Many of you seem to dislike XP because of MS's intrusion into user privacy. But what about Linux?
First a reminder:
Linux changes dramatically every year. Possibly because 98SE more or less stays the same, you forget that when you saw Linux in 2003, that's like seeing Windows 3.1 versus XP or a modernized 98SE (for Linux in 2008.). And Linux in 1999 was like Windows 2.0.
Now, I'm gonna answer your problems & questions with Linux:
* Driver support ("Not enough drivers")
* Speed ("Too slow")
* System Requirements ("requirements too high")
* Software ("not enough software")
* Gaming ("no games")
* Windows programs (Wine) ("but I need Win32" or "but I want commercial software")

Now, here's the answers:
* Gaming. Aah, gaming. I must admit Linux has less games. But whereas Windows 98SE's games are limited, and very few new games are coming out for it (almost all that are solely because they work with KernelEx,) Linux has constantly... new games. For example, id keeps pumping out new games for Linux, it looks like Valve may make games for Linux soon, and Wine constantly make brand-new games like Command & Conquer 3 and Call Of Duty 4 and slightly older games like Phantasy Star Online, SimCity 4 and Battlefield 2. Old games that you loved back when games were designed for 98, like Diablo II, Half-Life & Need For Speed II often work great. And even some of the newest, fanciest games (Crysis) work! In other words, the gaming support on linux is quite good. Also worth noting are open source games: there are quite a few OSS games.
* Windows programs. I'll make it short and stun you: Windows 98SE and Linux have almost equal Win32 & Win16 support. Dun-dun-dun! Whereas Office 2003, Photoshop CS2, and iTunes 7 don't run on 98SE, they run on Wine. Office 2007 even runs, sort of. Quark 7 runs on Wine. etc. And almost anything from the 98 era runs on Wine. So Wine is really magical.
* Linux does have lots of software. Linux has mines of open-source software, such as OpenOffice.org - Office, Firefox - Browsing, GIMP - Photo Editing, Krita - Painting & Photo Editing, Amarok - Audio Manager, F-Spot - Photo Manager, Scribus - Page Layout etc. All the listed apps are very good. And all are free. Some OSS apps are lackluster, but compared to where OSS office apps were just a few years ago, OSS office apps these days are wonderful, whereas just about three years ago, OSS office apps were cumbersome and limited.
'* Linux does not have "equal or worse driver support" then 98SE. It has, for modern and slightly old hardware anyway, far better support. Examples: Almost all mobos work on Linux, basically all ATI cards get 2d accelaration and almost all get 3d accelaration. Built in VESA. Support for CPUs is superior (64-bit, dual-core, hyperthreading) and support for SATA and PCI-e are superior. Support for old hardware, from period 1996-2001, 98SE most likely has equal support, with Linux supporting almost everything from that period, same with 98SE.
* Linux can be tuned to any speed. Linux is not "slower" or "faster" then 98SE. DSL linux likely is faster, a command-line Slackware is surely faster, and with lots of RAM, Puppy Linux is faster as it uses RAM to cache everything. At video encoding on modern computers, Linux is considerably faster because it supports dual-core, but at day-to-day word processing, a bloated distro like Mandriva would be considerably slower.
* Linux doesn't require intensive system requirements. The requirements for Puppy are 64MB RAM, a Pentium (PII recommended) and a CD-ROM drive that you can boot from. The requirements for DSL are 16MB RAM (with 48MB swap), a HD for swap (optional with at least 32MB RAM), a 486, a CD-ROM drive, and booting from either CDROM or floppy. Some distros, such as Xubuntu, have intensive requirements (about Pentium III, 256MB RAM, 1.5GB HD) but these still are generally far lighter then Vista.


Now for a few more FAQs:
"I don't like the Linux directory structure"
You could try GoboLinux, or you could run as root. Also, the reason the Linux directory structure is the way it is is for security, portability, and flexibility, not just multi-user use.
"I don't like passwords"
Then don't set them.
"I like tweaking INI and BAT"
There's lots of shell scripting and config file editing you can do in Linux too! Linux uses text for config files, and they're end user modifiable.
"I like DOS"
Try Qemu or VirtualBox, with FreeDOS (or a copy of 98SE) in it! You can do a lot in Qemu! Also DOSBOX, but that's only good for games.
"I want to know which distribution to use"
Here's a quick pick guide:
* Basic User, Pentium-Pentium III, 64MB RAM-128MB RAM. Puppy
* Advanced user, as above: Puppy for simplicity and speed, or a minimal Ubuntu or Debian install (ask for help).
* Pentium III 128MB RAM: Puppy, SliTaz for speed, Xubuntu for large software selection and flexibility
* Pentium III/4 256MB RAM: Xubuntu
* Modern: Ubuntu, SuSE, Mandriva. I recommend trying the LiveCDs of all three. If you can't do that, try Ubuntu first and then Mandriva if Ubuntu doesn't work out, then SuSE.
"I like this community"
Ubuntuforums.org is an excellent community. I agree though, I like this community a lot too!

A very good summary. Eventually I will also install a Unix system, maybe in 1-2 years. But the same I was already saying over 20 years ago, at the time of migrating from CP/M to DOS.

At the latest I will install Linux when there is no more browser & anti-virus support for Win98. The major problem is the learning curve, an old dog learns no new tricks.

This post has been edited by Multibooter: Aug 5 2008, 01:08 PM

So why do you ask what we think of Linux while simultaneously telling us what to think about it?

As I see at the top of this thread:
MSFN Forums > Microsoft Software Products - Discussion & Support > Windows 95/98/98SE/ME

I can't remember MS to have ever released some Linux version and even if they did, this section is dedicated to Win9x. So your topic is a little misplaced, to put it nicely.

But just to be on-topic of your off-topic, I tried to run Ubuntu and Kubuntu 6.06 and 6.10 on a HP Vectra (Celeron III 633/128RAM) and failed completely. Only Knoppix Live could run somehow decently.
Then tell me what usable version of Linux (and what additional software) could I run on my 200MHz PentiumMMX/64RAM/4MB video ?

I find a Linux topic inside a MS forum refreshing - one should always look over the fence. The question "why am I using Win98 and not Linux to ... e.g. access the Internet" is relevant if you use new hardware.
Why do you still use this old machine? I have kept my old HP 125 CP/M machine as a memory (maybe only one other specimen exists at http://www.hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=41 ) and my Toshiba 3100SX as a portable DOS machine which doesn't require much space. But my Gateway Solo laptop, Win95 with P3 120Mhz, is a piece of computer junk sitting in a box, with no more use.

If you weren't that far away I'd say toss it over, that Gateway.
Anything can still be useful, willingly. That 200MHz machine of mine has done way more than it should've, the system's been up for 2 years without reinstall and although it's not in use currently, it had it's share of bumps, only thinking of dozens of crashes/freezes/instant reboots while testing alpha-staged software, however I trust it'll wake up from its sleep and run without a hitch at any time.
Personally I cannot afford a modern, expensive machine, so I have to deal with parts that others throw away, building my machines from scrap. The most I've ever got (before frying the CPU) was a 800MHz Pentium III on a SiS630 mobo. Maybe it was the crappy chipset, maybe something else, but it was running kinda slow, even slower than this 633 Celeron I have around and that was with 98SE on it. At some point I needed to test an application that wouldn't run correctly in 98 and put up a dual-boot with Server 2003. Gotta say that thing was crawling as compared to 98SE, on exactly the same hardware.
I once tested one of my Ubuntu disks on that machine and it popped up an error regarding HDD cache or something. The HDD was brand new at the time (160GB PATA Seagate) and I'm still using it now with this 400MHz Pentium II I'm typing with (which is my primary machine for now), without a problem.

So, to conclude, I have to say that my experience with Linux - although pretty limited - was somehow negative, since none of my machines could put up with a decent Linux version that could be used on a daily basis. That's why I kinda heat up when people come and throw "hey, why don't you use Linux? it's magic, it works fine and it's free" - it never worked fine for me, while 95 and 98SE have done their job gracefully and still do.

Despite that, I definitely wouldn't go to a Linux-dedicated board and shout "hey, ditch Linux and use Win9x, it works much better" - it's just a matter of common-sense and personal preference.

P.S. If I had a working AT power source and my old 12" monitor back, I'd put back to work my old 486 DX2/66MHz IBM ValuePoint for some old DOS games. Nostalgia...

Because we're not lemmings who have to have new shiny stuff? Seriously, I have a similar machine that I use as my main and am typing this from. It still works fine, so why should I use a newer one just to satisfy some unknown people's desires?

On the topic of Linux, they don't run that well on old hardware unless they're stripped to the command line. With Win9x you can have a graphical environment on as low as a 486. For GNU/Linux you need at least a Pentium II at 300 Mhz or better, according to Debian's documentation.

In fact, we have a Linux box here, a Pentium II 350 Mhz with 128 MB of RAM. It originally had Ubuntu on it, but it was painfully slow. Switching to XFCE window manager helped, but not much. In the end I put Puppy Linux on it, which works much better. I have to say that on my main it runs well too. But that's because it also has a lot of RAM. 64 MB is the bare minimum for a graphical GNU/Linux. Not so with Win9x.

My main issue with GNU/Linux, though, is the lack of standards. GNU/Linux on its own, is a kernel with a command line and GNU tools. All the rest is a collection of programs you put on top of it with questionable integration. They can't even agree on a standard GUI toolkit.

The one thing they did agree on, using X-Windows as a basis for the graphical desktop, is a horrible mess that wasn't even made for what it's used today, and is the main reason that a graphical desktop is so demanding on GNU/Linux. It doesn't even come with a good window manager, so there's a lot of them to choose from too.

Hello

I just tried Linux Ubuntu again, and let me tell you, if you use blue tooth or wireless devises you will find that the
the linux driver versions used to get the things you need working seem mostly hacked and have a lack of features
originally sold with the item. Umm and puppy linux is is a very limited distro. and out of four computers i tried it on
my wireless cards never worked, and the distro offered no recourse no alternate drivers it was like ohh well we
can't get your stuff working sorry. And blue tooth on puppy forget it. Ubuntu 8.04 takes 384megs to run. you
can get xubuntu but it can be quite limited as well. Now as far as linux on it's on merit for basic computing and if you
don't expect much out of your computer, it,s fine, But make sure your hardware is up to snuff, i have one computer
that exceeds the requirements for ubuntu and it wont even boot and yet win98se will. Now a real big problem for
me with linux is the constant upgrade path, for instance Opensuse 27 Fedora 39 upgrade, Windows 98SE,98FE
2000,NT,Me and XP are all old, and i don't have to upgrade every 2-6 months. Maybe when all that works out,
I might become more of a linux man.

I try to use the best of both worlds.

Whenever possible and the machine allows, Ubuntu is a better choice when compared to Vista or XP.

Freedom to go online without fear of viruses and everything for free without need to get strange serials to register office or windows itself.

The Compiz fusion is a simply outstanding visual experience that is light-years away from Vista.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5uEe5OzNQ...ed&resnum=1

Better yet with Virtual Box that allows to run XP perfectly well inside the emulator and integrate with the linux OS so I can't say that I miss much and even removed Vista from my laptop to run ubuntu full time.

---

Older/limited linux versions for older hardware are nowhere as fun as the latest ones for modern hardware and I wouldn't doubt about using windows 98 or XP on them to run faster.

Haven't had any issues with hardware support using ubuntu 8.04 as compared to the previous version.

There are also developments like NDISwrapper that allow to run windows drivers under a linux machine, good for those wireless hardware you mentioned above.

Virtual Box also allows to use whatever is connected on the USB port to be used by the virtual machine and this is good for those things that only work under windows.

I also use both FireFox and OpenOffice so there is little annoyances regarding this shift from MS to Linux, really liked office but I've just grow too tired of the need for buying licenses or using pirate copies that I try as much as possible to use free products and to be honest, the latest versions of OpenOffice are getting better and better.

Windows 98 was my favourite OS for a long time, with 2000 and XP things have grown substantially in terms of redundant addons and now with Vista I simply refuse to buy myself a brand new machine and get stuck with a slug OS.

People with Mac's are faced with even worser difficulties than those using Linux and still people like them so why all these complaints about Linux?

Mac's users live in an even more commercially restricted world than MS ever was but Linux enjoys from a lot more of free options: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/?showtopic=4502

Did I mention that Ubuntu with Gnome and all possible eye candy (compiz, etc) is using little above 380Mb of RAM?

My dual core laptop with 2Gb of RAM and Vista simply took forever to startup and was so slow to let me use it for daily tasks, now it seems like I have a brand new machine (again)..


-----

Enjoy your machine is my advice, so be sure to also keep an eye for the other options.

I use triple-boot here, between XP, NT4 and Mandriva Linux (Windows 98 is in my old trustworthy P3 700, 256MB ram), and I must say, although Mandriva runs without a hitch here (I only disabled some eye candy I hate) and not slow at all, I have more fun in Windows XP. After disabling that Luna horror and going back to the old Win2000-like appearance, Windows XP just seems.... simpler. Runs anything I wanna run in an interface that seems right. I don't get the same feel on Linux, probably because I'm not used to it, but I go there once in a while. Also, I find it interesting that, although Linux has, by definition, a more rigid directory structure, my XP ends up MUCH more organized. I absoluely abhor those two folders with all binaries on it, I'd rather have something like "Programs Files", in which every software creates a folver for itself with an actual meaningful name.

Deli Linux 0.7.2 released last September requires for a graphical desktop only a i486 system with 16 MB RAM. Much the same requirements apply to Slitaz released even more recently I think.
I find the integration of third-party apps far superior to Windows.
I also find the hardware support out of the box much better than Windows.
I don't blame Linux for trying to implement secret drivers for hardware.

I've been playing with PCLinuxOS (a Mandriva derivative) and I love it. It runs well from the live CD and had no problem with wifi or other drivers. Although I must admit I haven't tried Bluetooth as I find it painfully slow data transfer and have no devices that rely on it. I've had huge dramas with Bluetooth on my XP machine anyway so not a fair comparison. The generic XP Bluetooth drivers (by MS) seem pretty flakey so not really a valid complaint of Linux as far as I'm concerned.

Bottom line is each to their own!
- If Windows does it for you, use it!
- If Linux does it for you, use it!
- If Windows doesn't do it for you but you haven't had luck with Linux then keeping checking different distros from time to time and most importantly don't give up on it.

Its been about 2 years since my first distro download (Ubuntu, don't remember which? 5 or 6 .something?) I've given up a few times and gone back to Windows, but I kept trying and now I think I'll stick with PCLinuxOS for a bit.

XP has served me well for years and I know it well and it does what I want. But I'm in no rush to install Vista and I'm not keen to give MS AU$150 +/- for a copy of Vista when Linux will serve my purposes for $0. It will take a little while to setup on my new sys, but so would Vista! I will keep my old PC and keep XP running on it (dual boot with Linux). But my new PC (building as we speak) will be Linux exclusively.

This post has been edited by JedMeister: Aug 10 2008, 09:24 AM

Some fresh personal experience with Linux:

1. Puppy Linux derivative Tiger Puppy 1.6 wouldn't even start on HP Vectra (633MHz Celeron III/384MB PC133 RAM/8MB i815 video) - halt at loading into memory. Tried it on a 166MHz Pentium I/64MB RAM/2MB Cirrus Logic video - took almost an hour to boot, was completely unusable.

2. Ubuntu 8.04.1 crash (random colored rectangles on black background) while previewing screensavers (happened with older versions as well, on different machines).

3. Xubuntu 8.04.1 wasted 2 hours of my time and couldn't find a way to mount the HDD partitions or to connect to a network share on a Win98SE machine.

The only somehow usable Linux version so far has been Knoppix, which unfortunately has a very limited range of included applications and recently - since v5.3.1 - comes in 4GB DVD image format which I have not tried to download yet but it's possible it exceeds the Win9x FAT32 filesize limit.

And a MAJOR annoyance will all these distros (especially referring to *ubuntu series): although they take full CD capacity (700MB), when trying to install certain OS features (like languages or system applications), they run to 'ask mommy' for download. I'm sorry, but MS Windows got it all on that CD, no need for download. What if one wants to use those features offline, with no internet connection?

Bottom line is, personally I would never be able to run a Linux-based machine for my daily tasks, considering my current hardware specs. Thanks to the original poster for making me realize how superior Win9x is as compared to Linux, for me.

Re: Drugwash,
1. Tiger Puppy 1.6 has Xfce and Compiz-Fusion so has system requirements exceeding the machines you tried it on. Also I think it is still in beta. Try Puppy 1, 2, 3 or 4 series.
2. *buntu is bloated
3. Xfce is bloated. Try IceWM, JWM or Fluxbox.
4. Even CD versions of Knoppix include many more applications than any Windows version. DVD versions can be bought cheaply and widely including on ebay.
5. As for certain "OS features (like languages or system applications)" could you be more specific because in my experience Linux does include more on CD than Windows. Among the apps Puppy includes that Windows doesn't are a html editor/IRC client (Seamonkey), instant messaging (Pidgin), spreadsheet (Gnumeric), PDF viewer (ePDFviewer), PDF creator (puppyPDF), Disc burning (Grafburn), Torrent client (Transmission), zip archiving utility (Xarchive).
6. Linux can install software offline. Why do you think Linux magazines provide CDs/DVDs? Have you heard of repository CDs?

This post has been edited by darrelljon: Aug 12 2008, 07:10 AM

@ Drugwash

I haven't heard of Tiger Linux. Did you try original Puppy Linux? Ideally it needs 256MG RAM but some sources claim it can be run on as little as 32MB RAM (but no doubt slowly). Puppy also addresses another of your issues, download size - version 4.0 "Dingo" is about 88MB and includes drivers for scanning, printing, digital cameras, audio recording/editing/conversion and also includes a basic suite of office apps and utilities. I haven't tried it but I've heard many people say its a great OS. I have even heard it favourably compared to the speed of DOS (perhaps that's pushing it!?) I plan on trying it on an old P2 sometime soon.

Ubuntu is not one of my favourites either! But last time I installed it (6.10? 7.04?), I did it with no internet access (mostly because it didn't support my NIC 'out of the box') and don't reca