Why 9x > XP?

[darrelljon]

I have quite a fondness for 98 and am reinstalling an old computer Thinkpad T41, but why should I use 98 over XP? I'm thinking of getting XP SP3. What are the advantages of 9x or 2000?

[loblo]

Neither 9x nor 2000 require product activation but I think 2000 is susceptible of being remotely hijack just by being connected to a network so if you don't want to activate and want to be safer on the network, I'd say go 98 (but using something else than IE or an IE front-end as Internet browser and Outlook express as email client), especially if you are fond of it.

[Tommy]

One big thing I can think of is no stupid product activation. I know it's there to protect Microsoft from being ripped off, but activating can be a real hassle.

Also, 98 boots faster in my opinion. XP might seem to do okay after installation, but after being used for a while, it really begins to slow down. Just like with my installation of Windows 7, it's hardly a month old and I think it's slow even on a 2005 computer. As far as I'm concerned, Windows 98 has what you need to get your work done and it doesn't require a lot to run. With all the new Windows versions Vista and up, they require so much and really, just how different are they from Windows 98 except for all the stupid little graphical improvements which I think suck anyway. Windows Classic theme is the best as far as I'm concerned. And even if you set Windows XP+ to Windows Classic, it still doesn't feel the same to me. If you're going to be using Windows 98 for working with word processors and the like, then go with Windows 98 because it'll be enough to get the job done quickly and easily. Most games pre-2006 work on Windows 98 as well so if you're not a serious gamer like I am, then that's another reason to use 98 as it runs older games better anyway.

Also, something else I loved about Windows 98 is it didn't have a bunch of stuff running in the background. You open up the task manager in 98, what do you usually see running in the background? Explorer and systray....that's just about all it needed! Look at 2000+, you have lsass.exe, csrss.exe, lsm.exe, svchost.exe, etc... so much memory being used up that Windows 98 didn't have to. That's why I'd say go with Windows 98 unless you absolutely need the features of 2000+.

Plus, you just can't beat that awesome boot screen and login sound! <3

[TmEE]

*Its really fast and lightweight

*has cool boot logo

*really secure as far as modern internet goes

*DOS stuff works perfectly for the most part

*Great "legacy" hardware support (there's a bunch of Yamaha I got that is useless in 2K+)

*Easy to maintain... when something goes kablamo you fix it in DOS, not so easy on 2K+

I do wish I knew C and had time, so I could contiune KernelEx a bit, enough to make a lot of PC maintenance software run... its one of the reasons I cannot do my job on a 9x machine, lot of the maintenance soft won't run on 9x or runs wrong... plus modern HW support is well, crap haha

[herbalist]

The answer will depend largely on what you plan to do with your PC. Assuming compatible hardware, 98 will be faster than XP or 2K. With the unofficial upgrades (Kex, RP9, NUSB, etc) 98 can be just as stable and reliable as XP. As long as development continues on these upgrades, compatibility with the common user apps isn't a big problem, unless for some reason you prefer Microsoft applications. 98 is at its best with 3rd party and Open Source applications.

Regarding security, there's a bit of a tradeoff here. Most malware isn't targeting and doesn't run properly on 98. Most AVs don't run on 98 anymore either. If you're comfortable with setting up and using a default-deny security package, 98 can be made just as secure as any other version of Windows, maybe more so due to its small attack surface. On the subject of privacy, 98 keeps far fewer records of user activities. Thanks to DOS, they can all be accessed and/or deleted.

The biggest downside to 98 is that there's almost no vendor support for both the OS and the installed applications. For a casual or typical user, this is a problem. For a skilled user capable of doing it themselves, it's not an issue. If you want an OS that makes the decisions for you and doesn't require a lot of input from the user, choose XP. If you want an OS that does what you tell it, one that doesn't try to override your decisions, 98 is better.

[dencorso]

why should I use 98 over XP? I'm thinking of getting XP SP3.

Because you like it. Because it's fun. YMMV. Then again, it's not a matter of choosing, really.

I use both, plus two small Linux distros, all in the same machine, and Grub4DOS to select among them which I'll boot at any given time.

[ScrewUpgrading]

I agree with what everyone else said.

The reason I prefer Windows Me (and Win98 to a lesser degree) is basically the software that's available. Off the top of my head, most of the programs I use are from around 2003 or older, with only a few exceptions.

For example, I prefer IrfanView 3.17 and XnView 1.60 rather than than the newer versions. The old ones work faster, they're more intuitive to learn. More efficient, they use up less hard drive space.They're easier to set up because they have fewer "pointless" options to choose from, yet they retain the powerful functions like batch conversion and image editing. The most recent IrfanView isn't bad, however the newest XnView is definitely crap on Windows 9x. I'd say the last good version of XnView for Win9x was 1.82.4. (Bear in mind, I'm using an actual 11 year old computer that is a stock Pentium 3 with integrated graphics, and not some virtual machine or dual boot with a fancy video card. I'm using what Windows Me was designed to run on. Not to diminish anyone who uses Win9x on better hardware, good for them!)

Moreover, I prefer the older versions of Microsoft's office programs. Word 2000 and Word 97 are more efficient than the newer ones. I really, really dislike the new ones. The menu bar, if you can call it that, is hidden in the corner in some dumb little indecipherable hieroglyph. Not very intuitive. It's like they re-designed the layout just because they needed to change something, anything, and that was the only thing left to change. From my jaded perspective, that superficial change didn't make the program run "better" or easier. When in fact, Word 6.0 on Windows 3.1 worked just as good, if not quicker and less hassle, than all the new and "improved" versions which take longer to figure out the hieroglyphs they call buttons.

Another thing, I don't like newer anti-virus and firewalls. They're too intrusive. The only one I like is ClamWin because it doesn't have real time protection, thus it doesn't kill your computer. Firewalls are humongous on XP and newer, because, well I don't know why. All I know is that Tiny Personal Firewall only uses 2 Mb of RAM. There's no noticeable degradation of performance or slower boot up. It's like it's not even there, yet according to all the internet "shields up" tests, it works perfectly fine and my computer is secure.

Basically, I think most newer software programs are bloatware garbage. Bloatware garbage designed to be run on bloatware garbage operating systems.

And worst of all, newer operating systems and software are designed to be always connected to the internet.

Image viewing program? Connected to the internet. Small PacMan game? Connected to the internet. Anti Virus program? Connected to the internet. MP3 player? Connect to the net. CD ripper? Conntected to the net. Everything is becoming more and more internet dependent. It's annoying. And it all runs in the background because THEY don't want you to know about it. THEY want to have access to what used to be your PERSONAL cOMPUTER, but with every passing year, is turning more into little tabernacles of terror used to spy on you.

Oh yeah, another thing. Old parts, printers, ink, Windows Me discs, all that stuff is way cheap now. I know this stuff won't be cheap much longer though. Once people realize that the future of computers is to have one impanted into your forehead or on your sunglasses, or on your internet-connected-toilet, then personal computers will seem like such a novelty. By the time the majority of people want there privacy and anonymity back, it will be too late. Because even your car, toilet, and fridge will be connected online.

*Edit

I should also mention, there's a great bit of laziness involved with not having the gumption to learn another version of Windows.

I read the DOS 5.5 manual inside and out, and I read every book I could on Windows 3.1 secrets, and then Windows 9x is the culmination of all that stuff. So no, I don't feel like moving on. It works, I like it the way it is, and I don't want to be forced into Microsoft's game of "upgrading." Hence my username.

Edited November 20, 2011 by ScrewUpgrading

[herbalist]

Instead of choosing between 98 and either XP or 2K, dual boot the unit and see which serves your needs better. If you don't keep both, the partition that contained the one you don't keep can be used as a data partition. When I first got this Dell, I planned on getting rid of XP and making it 98 exclusively. I ended up making it dual boot. For my needs, the 98 system consistently out-performs the XP system with a few exceptions, mostly game graphics.

I'm using what Windows Me was designed to run on. Not to diminish anyone who uses Win9x on better hardware, good for them!)

Until I was given this Dell as payment for other work, my primary PC was 98FE on its original hardware (with some upgrades). It was a reasonably stable unit that performed better than expected for its specs. I definitely agree with you on the software. I also use IrfanView, a slightly newer version (3.80). For my limited office work needs, Microsoft Works is quite sufficient. Open Office works fine too but is too bloated for my needs.

Regarding Tiny firewall, are you using one of the 2X versions, 2.0.15 possibly? That firewall is the predecessor to the one I use, Kerio 2.1.5. They're so similar that each can use rulesets made by the other. The newer firewall you describe as intrusive are for all purposes, security suites. Most of them won't work on a 9X system anyway. Even on systems they're compatible with, I prefer separate, freestanding applications, which usually includes Kerio 2.1.5.

Basically, I think most newer software programs are bloatware garbage. Bloatware garbage designed to be run on bloatware garbage operating systems.

Absolutely! With newer hardware having almost unlimited memory and processing power, nobody bothers to write efficient code. I don't think most of them know how any more. 98 can fly and multi-task on hardware that can barely power the new operating systems. I'm at a loss to understand how such gross inefficiency and waste can be called progress.

And worst of all, newer operating systems and software are designed to be always connected to the internet.

Image viewing program? Connected to the internet. Small PacMan game? Connected to the internet. Anti Virus program? Connected to the internet. MP3 player? Connect to the net. CD ripper? Connected to the net. Everything is becoming more and more internet dependent. It's annoying. And it all runs in the background because THEY don't want you to know about it. THEY want to have access to what used to be your PERSONAL COMPUTER, but with every passing year, is turning more into little tabernacles of terror used to spy on you.

I will never understand why users tolerate or accept this. If an individual or company demanded that you repeatedly prove that you did not steal your home or car, you'd eventually file some kind of complaint or harassment charges against them. When a software or OS vendor does this, why do we tolerate it? For me, this alone is sufficient reason to boycott versions of Windows newer than 2K. On the single XP system that I have, which is legitimate,all of the WGA components have been removed, and the OS is not permitted to connect to Microsoft.

If the same standards that are used for applications were applied to operating systems, XP and newer systems would be classified as spyware. On a 9X system, closing the open ports took about 2 minutes and a reboot. Closing all of the open ports on XP is a much bigger job, requiring a lot of disabling and changes to system services. There are entire websites devoted to that subject. The default attack surface of the OS, most of which the average user will never use, is huge when compared to a 9X system. On Win-7, I'm not sure it's possible to actually close all of the open ports, not just block access to them with a 3rd party firewall. I'm convinced that the newer versions of Windows are designed to spy on its users, and that it gets worse with each new version of Windows. I also question the effectiveness of the built in security features that are part of the newer versions of Windows. Look at the recent findings that shows how AppLocker and SRP can be defeated using LoadLibraryEx. Most will call my view paranoid or worse, but IMO, this does not look like a coding error or a bug, but a deliberate bypass of the built in security features. I can't help but wonder how many more of these there are that haven't been "discovered". On a 9X system, a single batch file can remove all of the user activity records, including those stored in the registry. Try to do that on XP.

If learning Linux didn't feel like I was completely starting over, I'd probably stop using Windows for everything, save a couple of games. After using DOS for so long, the Linux command line syntax feels all wrong to me, like a foreign language. If the unofficial development for the different 98 upgrades ever stops, especially KernelEx, then I'll have to learn how Linux works. Until then, I'll keep using 98 because it works, it's stable, easy to secure, and above all else, I enjoy working with it.

[Joseph_sw]

what i don't like from Microsoft' is their "Systematic-Forced-Obsolescence " plans.

it start to shows significant symptoms on winXP and Office2003 , then blatantly appears on Vista & Office2007 or newer.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Joseph_sw

[submix8c]

Seeming unrelated topic -

[bpalone]

First things first!! What ever you chose to use, IT IS ONLY AN OPERATING SYSTEM and if it does what you want and you like it, THEN USE IT.

Everyone has pretty well said it all, and I concur. Personally, I have never liked XP. 98se and 2K were the peak for Microsoft, everything since has been down hill. I left the upgrade treadmill about 4 years ago and have gone almost entirely over to the Penguin. But, I still use 2K and 98se almost daily because there are some software packages that I use that are not available for Linux and they don't work well in WINE.

So, if I were you, I would probably go with 2K. But, as has been mentioned set up a dual or treble boot machine (98,2K and XP) and see what suites your needs best. You may find that one does 98% and the other is better for the other 2%. It's a personal choice and you have to make it.

Good luck.

I think I hear 2k shouting pick me, pick me.

edit was to correct an error.

Edited November 20, 2011 by bpalone

[ScrewUpgrading]

I will never understand why users tolerate or accept this. If an individual or company demanded that you repeatedly prove that you did not steal your home or car, you'd eventually file some kind of complaint or harassment charges against them. When a software or OS vendor does this, why do we tolerate it? For me, this alone is sufficient reason to boycott versions of Windows newer than 2K.

Agree %100

If the same standards that are used for applications were applied to operating systems, XP and newer systems would be classified as spyware.

Exactly.

I feel the same, Windows 2000 is the last version I'd use.

If learning Linux didn't feel like I was completely starting over, I'd probably stop using Windows for everything, save a couple of games. After using DOS for so long, the Linux command line syntax feels all wrong to me, like a foreign language. If the unofficial development for the different 98 upgrades ever stops, especially KernelEx, then I'll have to learn how Linux works. Until then, I'll keep using 98 because it works, it's stable, easy to secure, and above all else, I enjoy working with it.

One thing I plan on teaching myself very soon is the basic command syntax for Linux. Start at the bottom and work my way up, just like DOS.

[dencorso]

Create a double boot setup and install either Gentoo or Puppy. Google for them, read about both and select one. Both are quite good, either is a good choice for entering the Linux world. And both avoid the bloat most distros carry.

[bpalone]

Create a double boot setup and install either Gentoo or Puppy. Google for them, read about both and select one. Both are quite good, either is a good choice for entering the Linux world. And both avoid the bloat most distros carry.

Another distro that would be easy to pick up, is Mint. I just read that they are staying with the old Gnome desktop, at least for a while anyway. Is not free of bloat, but is easy to pick up and since it is based off of Ubuntu, there should be plenty of online support. Just remember that what you know about Windows and DOS, you didn't acquire overnight. So, don't expect to pick up everything about Linux overnight either.

I would recommend going the dual boot setup, that way you can use either and get used to Linux.

[darrelljon]

Yeah, I'm mainly using it as a web browser with flash. I used Linux for a while - but recently set up WPA2 and various distros stopped connecting (could be the T41 internal wifi). Apart from that, I hate activation, bloat, real-time virus scanners and the upgrade cycle, I like Office 2K/OpenOffice (hate Office 2007 etc.) and it would be nice to play a few games from the 90s and I always found WINE and Dosbox a lot of hassle when games just black out. I like multi-user. I don't think I can be bothered with dual boot.