Jump to content

Alternatives to Win98


waywyrd

Recommended Posts

What specific flavors of Linux would be suggested? Why those flavors? How is the hardware support for laptops? For desktops? For USB devices?

I would love to have a lightweight Linux install... but I got an E1705 Dell laptop... and I don't know Linux... but I like the Knoppix DVD... I boot it in VMWare often enough to claim I use a Linux OS weekly... BUT... I boot the Knoppix for the software it comes with... not for anything else.

I like the shell a *lot* more. I like the 'feel' of it. Something says power and simplicity...

The file system is almost too scary to bother fiddling with... if not for my Amiga experience, I would *never* try anything on Linux/Knoppix...

I use it in work for diagnosing truly dead hardware... ya know, sometimes Windows is just being a bastard... the hardware is actually fine...

Windows 2000 sounds like the next in line for older hardware, and I can easily understand this stance... it answers correctly to my criteria in the beginning of my post...

BUT.

I never really considered 2000 as 'user friendly'. I can't put into words why I feel this way, even with standard 98 themes applied and icons and fonts and everything.... it just feels alien to me somehow...

How's about ideas about shell replacements on 2000? I tried a few on XP and 98 back in the day, and all of 'em had issues... anyone know of one that is finally working properly as a replacement shell??

I like this thread, and I often wondered the same thing but never figured to ask... thanks for having the gusto to post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hi,

Thanks DeadDude, for your kind comments.

I'm glad that other members are realising that the aim/point of my original post was to ask if anybody had found or was using a viable alternative to Win98. Perhaps I should have made it plainer from the start, that I wasn't neccessarily thinking of other Microsoft O/S. Neither was I looking for 'the best' O/S, if there is such a thing? There's been enough posts about which is the best O/S, usually ending up in a 'slanging match' as to why such-and-such O/S was rubbish etc.

The aim of this post was/is to see if there was a viable alternative to Win98, other than just upgrading to Vista. While, with regard to Linux, the choice is good, what isn't so good is 'going through hoops' to get it to handle all the various hardware and file formats, that Win98 handles almost 'out-of-the-box'!

Waywyrd :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the installation manual on Debian's site, and I'm not sure if Debian is for me. The (minimum!) system requirements are a bit disturbing for someone who just wants the equivalent of Windows 95 OSR 2.x:

Install Type: With Desktop

RAM: 64 megabytes

Hard Drive: 1 gigabyte

Compare this with what I would recommend for my Windows 95 install:

RAM: 32 MB

HD: 300 MB

I'm wondering if the requirement is for the regular Debian install. I haven't seen something specifically labelled as "base" (except in the documentation), only a network install, which I'd rather avoid in favor of having a CD.

I've just seen that you the kernel by default has a lot of drivers, but that you can recompile it with only what you need, which is good.

I would also like to know if it's possible to have the floppy boot Linux so my hard drive's MBR remains unaffected.

Edited by BenoitRen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the installation manual on Debian's site, and I'm not sure if Debian is for me. The (minimum!) system requirements are a bit disturbing for someone who just wants the equivalent of Windows 95 OSR 2.x:

RAM: 64 megabytes

Hard Drive: 1 gigabyte

Compare this with what I would recommend for my Windows 95 install:

RAM: 32 MB

HD: 300 MB

I'm wondering if the requirement is for the regular Debian install. I haven't seen something specifically labelled as "base"....

I've just seen that you the kernel by default has a lot of drivers, but that you can recompile it with only what you need, which is good.

First and foremost, I think that your specs for Win95 are only going to be good for W95... sorry dude... but, you also mentioned a possible fix for those issues- recompiling the kernel. Not a bad idea, if you are a developer. Someone like me, a tinkerer in software, no programming skills really... I can't do that... so it is a no-go for my side of this issue...

Someone said somewhere the problems of Linux for people like us here is that there are too many choices. and I agree.

Do they **all** run ****ALL**** the same software? Recompiling the KERNEL?!?! How often do you have to do that?! What is the software support like in Linux? IF YER NOT A PROGRAMMER?

Do you see the issues with Linux clearer? It may honestly fit the 'requirements' for a PC, but not necessarily the people requirements of their PC... I'm quite smart, and I can do anything I've tried eventually... but I still have yet to give Linux an honest go- I have the entire world to enteract with, not just Linux users...

The online software for my college (for instance) only supports IE5.5+ and FF 2+

and the Linux build in my live CD doesn't work with it... hmmm.... neither does Launch.com (music site with video), or any other multimedia website... and there's no Windows Media support at all on Linux... we hate the M$ beast, but we are still dependant since we don't want to be shut ins....

Wanna get that geat game of yesteryear to play on your dinosaur? Too bad, Linux can't do it. Linux on NEW hardware and with emus can **try** to do it... but hell no.

If it was *easy* to create a minimal but *fully functional* Linux distro with all the compatible programs to replace Windows entirely, then it may be an option... just like how the Knoppix LIVE DVD works...

You see, the issue is how the hell do you install hardware or software on Linux? Everything I've read is waaaay too intense just to play pacman...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and foremost, I think that your specs for Win95 are only going to be good for W95... sorry dude
If GNU/Linux really is better than Windows, it should require less, not more, in my opinion.
but, you also mentioned a possible fix for those issues- recompiling the kernel. Not a bad idea, if you are a developer. Someone like me, a tinkerer in software, no programming skills really... I can't do that... so it is a no-go for my side of this issue...

It's not as hard as it sounds. And once you've learned how to compile something, it's easy to recompile that same project. Also, there are message boards and IRC channels out there to help you if something goes wrong that you can't figure out.

What is the software support like in Linux? IF YER NOT A PROGRAMMER?
Pretty good, since many distributions now also have a package manager with a GUI. You select the software you want to install (you have to have root priviledges, though), and there it is. The downside is that the package has to be available.
The online software for my college (for instance) only supports IE5.5+ and FF 2+

That's a problem for everyone using alternative OSs or browsers thanks to silly company/college policies. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what I would recommend for my Windows 95 install:

RAM: 32 MB

HD: 300 MB

regardless of the OS, you cannot possibly recommend such a HDD for any use today. Unless you admit you need a 2nd HDD or partition for your data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he may have been recommending the minimum amount of memory you should have to install Windows 95, not the actual HDD size.

I ran Windows 95 on a 486 DX/75MHz with 8MB of ram and a 512MB hdd. It ran fairly well, but by any means, the thing was just a glorified calculator. It was a Daewoo DN7400 (I think), either way, it was a tiny little computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, I was referring to the needed space on the HDD, not the size of the HDD. Just like any other system requirements table...

Keep in consideration Haiku (aka OpenBeOS)
Neat! I've read about BeOS, it seems quite good. Its main goal was to have an uncrashable system, which it achieved. :)
I ran Windows 95 on a 486 DX/75MHz with 8MB of ram and a 512MB hdd. It ran fairly well, but by any means, the thing was just a glorified calculator.

I'm sure it could have been a nice little game computer as well. ;) Not to mention that every computer also is a good typing machine. You could probably browse the web with it too using Lynx, Dillo, or some other light-weight browser, and send e-mail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

First and foremost, I think that your specs for Win95 are only going to be good for W95... sorry dude... but, you also mentioned a possible fix for those issues- recompiling the kernel. Not a bad idea, if you are a developer. Someone like me, a tinkerer in software, no programming skills really... I can't do that... so it is a no-go for my side of this issue...

Someone said somewhere the problems of Linux for people like us here is that there are too many choices. and I agree.

Do they **all** run ****ALL**** the same software? Recompiling the KERNEL?!?! How often do you have to do that?! What is the software support like in Linux? IF YER NOT A PROGRAMMER?

Do you see the issues with Linux clearer? It may honestly fit the 'requirements' for a PC, but not necessarily the people requirements of their PC... I'm quite smart, and I can do anything I've tried eventually... but I still have yet to give Linux an honest go- I have the entire world to enteract with, not just Linux users...

The online software for my college (for instance) only supports IE5.5+ and FF 2+

and the Linux build in my live CD doesn't work with it... hmmm.... neither does Launch.com (music site with video), or any other multimedia website... and there's no Windows Media support at all on Linux... we hate the M$ beast, but we are still dependant since we don't want to be shut ins....

Wanna get that geat game of yesteryear to play on your dinosaur? Too bad, Linux can't do it. Linux on NEW hardware and with emus can **try** to do it... but hell no.

If it was *easy* to create a minimal but *fully functional* Linux distro with all the compatible programs to replace Windows entirely, then it may be an option... just like how the Knoppix LIVE DVD works...

You see, the issue is how the hell do you install hardware or software on Linux? Everything I've read is waaaay too intense just to play pacman...

I find myself pretty much in the same position. I'm not above tinkering with the O/S etc, to customise to the way I'd like it to be. But, I feel 'stuck with' MS until someone can create a minimal, fully functional O/S, where you can add the programs you want and still have the compatability with the file formats that Windows users take for granted.

Waywyrd :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linux is not an alternative to w98, but Ubuntu is certainly a good alternative to RedHat :) .

2000 is not an alternative to w98 neither because if you do this, then why not install XP alltogheter? Old computer? If we need alternatives, I understand it's for new computers and softwares. On old coputers, we talk about "updates", not "alternatives".

The big question is shall I need to use XP/Vista the next time I buy a new computer?

One thing I don't understand is if w98 has so many issues with new drivers and softwares, why this question is never risen for Linux? How does Linux perform in term of hard/software compatibility versus w98?

Then there is the immorality, almost blasphematory, of requesting a new hardware "compatible with w98". Every vendor will tell you to go to the church, confess all your sins, and then, install XP.

They don't want to hear of w98 at all.

So the new concept, the new request (when you enquire for hardware you want to buy), is not "w98 compatible", but "compatible with all kinds of Oses".

This is a fairly new concept, not yet shared in the industry. But the commercial logic would want that hardware be

OS independant. That's less obvious with software, but hardware are just pieces of electronics with streams of bits in and streams of bits out. Why does this need a OS?

IMO if you ask "a computer on which I can install any OS I want" (carefuly avoiding the w98 word!), they might have something to offer. However, if you ask for a "w98 compatible" machine, they will shake their head telling you it's impossible because nobody use that anymore.

And that's not only twisting words. One day ReactOs might be a workable solution.

ReactOs and the likes are the only true alternatives... in the making.

Edited by Fredledingue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And with that all out there in the open now....

Methinks ROS may just be where I'll put my eggs in the future...

Then again, this Windows: Jackhammer project looks like it may also be viable.... it is a core 98SE install with some **major** overhauling.

I don't know what else to say about it, because frankly, it is in early Beta...

oh yeah, it claims certain driver issues are resolved.... don't know the specifics, as I just got around to installing it in VMWare... and video drivers are a "VMWare" thing in this setup...

I like ReactOS for forwards compatibility... and it looks like Jackhammer is the beast to maintain the Win9x core in the future...

Why *did* M$ fuse NT and 9x?? (I know their reasons... and the 'typical' reasons... but seriously, why *not* keep business seperate from pleasure?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2000 is not an alternative to w98 neither because if you do this, then why not install XP alltogheter?
Because WinXP is even more bloated can do almost everything that WinXP can.
One thing I don't understand is if w98 has so many issues with new drivers and softwares, why this question is never risen for Linux? How does Linux perform in term of hard/software compatibility versus w98?

Linux has better compatibility because people write drivers for them. You don't see people doing that for Win9x. Of course, it's not all perfect, because if the manufacturer refuses to make their driver open source, it's an uphill battle.

ReactOs and the likes are the only true alternatives... in the making.
I don't agree. It's a WinNT clone, not a Win9x clone.
Why *did* M$ fuse NT and 9x??

What? They didn't. They just took Windows 2000 and twisted the thing into a consumer version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that there is not enough developer working freely for w98.

Only Xeno has brought an attempt to modify the core of the w98 system to a point it's not w98 anymore and can become a real alternative.

Unfortunately Xeno seems to have put his kernal project on"hold" if not abandonned yet. Others made lots of cool stuffs but only in the cosmetic branch. The rest and the most useful so far has been picking up dll's from other systems and bundling upgrade packs into unofficial ones.

The Linux comunity is indeed much more vibrant.

ReactOS cannot be a NT clone because that would make it illegal. But they are inspired by the NT principles.

Now I wonder if it could be possible to take reactOS elements and put them on w98... Sort of w98ToReOS.

That would be great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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