NON-Vista compliant peripherals for Windows 98/ME

[Analada]

Has been updated April 3, 2007.

SEE: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs...st.html#unified

"Problems with drivers" section makes an interesting read.

[Analada]

Has been updated April 3, 2007.

SEE: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs...st.html#unified

"Problems with drivers" section makes an interesting read.

Has been updated June 12, 2007.

SEE:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

[Offler]

When the 2ghz limit has been hit only few users are interested in stronger machines, just because they dont know how to use their potiential. I am not talking about maniacs which will buy newest hardware just because it it newest, i am talking about common users which want to use computer for movies, music, internet and other multimedia content.

Windows XP means for many users some kind of standard which do not need any additional upgrade, and because common users do not understand why to use "Content protection" on hardware level. Mostly they dont even know why to protect their data.

For now many skilled users do not feel the need to upgrade to Vista just because they are considering Windows XP as good choice for present and for future.

It took only 1 year between Pentium III and Pentium 4, but it took 6 years to deliver Core class processors. With Windows 98 it was similar, and with Windows XP the lifespan should be much more longer than anybody expects. Key to sucess is compatibility, and new DRM drivers and 64 bit systems are failing in this way. For now.

since 8-bit era there has been some attempts to start completely new computer platform based on 16 bits. Some contestants suceeded but the winner was PC standard by IBM, which was most compatible and 3rd party manufacturers were most involved in production of new components.

Systems like Amiga were quite popular, but now they belongs to the past. The next step was 32 bit. Even when first computers based on 32bit processor (intel pentium 1) were available in 1990 it took five years to deliver just 16/32 bit operating system - Windows 95 and most of us know what trouble it meant to leave Dos.

First fully 32 bit operating system from microsoft for desktop users was Windows 2000. It has taken 10 years to produce operating system for platform like Pentium I 100 Mhz. Now Microsoft is trying to advance to next step - 64 bit, with features like DRM, or DX10, HD format, but even when there is such hardware there is still no use for such powerful system and it still lacks compatibility with 32bit era and as we can see now there is different market as 10-15 years ago.

Windows XP is also 32 bit, but there is 64 bit version which means that this system can be described as 32/64 bit, like win9x were 16/32 bit.

It seems to me that only what matter is Bit Era in which we are now and what are the current standards for files. Market can move different ways. The question is if users shall be willing to leave 32 bit platform with all apps, including lots of games. For now i just plan to build up a 32 bit system, and wait until 64 bit shall be developed enough...

[awergh]

i have some things to disagree about in that post

Even when first computers based on 32bit processor (intel pentium) were available in 1990

the first 32bit processor was the 386

First fully 32 bit operating system from microsoft for desktop users was Windows 2000.

im pretty sure the first one was nt 3.1 even if you dont count nt3x nt4 was pretty solid

but theres some interesting points in your posts about the lag between hardware and os support

[Offler]

i thought that 286 till 486 were 16 bit and first 32 bit was Pentium (and since win9x were 16/32bit it sounded logical to me as reason why to build hybrid kernel). Win NT was 32 bit, but it was not indended for desktop use but for server workstations. I will recheck my sources.

Now there is very possible that Microsoft shall be concurrent to itself. Old producs (XP) will be blocking steps to newer ones (Vista). For now i have no idea why to use DirectX10 (wikipedia says that there is only 18 games produced or in production), and it shall took a lot of time while people shall use newer graphics cards and OS as well.

Just ask why to change graphic accelerator, and OS if you wish to see how DX10 works and if it is worth it... (and i dont count money for new board, cpu or memory if you are using AGP) The OS support for HW is this time here instantly, but are there products which will use the potential now? I doubt it. It will take some time...

[Andrew T.]

i thought that 286 till 486 were 16 bit and first 32 bit was Pentium (and since win9x were 16/32bit it sounded logical to me as reason why to build hybrid kernel). Win NT was 32 bit, but it was not indended for desktop use but for server workstations. I will recheck my sources.

The 386DX and 486 processors were indeed fully 32-bit. You may have gotten a little confused, since the OSes people used were most often 16-bit or less until the era when the Pentium was current.

It's kind of ironic, actually, that when an OS capable of using the 386's 32-bit features finally achieved predominance with Windows 95, it was almost too slow to run on the systems in question!

[Offler]

The reason of slowness are attempts to reach multitasking. Even now the multitasking feature is not working so as many of its developers want.

Real multitasking means that you run one, or more jobs on background and still you can run 3d game without any afflictions from other apps.

Since Windows 95 the multitasking feature is still same and still far from perfection. It is caused by hardware and software and still cannot perform as some users want and as is known multitasks can affect major (or user preffered) task in negative way. Thats why i im rather trying to build up system pseudo-Singletasking system on win98.

[matthiaspaul]

i thought that 286 till 486 were 16 bit and first 32 bit was Pentium (and since win9x were 16/32bit it sounded logical to me as reason why to build hybrid kernel). Win NT was 32 bit, but it was not indended for desktop use but for server workstations.

Well, even the 8088, 8086, 80186, V20, V30 all were 16 bit processors similar to the 80286. (The 8080, a widespread processor at Digital Research CP/M times was 8 bit, though.) The 8088, used in the very first IBM PC had an 8 bit bus interface, but it was still a 16 bit processor from the software side. The 80286 was the first CPU to offer an Protected Mode and an address room of more than 1 MB (up to 16 MB IIRC). The 80386 was the first 32 bit processor in this CPU line. It provided a 32 bit extension of the Protected Mode and a new sub-mode of the Protected mode, the x86 Virtual Mode (actually the most powerful addition). Its virtual address room was 4 GB. The 80486 was the first processor to incorporate a numeric coprocessor (previously, coprocessor such as the 8087, 80187, 80287 were optional add-on chips and costing a mere fortune in the 500 - 1000 USD range ;-).

Windows 3.0 in "386 Enhanced Mode" was the first Windows version taking advantage of the 32-bit Protected Mode, whilst the operating system remained a 16-Bit/32-Bit Real Mode/Protected Mode hybrid up to including Windows ME. (Several other operating systems used 16 bit and 32 bit Protected Mode earlier, including Digital Research Concurrent DOS 386 as well as IBM OS/2.) The major reasons for software developers to create 16-bit/32-bit hybrids were code efficiency (size and speed) and compatibility with existing applications or at least providing "easy" upgrade paths on source level. On machines with an average RAM population in the 1 to 8 MB range and 16 - 50 MHz clock speed, a 32 bit-only operating system would have been rather inefficient for mainstream applications.

Greetings,

Matthias

[bigjet]

Wrong! What We Need Is a Good Lawyer.

There are still millions of Windows 98 users world-wide, and we are being deliberately crushed by the Microsoft monopoly to force us to buy new (their) Windows software. Quite a few New York business establishments from bars to banks and everything in between still use Windows 98 because they had custom software written that is not easy-or cheap to replace. That is what the New York v. Microsoft lawsuit was about, both on the eve of the state Governor's election and Windows Vista release. The lawsuit was only an excuse to shake down Microsoft to fund Spitzer's campaign, but the feds made the bum give Bill back his truckload of cash. Millions of Win98 users can no longer sue Microsoft in New York because of this suit. You have to check with your own state representative to see if this happened TO YOU TOO. I sent in my registered letter asking to be excluded, so I am one of the few people in New York state who can still sue Microsoft over their past monopoly practices.

Here's a link to explain what I'm talking about: OPEN WINDOWS

best regards

--bigjet

[Spock]

There's a slide show on this topic - not for the technically challenged

http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/vista.pdf

[satovey]

Has been updated February 18th. Makes a fascinating read:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

Check out http://www.madtux.org/livepc.php for a hardware upgrade.

When I do purchase one, I will probably put Ubuntu on it. I don't have a problem moving from my win98se install to Linux. I've used it and as far as software is concerned, the only thing I will miss are the programs I purchased from Serif , (Page Plus, Draw Plus ect.)

MS Office doesn't hold a candle to them.

Take care.