IMHO W98, updated with the unofficial SP and with the Revolution pack etc added is a superb operating system - I love it.

The only thing wrong with W98 is the title - Win98. Microsoft pulled a smart one there, built in obsolescence. And, no matter what anybody does to it, that title is standing there, defying any attempt at modernisation - for mother's sake, this OS is from the last century!

I like to tell people the 98 stands for 2098, but strangely they dont often fall for that.

What would be great would be if all the modders and modernisers of w98 could reach a concensus on some generic name for upgraded w98 - just to kick the idea off, here's a few suggestions for starters, but I am sure others can come up with some much better ones, although of course, we only need one.

WinClassic. WinPremium OSWinMax. WindowsSheen. WinLean. WinAZ.

Come on, I'm sure someone has a better idea...

i always refer to it as "9X" which is kinda correct as that's often what the 95-ME kernel is refered to as, also it reflects that DX9 is last version we can run and bumps nicely into XP, i have start menu banners with "Windows 9X Professional" on them

No, w9x refers either to w98, w98se or w95.

My suggestions:
-Windows Gape 2.0
-Windows 98 2.0 or Windows 98 X (when refering to any uSP)
-Windows XX (because it has two X in the name, it means that it's better than XP that has only one X in its name)

but the most appropriate is of course Windows 2098

20 standing for the uSP version and 98 for win98. When uSP 2.1 will be released it will be Windows 2198, etc...

how about Windows 360, named after the xbox...........

What about: Windows 98 UE (ultimate edition) ?

Roman

Or just "Windows UE" or "Windows EE" (eternal edition)

Cheers, Roman

what about simply "Windows"?
since most of the core is from w98se, but there's also files from win me and i've updated the system with some xp sp2 functionalities.

what about this -

right on miko i like that might just resouce hack that into explorer .exe .

Windows 98 SE Version 2.

What about Windows OS X.98.2 ... even newer than Mac OS Tiger, I think the guys from Apple aren't angry if we take a byte of their Apple OS name.

they will sue you for that and be angry at you.

Some great suggestions there! Must admit, whenever I see Win9x a little voice in the back of my brain trys to re-interpret the x. But, yeah, WIN9X, if you get used to it, is as good as any. Guess my fave so far has to be WinUE though. That is a cool name, I think.

No, no, second thoughts - I can see some smarto calling UE Unofficial Experiment. No, we don't want that....

Hows about we name it after the one who started the upgrade...
win98G, or, win9XG, or, 98seG, naaa, that 1 sounds a little kinky

Windows Classic
Windows Classic Professional Edition
Windows 9X Professional Edition
Windows 9XP
Windows 9Xperience
Windows 9Xtreme
Windows 9Xelerated
Windows 9Xemplar
Windows Reduced Bloat Edition
Windows MDGxp

no
call it Windows 98 SE Version 2
that makes more sense.

azagahl, you da man again! Some great suggestions there. My fave is Windows Classic

"Windows ZZ" (WinZZ)

ZZ=Zu Zeit (German: At This Time)

Cheers, Roman

if it supported NTFS and SATA i'd be using it with these packs

Windows 98 SE NTFS Kicks Your Butt.

Who and/or what gave you the idea the it wouldnt support SATA?

windows 98sp Final edition...... i win

Actualy it's XP that stand for XP-riment...

What about Windows KE: KILLER Edition ?

---> and while we are at it, why not renaming the director of M$?

I propose "Bill Gape"...

Windows Classic --> no, we are no nerd!
Windows ZZ --> sound too spleepy

I usually use the four-digut build-number when indexing these, treating the whole as one type

win9x 0950 original win95 release
win9x 1111 OSR2.x releases [Here is OS/2 envy at its height.]
win9x 1998 original win98 release
win9x 2222 98SE version
win9x 3000 Windows multi-errors.

I suppose you could always go for OS/R [operating system / real mode], and continue this through.

OSR 1 Win95A, B 1,0 1,1
OSR 2 Win95C, D, E 2,0 2,1 2,5
OSR 3 Win98 3,0
OSR 4 Win98SE 4,0
OSR 5 WinME 5,0

This treats the whole lot as a single stream, at the major upgrade points, etc

OSR/3 is not in my collection, although i do have the rest!

Likewise, the NT releases are handled on WinNT numbers,

NT 3,1
NT 3,5
NT 4,0
NT 5,0 win2k
NT 5,1 winxp
NT 5,2 win2k3
NT 6,0 leghorn

By the way, i normally add service packs in the style of a second-point release, eg


nt 5,0 windows 2k
nt 5,0,0 windows 2k SP0
nt 5,0,4 windows 2k SP4

So the form of this version of Win9x might be

osr 4,0,0 raw win98se
osr 4,0,2 win98se + sp2
osr 4,1,2 win98se + sp2 + 98me pack

BTW, i have been doing this ever since win3x days

win300 windows 3.00
win305 windows 3.00 + Multimedia extensions
win31x windows 3.1x
win33x windows 3.1x + workgroups addin

There really was a win310, win311, win330 and win331.

win311 (ie 3.11 with no workgroups) was an OEM release only
win330 (ie 3.10 + workgroup extensions) was a very slow proggie, dubbed
"windows for warehouses". warehouses and workgroups are the same length and suitable for hex-editing.

W

If I may make a comment:
OSR [Orbiting Satellite Revisited] versions above are actually:

OSR 1 Win950, A 1,0 1,1
OSR 2 Win95B0, B1, C 2,0 2,1 2,5

or if u wish:

95 RTM [4.00.0950]
95A OSR1 [4.00.0951]
95B OSR2.0 [4.00.1111]
95B OSR2.1 [4.00.1212]
95C OSR2.5 [4.00.1214]

More on this:
http://www.mdgx.com/ver.htm#TAB

Have fun.

Ok guys, let's put it simply:

Windows UV 2.1 (Unofficial Version)

With Windows UV you'll get a tan before summer starts!

I always enjoyed MDGx's site. He seems cluey on this sort of stuff. None the same, while i have a good number of these OS's, they have not been really used a lot. From having to support different versions, and achieve different ends, i consider the following to be a useful presentation.

On the other hand, i tend to be multi-os, so i don't let the subtler distinctions worry me unless it is important. The OS/2 versions mattered because fix-packs were based on it.

Windows 9x brings with it a lot of various name-changes, and it is better to deal with the thing as a unified product. Even if one stops at 98se, one still has to make room for "multierrors".

At the moment, i have not found sufficient reason to go past the DOS version numbers (ie 0950, 1111, 1998, 2222, 3000), and these are readily accessable to the user in any case. That is, if one sees the dos version as 7.10.1998 one knows one deals with Win98 FE.

On the other hand, if there is good reason to depart from this, i would consider it.

The idea of using the 95-series OS/R numbers to extend through these five makes some sense, eg 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0. The UI and components are changed essentially at these five points, and the other changes are more akin to point changes, rather than core changes.

For example, the shell and the underlying DOS were changed at 1.0, 2.0 and 5.0. 2.0 features the integration of IE, while 5.0 includes some of the rollback features. One finds the 95/98 branding change at 1.0 and 3.0, with 5.0 partly branded as me.

One thinks of the intermediate releases like 0951, 1212, 1214, 1999, 2000, as point releases of these products.

I normally refer to the beasties as, eg Win0950 or Win2222 or whatever, rather than Windows 98. The NT stream is referred to as Winnt 5.0.4 (2000 sp4) or Winnt 4.0.6a (NT4 with sp6a).

I still have not got around to deciding the notation for home/pro/server/data centre, but the final form might be ntpro 5.0.4 or ntsrv 5.2.1.

The same sort of thing existed with OS/2 3.x (ie every combination of with or without WinOS2 files, every combination of with or without Networking [one makes this OS/2 3.1], and salmon or blue disks.

In version 4 they eliminated this distinction, and made just OS/2 warp. It has been single-version ever since.

Osfan2, MGDx,

Your collection is impressive. It will have a great value in the future.

Imagine one of the first release of DOS or some rare version of Windwos 3.xx , almost unused, it will priceless.

I already see japanese speculators flocking in Sotheby's auctions.