 Why do you still use 9X, Tell me, i'm curious =) |
  |
 Jul 15 2008, 01:32 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Digital sinner  Group: Banned Posts: 435 Joined: 17-March 08 From: Bucharest Member No.: 182383 OS: Vista Ultimate x64 
 |
QUOTE (Rjecina @ Jul 15 2008, 09:23 PM)  In my thinking any program which want to contact producer or anybody else without asking computer user is SPYWARE. Using this logic Windows XP and Windows Vista are spyware. I can block Windows XP from contacting Microsoft so I can use XP, but I can't block Vista so I will never use Vista or any other similar OS. In this logic only Windows 98 is 100 % OK program. Vista can be blocked too if you're that paranoid... The x64 version runs well given enough RAM and CPU power, and loads things faster than XP. However, it has a s***load of compatibility issues, bad enough to make me do most of my work in a 32-bit XP virtual machine. 32-bit Vista is more compatible but SLOW, besides, being 32-bit it can only use half of my RAM. If i wasn't a gamer, i'd be running Ubuntu Linux now. Besides, Vista is a lot like Linux, you can't do this, you can't do that, that doesn't work, that needs to be changed to be made compatible, that needs to be removed as it has bad drivers, and so on.  There is one BIG difference though: In Linux you can do ANYTHING using the command line as root. Vista's command prompt is basically useless as it denies access to pretty much everything you'd need it for, even though you are admin. This post has been edited by Th3_uN1Qu3: Jul 15 2008, 01:38 PM |
 |
 
|
|
Jul 15 2008, 03:35 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
paranoid independent Group: Members Posts: 310 Joined: 15-December 06 Member No.: 118612 OS: 98 
|
QUOTE QUOTE In my thinking any program which want to contact producer or anybody else without asking computer user is SPYWARE. Using this logic Windows XP and Windows Vista are spyware. I can block Windows XP from contacting Microsoft so I can use XP, but I can't block Vista so I will never use Vista or any other similar OS. In this logic only Windows 98 is 100 % OK program. Vista can be blocked too if you're that paranoid... Why do you consider this paranoid? When user software does this, it's classified as spyware. Why should it be different for an OS? When you look at the behavior of their anti-piracy and WGA, it definitely qualifies as spyware, especially when it messes up. A user shouldn't have to compete with the vendor for control over the OS, or repeatedly prove that they didn't steal it, or fight the anti-piracy when you upgrade hardware, drivers, etc. That's one of the best things about 98. The user has control of it, not Microsoft. Rick |
|
|
|
|
Jul 15 2008, 08:05 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Digital sinner Group: Banned Posts: 435 Joined: 17-March 08 From: Bucharest Member No.: 182383 OS: Vista Ultimate x64
|
QUOTE (herbalist @ Jul 16 2008, 12:35 AM) A user shouldn't have to compete with the vendor for control over the OS, or repeatedly prove that they didn't steal it, or fight the anti-piracy when you upgrade hardware, drivers, etc. That's one of the best things about 98. The user has control of it, not Microsoft. Rick I never ever ever had to activate XP or Vista. However, this way is not very legit.  But you are right. If you have to run illegal software to be in full control of it there's definitely something wrong.
This post has been edited by Th3_uN1Qu3: Jul 15 2008, 08:07 PM |
|
|
|
|
Jul 16 2008, 01:25 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Junior Group: Members Posts: 71 Joined: 22-December 07 Member No.: 167785 OS: XP Pro x86 
|
I’ve noticed on this subject that the general wisdom is XP doesn’t run well on PIII era machines. I have two Celeron-S 1.4 ghz machines, one with XP and one with ME and both run well. ME is noticeably faster but SP3 and the latest Catalyst drivers have closed the gap. I have some apps that won’t run on 9x and some that won’t run on XP so right now I need both. XP is very slow to start, slower than even 2000, but once it’s up and running it moves right along. I was given these two computers because they “won’t run XP” and this was from the IT department of a Fortune 500 company.
 I have a 3ghz P4 laptop and from a real world user perspective the Celeron desktops are faster (benchmarks would say something different though.)Either I’ve Forrest Gumped my way into the perfect hardware/software combination or there is a lot of misinformation in this area. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 16 2008, 04:26 AM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 233 Joined: 4-June 08 Member No.: 195263 OS: 98SE
|
QUOTE (Sysdll @ Jul 16 2008, 09:25 AM) Either I’ve Forrest Gumped my way into the perfect hardware/software combination or there is a lot of misinformation in this area. No Forrested Gump at all! I use a desktop with an AMD motherboard built yr 2001 and updated firmware yr 2003 , 512 Mb memory and 900 Mhz processor, and it is so fast using Win98 as XP or Win2000 (double boot). You are right: misinformation pays! BTW I normally run Win98. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 16 2008, 09:12 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Digital sinner Group: Banned Posts: 435 Joined: 17-March 08 From: Bucharest Member No.: 182383 OS: Vista Ultimate x64
|
QUOTE (Sysdll @ Jul 16 2008, 10:25 AM) I’ve noticed on this subject that the general wisdom is XP doesn’t run well on PIII era machines. I have two Celeron-S 1.4 ghz machines, one with XP and one with ME and both run well. The Celeron-S are Tualatin cores, which beat low-end P4s. That's why they run so smooth. On a PIII under 933MHz XP won't run well. On my dual-PIII 700MHz chips overclocked to 933MHz on a Tyan Tiger 100, with 1GB SDRAM and a 320GB drive hooked via a PCI SATA card, it flies. I don't know about the rest of you, but i for one am used to "instantaneous computing". It's not that XP doesn't run on a >933MHz PIII, it's that it won't do it smoothly. However, it does run well on two PIIIs. 
This post has been edited by Th3_uN1Qu3: Jul 16 2008, 09:13 AM |
|
|
|
|
Jul 16 2008, 01:24 PM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 115 Joined: 15-December 06 Member No.: 118577
|
I started reading, and gave up...
my reason for holding onto 98? I like knowing that my hardware is running full bore. If I got a 2.8Ghz cpu, I want to be able to USE the whole 2.8Ghz for a single task. try doing that in xp. you got 15 things *always* running. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 16 2008, 01:57 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Digital sinner Group: Banned Posts: 435 Joined: 17-March 08 From: Bucharest Member No.: 182383 OS: Vista Ultimate x64
|
QUOTE (DeadDude @ Jul 16 2008, 10:24 PM) I started reading, and gave up... my reason for holding onto 98? I like knowing that my hardware is running full bore. If I got a 2.8Ghz cpu, I want to be able to USE the whole 2.8Ghz for a single task. try doing that in xp. you got 15 things *always* running. Open Process Explorer. You have quite a number of tasks running in your 98 too. The ctrl-alt-del menu only shows applications. And XP can keep its major functions with just 8 processes. However 98 is still faster, no doubt about it. If you can still use it, keep using it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 19 2008, 05:46 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 233 Joined: 4-June 08 Member No.: 195263 OS: 98SE
|
QUOTE (Th3_uN1Qu3 @ Jul 16 2008, 09:57 PM) If you can still use it, keep using it. A wise advice. An old proverb says: "Limit your needs and you will limit your worries". I have enough with Win98. This post has been edited by cannie: Jul 19 2008, 10:17 AM |
|
|
|
|
Jul 21 2008, 04:30 PM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 672 Joined: 17-February 05 Member No.: 44321
|
Heh heh.
I just wiped Vista and installed 98SE! Nice semi old computer with the old Via Hyperion 4-in-1 4.56v. Going back to that old Via set seems to have solved both of my long standing problems of needing to manually install an older vxd AGP driver and my Error loading device IOS popping up eventually no matter what and ruining Windows. Anything newer was less and less 9x compatible regardless of the ones listed at viaarena.com. I've been using Debian Linux with a Vista dual-boot and never would go into Windows because of it being so annoyingly intrusive upon my time (hours of updating and satisfying its "Security Manager," hard drive churning for its previous file versions System Restore logging, etc.) Couldn't stand the thing. And I've still got more Windows 98 era software that runs better or at least runs on 98 than it did on XP or Vista, though I had managed to get most stuff going even on Vista. I'm also using the Mozilla SeaMonkey for the first time upon noticing that Firefox is warning of 9x incompatibility in a few months on Firefox 2. It's like an old friend! As close to the old Netscape as one can get these days. Essentially that's what it is, just stripped of the AOL stuff that appeared when they bought out Netscape. Virtualbox is just too darned slow running a 98 guest on Linux or I might not have bothered. Glad I did though. 98SE is the only Windows I've actually enjoyed running over the years. This post has been edited by Eck: Jul 21 2008, 04:31 PM |
|
|
|
|
Jul 22 2008, 04:47 PM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 233 Joined: 4-June 08 Member No.: 195263 OS: 98SE
|
QUOTE (Eck @ Jul 22 2008, 12:30 AM) 98SE is the only Windows I've actually enjoyed running over the years. You are not the only one. I'm sure you will enjoy it even more if you clone your installed W98 on another drive to have the possibility of booting it in that second drive to restore the original if needed. Very easy and it gives you a 100% security. I've used it for years. Look at this post: http://www.msfn.org/board/Clone-Win98SE-on...-D-t118623.html Best wishes.  |
|
|
|
|
Jul 22 2008, 05:16 PM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 363 Joined: 31-July 05 Member No.: 66754 OS: 98SE
|
My reasoning still stands. However, I stated it rather agressively in this rather old thread.
Though to summarize my statement (I apologize for the agressiveness in it ahead of time), here is the main part of it: QUOTE I will use 98se because I don't see the real point in upgrading. I've always been a minimalist whereas if I have something that handles all of my needs without having to dual-boot I'm all for it. If I can get that option in as small of a size and memory footprint as possible, even better. I just truely don't believe in newer always being better when the newer and better just doesn't handle what I need and want. Convinience and performance is key in my eyes.
Can I play all of my legacy games at a whim? YES Can I play all of my legacy games without emulation (and on kali)? YES Can I still use older versions of software that still do the same job as the newer? YES Can I still play even the most recent of games and software? YES Can I network over a lan and wireless flawlessly? YES Can I host it as a full time personal webserver\fileserver? YES At least half of those quests would end up with a no if i used anything newer such as windows xp. I would also be forced to dual boot which is something I didn't want to bother with in the firts place. Why end your session to change O/S just to do one thing when windows 98 can handle it all and then some? I will still use windows 98se untill the last day I can use it no longer. 'Upgrading' to a supposedly newer but lesser OS is not my idea of an upgrade. Why shoudl I sacrifice additional disk space and ram for something 'just because its newer' and doesn't do what I need? I use multitudes of unsupported software and never complained about it. Sure, we can use a virtual pc but - why go through an extra 5+ steps to set it up virtually when you can just boot into it directly with no problems? Unless you really need to for other reasons I fully understand and Will not debate that as poeple will use what they want to use as they need to use it. Again, i just do not see the need to shell out for an O/S that is a virtual downgrade in my eyes. More space use, more ram use, does less for me, runs slower, and provides more never-to-be-used features. Don't give me the dismissive 'use xp and nlite it' comments as I will just disregard it. Just because I can make it smaller won't hide the fact that it still doesn't do what I want when I want. Sure, windows 98 may not be as 'secure' according to many people but have I been 'hacked' or whatever? Absolutely not. I run in my DMZ, I leave it running 24\7, I leave ports open for services I have running such as my webserver and ftp, I also have no firewall. By most if not all standards I'm wide open and just waiting to be 'hijacked'. However, it's yet to happen for the last 5 years... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 22 2008, 08:57 PM
Post
#53
|
|
|
paranoid independent Group: Members Posts: 310 Joined: 15-December 06 Member No.: 118612 OS: 98
|
QUOTE Sure, windows 98 may not be as 'secure' according to many people but have I been 'hacked' or whatever? That's what MS and security software vendors would like you to believe in order to separate you from your money. The only place 98 falls short in security is with local threats, where unauthorized people have access to the keyboard. Against threats from the net, 98 can be made very secure at little or no cost. Rick |
|
|
|
|
Jul 25 2008, 06:09 PM
Post
#54
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 188 Joined: 21-March 08 Member No.: 183045 OS: 98SE
|
QUOTE (Fredledingue @ Jul 14 2008, 05:23 PM) I stopped using antiviruses two years ago because they couldn't find anything ever. I run spybot once in a blue moon, and at worse, he finds three cookies. With Win98 I only make on-demand scans of new downloads. Kaspersky detects in my eMule-downloads about 1-3 trojans per day, but these files get deleted right away. About 4 weeks ago I had made a complete scan of all files on the computer, and Kaspersky could not find any malware, even if the previous system-wide virus-check was made over a year ago!What is worrying however, is that the current flood of trojans seems to overwhelm even Kaspersky: When I re-checked older eMule downloads of a year ago, Kaspersky identified a LOT of trojans in them, even if Kaspersky at the time of download issued a clean bill of health. My guess is that in every 20th software download with eMule, there is a not-yet-identified trojan. Despite treading in sometimes very murky waters with Win98, my computers had not had a noticeable malware infection for several years. On the WinXP opsys on my computers I never had an infection since I have not set up an internet connection under XP, only under Win98. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 27 2008, 01:46 PM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Software Developer Group: Members Posts: 31 Joined: 6-July 08 From: Wakkanai, Japan Member No.: 199627 OS: none 
|
Why do I use Windows 98 still?
Try running Windows XP on a 80486 and you'll see why
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 27 2008, 02:11 PM
Post
#56
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 153 Joined: 22-March 08 Member No.: 183152 OS: none
|
QUOTE (iheartsims @ Jul 27 2008, 10:46 PM) Why do I use Windows 98 still? Try running Windows XP on a 80486 and you'll see why So the question becomes "why do you still use an 80486?"
|
|
|
|