading

Trailboss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have to dissagree with linux resource hog, have you ever tried using mandrake 10.2 with KDE and looked ate the memory useage. I only had about 50mb of my 256mb of ram

(98se was released in 1999)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true but the problem is that the nvidia supplied drivers need kernel sources and the compiler for it.
How's that a problem? The source is freely available.
I'm not bashing 98, it's a fact 98 is dead! Programmers are using their time on something they can't even write in the code, so they have to stack, wrap, glue and hammer on it, to get things working.

Not true. First, an OS is not truly dead as long as enough people still use it. Like the people here. Second, 98 already works, what the programmers are doing here is improving support for certain things, and NO, they are not stacking, wrapping, glueing, or doing anything else of that sort. They decompile code and fix as needed.

Your telling me to keep driving a 1998 windows model caddie when I can have a 2006 linux model for free.
If it was free, and the usage instructions were the same, I might consider it. However, Linux is a different OS. There's a learning curve. And who in their right mind replaces something that works just fine already? It's pointless.
i have to dissagree with linux resource hog

He was not saying it was a hog. The opposite, actually.

I have to say that KDE and Gnome were designed for newer systems, though, and thus are hogs on older computers. Our Pentium II 350 Mhz Linux box runs much better since I installed XFCE4 on it to use instead of Gnome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well actually about resource hog it depends on curtain distributions ubuntu 5.04 runs fine but ubuntu 6.06 uses more resources but my copy of mandrake 10.2 is just terible.

the proboem with the kernel sources is that they are 30mb or so and i have a stupid download limit (grrrr)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Linux is being discussed for some reason... people say it is the future

and so on... they say you can run WINE and emulate games but look, this is

just being way too enthusiastic as far as I can see, because the emulator

requires a lot of CPU and RAM - something that the game itself also requires,

so then realistically you can't just emulate games on Linux... its the future, lol,

yeah like 50 years into the future by which time Windows will probably be open

source anyway.

Someone should lobby congress to say look, now M$ has billions and billions

of dollars, everyone needs XP to make using a PC in an office and at home

easier... so then lets rule that Windows should be free and open source.

Yeah you "could" use Linux, OK, but then you "could" walk everywhere on your

hands instead of your feet... but you don't because it would be real hard to do!

So then no, people shouldn't even say "well you have the choice of using Linux"

because the reality is normal people who think Yahoo! is the internet, the real

n00bs, are never going to be able to install Linux, they can't even install Windows

half the time FFS, and even if they do get Linux on the go, theres no games for it.

Edited by LeveL
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.

XP works very well on old computers if you disable useless services. Yes you will still need much ram however you can buy plenty of 64mb sticks on ebay like I did (for 40€ I got 40 64mb 133mhz sticks).

i have to dissagree with linux resource hog, have you ever tried using mandrake 10.2 with KDE and looked ate the memory useage. I only had about 50mb of my 256mb of ram

(98se was released in 1999)

I have seen optimized windows 2003s (converted to workstations) and windows XPs using less than 50mb ram without essential services disabled (and some of them with the themes still turned on). Most of the usage unfortunately sometimes are related to the device drivers however XP and 2003 without some less-used services enabled don't use very much ram.

Actually the biggest memory hog on XP/2003 are automatic updates and the services it relies on however if you connect to the internet with a router (so your pc is not directly visible on internet) and you don't use IE/outlook probably you're safe without updates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I just installed XP on a spare PentiumMMX @ 200MHz with 128MB of RAM (Intel 430TX chipset) and it runs very well... not. What do you say, should I do that for my other 200MHz MMX with only 64MB RAM or the Pentium 166MHz with 32MB RAM (both Intel 430VX chipset)? I bet they would fly... out the window.

I had Win98SE and Server2003 dualboot on this current machine (Pentium III @ 800MHz, SiS630 chipset) before my old HDD crashed. While 98SE was literally flying, 2003 with most services disabled (which took me a lot of time for searching documentation, applying and testing) was crawling. One application at a time, otherwise I would've brought it to its knees.

Guess what I'm running now on my new 160GB HDD... Yeah, 98SE only.

Regarding Linux, I played around for a bit with Ubuntu and Kubuntu 6.06 in live mode. While Ubuntu was freezing after some time while doing nothing special but tweaking some settings, Kubuntu has been running fine for hours, after tweaking the very same settings. But there are two major drawbacks that I see in Linux:

1. Fonts are absolutely crappy, I mean I couldn't find not even one font that would largely resemble what I'm used to from Windows, and that Firefox browser... ugh, it makes me sick the way it looks and works (no flames intended) with those ugly fonts.

2. I couldn't for the life of me get my Romanian keyboard layout to look/work exactly as in Windows. I've been using the RO layout ever since Win95 although it was a pain to set it in the version of 95 I had here, and I expected to be able to have it work identically in Linux. However, that was not possible at all. And this made Linux a no-no, for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I just installed XP on a spare PentiumMMX @ 200MHz with 128MB of RAM (Intel 430TX chipset) and it runs very well... not. What do you say, should I do that for my other 200MHz MMX with only 64MB RAM or the Pentium 166MHz with 32MB RAM (both Intel 430VX chipset)? I bet they would fly... out the window.

As I told you you can buy on ebay very cheap 64mb sticks of ram (because nobody wants them). If your mb has 4 ram slots (like most) you can get 256mb on your mb.

I had Win98SE and Server2003 dualboot on this current machine (Pentium III @ 800MHz, SiS630 chipset) before my old HDD crashed. While 98SE was literally flying, 2003 with most services disabled (which took me a lot of time for searching documentation, applying and testing) was crawling. One application at a time, otherwise I would've brought it to its knees.

Did you install updated drivers? Did you restore video/audio acceleration? Did you check out that UDMA is enabled?

Guess what I'm running now on my new 160GB HDD... Yeah, 98SE only.

I don't know why you prefer running an OS without memory protection and that also relies on FAT. I've installed XP on plenty of old PCs (even very old 200mhz pentium MMXs) and with the services tweaked and updated drivers most of the time it was running very very well.

A 800mhz pc like yours should be more than capable of running XP: do you have an integrated SiS graphics card? That could explain why XP runs slow, drivers for some old SiS hardware, especially video hardware, run horribly on XP.

I have XP on a 733 mhz laptop with Ali chipset and it runs very very well, surely better than the 98se the laptop came with.

Regarding Linux, I played around for a bit with Ubuntu and Kubuntu 6.06 in live mode. While Ubuntu was freezing after some time while doing nothing special but tweaking some settings, Kubuntu has been running fine for hours, after tweaking the very same settings. But there are two major drawbacks that I see in Linux:

1. Fonts are absolutely crappy, I mean I couldn't find not even one font that would largely resemble what I'm used to from Windows, and that Firefox browser... ugh, it makes me sick the way it looks and works (no flames intended) with those ugly fonts.

This is because Apple has patents on fonts antialiasing so the linux distros come with antialiasing disabled. You have to enable antialiasing by hand if you want the fonts to look like XP. Unfortunately linux antialiasing is not at the same level of cleartype however it's still pretty good.

2. I couldn't for the life of me get my Romanian keyboard layout to look/work exactly as in Windows. I've been using the RO layout ever since Win95 although it was a pain to set it in the version of 95 I had here, and I expected to be able to have it work identically in Linux. However, that was not possible at all. And this made Linux a no-no, for me.

You can still post your problem on the ubuntu forums probably they'll solve it.

Edited by Francesco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you perform a simple search, you'll see that Intel 430 chipsets only support 128MB of RAM at most, EDO or FPM (some boards do have at most 2 SDRAM slots); PC133 sticks just don't fit. Next issue is that eBay is not accesible to me here for various reasons.

Again, searching would reveal that SiS630 chipsets have integrated graphics (SiS300). Added to this, the mobo has no additional AGP slot (Jetway630CF). And yes, I got the latest available drivers, which are dated sometime 2004.

Regarding Linux fonts, I may try your antialiasing tip someday, but as I have a CRT monitor here, I don't think it would help much, if at all.

Lastly, keyboard layout... maybe I'm the only romanian trying out K/Ubuntu after a long Windows experience?! Because I've been searching those forums (very chaotic boards, if I may) and couldn't find anything remotely related to that. Also similar requests for different layouts were left open or received cryptic answers.

Edited by Drugwash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... they say you can run WINE and emulate games but look, this is

just being way too enthusiastic as far as I can see, because the emulator

requires a lot of CPU and RAM - something that the game itself also requires,

so then realistically you can't just emulate games on Linux...

http://www.winehq.org/site/docs/wine-faq/i...INE-AN-EMULATOR

no need to comment that. :whistle:

Yeah you "could" use Linux, OK, but then you "could" walk everywhere on your

hands instead of your feet... but you don't because it would be real hard to do!

So then no, people shouldn't even say "well you have the choice of using Linux"

because the reality is normal people who think Yahoo! is the internet, the real

n00bs, are never going to be able to install Linux, they can't even install Windows

half the time FFS, and even if they do get Linux on the go, theres no games for it.

We just have one little problem about linux and needed applications:

People will not use linux because their favourite application X is only available for Windows. Software vendors on the other hand can't/won't support linux because the market share is to low.

Average Software is not the problem, OpenOffice.org and a lot of everyday use software is there, but for the special software ... reread the previous statement.

btw, people tend to use what they are accustomed to since years. And guess what comes with every PC you buy, and what OS do you see first in school for example? There is only one answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they say you can run WINE and emulate games but look, this is

just being way too enthusiastic as far as I can see, because the emulator

requires a lot of CPU and RAM

The name 'Wine' derives from the recursive acronym Wine Is Not an Emulator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(software)

http://www.winehq.com/site/myths

http://sourceforge.net/projects/wine/

Petr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francesco, you don't seem to understand that it's useless to install XP on new or older machines.

Because the less ram and speed, the less XP is useful and the more ram and speed, the more w98 is stable.

Upgrading your system to make it XP capable just make it useless to install XP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I told you you can buy on ebay very cheap 64mb sticks of ram (because nobody wants them). If your mb has 4 ram slots (like most) you can get 256mb on your mb.

There's no point in getting more RAM for your computer just so you can install a newer OS when the current one works fine. Clearly XP does not run well on older computers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i made a mistake a meant mandrake 10.2 was a resource hog but xp is a much bigger resource hog,

have you tried running xp on 64 mb of ram,

i disabled most of the services,

the install probably only took a short three hours or so

and it wasnt practically doing more than one thing at once.

also sure xp can run on a p3 866mhz with 128mb ram but if sophos is installed on it than it wont run anymore

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...