Hey all, I had a lot of troubles with XP being slow and clunky on my sub-par hardware, so I moved to Windows 2000 Professional and it runs like a dream!

My question is, why 98? Why not just move up to Windows 2000? It's got only a slight requirement difference to my knowledge and it's compatible with all new software and games. I understand the security issue but anyone that is relativly smart can avoid these problems.

why run 98? because its great 4 old dos games theres a million apps around 4 it its far more compatabile with older hardware.etc etc.And as far as 2000 being up 2 date with software .Wrong msn messenger 7.5 wont install etc most proggie are designed for xp only or else their all os platforms.im not saying 2000 sucks hell no it aint that bad at all in fact the 2000 community is alive and well in msfn check out usp 5.With 98se u have alot of room to tweak with a nt based os you have beffer support with new drivers but alot of 98se users will run 3rd party apps or just create them themselves sp 2 98seto me etc.98se has less bloat less retrictions etc yet it has less secruity but most viruses are designed for nt oses 2000/xp so its a crapshoot oh did i forget activation oh joy.lol.2 each his own im sure your read why one os is better than another but remember the little os that could 98se forever baby.

You should be wondering how Win98 !
How old is 98se ? Almost a decade ?
It was ahead of its time for sure. It also dosent suck up video mem or icon cache for "eye candy"
Xp does handle text files like no tomorrow but thankfully i dont have to use my computer as a work unit.
Nor do I share files......or manage a remote computer or want anyone else managing my s**t.
2000 and XP can be riped apart to run i'm sure but its a smogger and thats that. I'm actually debating win95 on my system may be fun.......

Why 98SE? Well, for starters, the only real problem I've ever had with 98se is stability. XP was perfectly stable, but it had other issues that bothered the hell out of me; (there's so many of em, I don't feel like listing them, but I think I did write em all out a couple weeks ago in the XP forum.) 2000... meh, I would use it but last time I ran the OS it crashed beyond repair after installing SP4. All of the XP-ers ask why we still use Win98, saying that it's old, so we should upgrade. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it's bad or obsolete.

Use whatever you want, but here's the obvious drawbacks to it:

Multiprocessor support is nonexistent. Say goodbye to dual core or dual CPU.

Support for large amounts of memory is nonexistent, and due to the way the 98/ME memory management works, most memory over 512MB is wasted when not running one large, memory intensive process. (tech. details: pagecache does not efficiently track used pages over 512MB)

In fact, memory management in 95/98(SE)/ME is terrible in general.

Support for modern hardware is nonexistent. Examples:
ACPI (controls fans, cpu throttling, battery, screen controls, sound controls, multiprocessor tables, IRQ routing, and many other things in modern machines.)
PCI-Express (not sure how well 98(SE)/ME functions on PCI express machines. curious. any reports?)
Bluetooth (there are third party stacks available, I'm sure, though.)

Deployment options are limited. Ghost, ghost, and more ghost.

Coopeative multitasking is unsafe. (95/98(SE)/ME marketing incorrectly stated that it had Preemptive Multitasking, which is mostly untrue. 90% of what I've seen XP users call crashes or freezes are just the individual program locking up, and not the whole machine.)

Complete lack of security updates and bugfixes. (I know that a lot of MSFN users have gotten around this but again, your choice, hey, all the more power to you to go your own way I spose)

Large hard drive support is nonexistant. Windows 98 Cannot Create a FAT32 Partition Larger than 127.53GB.

Viruses and spyware. many viruses and spyware apps have been indeed designed for windows xp, but a great deal of them rely only on functions that existed in 98(SE), for example, the windows script host, etc. The only two features I can think of that these 'applications' make use of that are not existent in 98(SE)/ME are file streams (NTFS feature) and NT services. What's worse, if you get a virus or spyware on XP and you are running as a limited user, as you should be, it will not be able to infect the entire machine.

Poor network and TCP stack. A fast enough stream of packets can completely bog down the 98(SE)/ME TCP stack with handling the received data, even when doing so to a second or third hard drive. XP's multitasking and improved networking subsystem shows a clear lead in this regard.

Caching. XP is much more efficient at utilizing memory to cache disk and network data. Free RAM is wasted RAM.

My question is, why 98? Why not just move up to Windows 2000?

Interesting question - one I've pondered before. Comparing 2K SP 4 w/ USP 5 SR 1 vs. 98 SE w/ USP 2.02...

-2K isn't compatible with old DOS programs. This is the primary reason for sticking with 98 SE. FYI, most DOS emulation programs are unacceptably slow.
-2K isn't as well supported by an enthusiast community
-2K's NTFS format is complex, meaning worse data recovery options
-2K has higher memory usage, though nLite can mitigate this
-2K seems to have worse USB support
-Stability is about the same - for example, alt-tabbing out of full screen games in 2K can easily screw things up.
-I can't prove it, but I suspect 2K has worse security. 2K is a ticking time bomb with MS killing off SP5 and new security fixes drying out. 98 SE is a simpler OS to begin with and simply has fewer attack points for hackers to exploit.

BTW, I don't understand why the previous poster goes on and on about XP. This thread is regarding 98 and 2K. Please don't pollute this thread.

More disadvantages than advantages. Just use nLite on XP Pro SP2 and RyanVM Pack and XPize, hardware firewall, small software firewall to notify of outgoing, use Opera or Firefox, use small freeware alternatives to the huge commercial programs, don't have loads in Start-Up, disable Services... enjoy.

Just use nLite on XP Pro SP2

I don't recommend this. First of all, nLite only exists as release candidate form. Look at the nLite page and you will see all the bugs people are having trying to pull pieces out from under this bloated OS. Furthermore, with XP you are playing Russian Roulette because you are installing self-destruct mechanism (WPA) that could be triggered by Microsoft or viruses at any time in the future. XP means you are installing spyware that transmits your CD key over the Internet for hackers to intercept and steal, plus baggage such as Genuine Checks. Maybe you'll stoop to anything, but I refuse to phone Microsoft and type a 50-digit numbers in like a monkey just because I changed some hardware around. This is a difficult task for the hearing impaired and Microsoft should be sued for discriminating against disabled people.

when people ask why do u run 98se its so old i think they believe were using it on a new mothrboard dualcore etc.i think most people who run it run it at home generally older hardware and not on a network or as a office tool.its easy to argue that it has short comming with new hardware then again what os doesnt have issue with some program game etc.it is simply a compact os thats been disected and made with proper tweaks sps etc to be pretty **** stable.if u have a new machine it comes with xp no doubt and thats great because alot of the newer stuff is geared to xp not 98se and sometimes not even 2000.i think people try 2000 because its a nt based os yet like less bloat than xp and like the fact its alot like 98se in design.if you are a general home user who surfs emails pogo games a few older dos games etc maybe u dont need to upgrade to 2000/xp someday u will but your probably be buying a new pc with vista on it by then.i believe when they made 98se not perfect no os is they basically got it right and everything since is a addon.you can talk about memory management or 512mb restrictions but i bet if i did a poll the majoraity or 9x users dont require more than 256mb to run everything they got and im sure they dont expect to complete with newer systems or not 2 concerned.EG.i have a friend of 20 years he runs 98se always has always will i offer him xp he said someday but i got my pc setup nice and everything works why change.Is is behind the times?is he against change?No he payed for his stuff it works enuff say.the debate will never end .even now mdgx hugs his old 216 longing for the days of 3.1 2 each his own party on garth.

But on the other hand, it's fast enough with just one CPU, even if
its only a Pentium 133...

The original Win95 was designed to run in 4 MB, and with 8 MB it performed well.
98 SE runs fine with 32 MB, and pretty much perfectly with 64... That compares
well to FreeBSD and Linux, let alone XP.

Sure, all else being equal, the flexibility of putting such breathtaking amounts
of memory as 1 GB to better use would be a bonus, but the capability of doing
more with less is a lot more important than the capability of consuming more.



That is a more valid point, and of course inevitable in the long run,
considering that it's no longer maintained.

For mass-installation, it can't get much easier, can it? And
it takes less time to ghost a more compact system than a more
bloated one.



DOS VMs have been pre-emptively multi-tasked since Windows/386,
first released in the the late 80s. Win95 introduced threads and another
category of pre-emptively multitasked applications - Win32 - a feature that
essentially worked well.

Most "crashes" that Win9x users experience is probably the result of
exhausting the so-called "resources" of the Win16 subsystem, and that
rarely brings down the whole machine. Usually the kernel and interrupts
are still operable, and more often than not, the DOS VMs as well.

That said, the NT-based Windows series probably *is* more stable,
and it ought to be, if only for the simple reason that stability and
security have had far greater priority in its design and development.
It was also designed more or less from scratch, with few constraints.

The 3.x and 9x series, however, had to be marketable, and thus
had to run on affordable hardware with acceptable perforance and
maintain compatibility with existing (DOS and later Win16) applications.
It's certainly no co-incidence that it was far more successful than NT
until Microsoft pulled the plugs on it, after hardware price and
power finally caught up with their pet project. It took tireless
and skilled marketing efforts and clever introduction of
technologies such as Win32 and the WDM (Windows Driver Model)
on Win9x to prepare the ground, funded by the cash-flow from
DOS, Win3.x and 9x. That's why NT made it and OS/2 failed,
although the latter had a head start and many other advantages.



Security updates are not an issue. However, updates in terms
of hardware support and various kinds of functionality would
be desirable, and in some cases essential.

You would not want to create a FAT32 partition that large. In fact,
anything over 4 GB or so comes with an unreasonably large cluster
size. This is an example of where updates are essential, ideally
XFS (Linux/SGI Irix) or ReiserFS (Linux only).



That has more to do with self-control than OS features. Strictly speaking, you
should never run untrusted software with sufficient privilege to do damage, but
that tends to be impractical except with the help of a PC emulator/virtual machine.
After all, most software comes in binary form only and/or is so bloated that no-one
has the time to check it for privacy/security violations.



I haven't noticed, with a single drive and a mere Celeron 400. That is a bit
surprising, considering that both the NIC and SCSI driver are so-called "NT
miniport" drivers, as opposed to proper VxDs. A perfect demontration of
the flexibility of the Win9x architecture - we have yet to see VxDs on XP!
At the same time, it's a great example of how MS have been preparing the
ground for NT/XP.

> Poor network and TCP stack.

Actually, there are in fact cases where 9x networking is vastly superior to 2K and XP.

For example, I always install a HOSTS file; my current HOSTS blocks 110,000+ malware, spyware, advertising, and porn sites. In 98 SE and Linux, this HOSTS file incurs no noticable burden; but on a fully patched 2K and XP, the unbelievably inefficient DNS service (hardly an optional service) consumes 100% CPU resources for over 10 minutes (on a 3+ GHz processor) to process this HOSTS file. The processing occurs invariably occurs at boot time (preventing log on for 10 minutes) as well as whenever the HOSTS file changes (interrrupting network access and consuming CPU resources) or when the DNS service is restarted.

Also, in many core XP executables such as SVCHOST.EXE frequently and inexplicably "phone home". I believe that XP meets the definitions of spyware and malware (capable of self-destructing your PC). This certainly makes firewall configuration trickier. IMHO the incessant security center complaints and inherent vulnerability of having such a bloated OS make networking an unpleasant experience.

A further advantage to 9x networking is that you can access the Internet and download files from text mode (real mode DOS 7.1), without loading the GUI, using a number of free software programs such as LSPPP and Arachne. I am not aware of anything similar in 2K or XP.

Well not that many people would want to anymore, but I used to access a dialup PPP account from DOS up until 1999 on a 386 (CGA monitor hehe) - course my provider Sprint told me it was not possible, and I nearly had to beat out of the tech support the various server names (DNS, etc).

Once connected you could run NCSA Telnet, or even dos POP3 mail programs, ftp etc.

Wrong. Windows 98 does support ACPI. And there are security updates. Probably just another troll promoting Windows XP.

Well considering the topic/question is "Why Use it?" Not "Reasons to not use it" - his whole post is moot and garbage.

PS. Timeless - You really need to put some spaces at the end of sentences. And some capitalization - or even Paragraphs/Hard-enter wouldn't hurt either heh. I couldn't even finish reading your post it just hurt my brain.

WIndows 98's support for ACPI is very limited, and security updates will be up soon as Microsoft only publishes them for two years after entering the extended support phase.



The hosts file is not the correct place to block sites, your firewall should handle that. Regardless, the most likely reason for the delay is not parsing the large hosts file, but attempting to contact some of the sites you have null-routed.

As for the rest of the TCP suite, 98(SE)/ME handles incoming and outgoing data with far higher priority than is necessary, which is evident when transferring large files and attempting to, for example, move windows around..

I have yet to see anything other than the windows update service and root certificate update service attempt to contact microsoft or any other external site without explicitly telling it to do so.

As for accessing the internet from DOS, you could install bartpe on your hard drive, it takes much less time to boot for me (when you have all the drivers integrated correctly, otherwise it can hang for a few moments during device detection) than xp does.

Cain't spel, cain't punktuize and cain't paragraff.

These people would have never passed my 7th grade English class.
(maybe they've not gotten up to 7th grade yet...if so I appologize)

Crash,,,,,I'm with you.....it hurts my brain too, not to mention my eyes.

But they do have a computer. Too bad spell checking doesn't work in these forums.

I'm sure not the world's best speller but I do edit every post at least three times.
If a mistake misses my scrutiny, it ain't cuz I didn't try.

OH Yes,,,,Why use 98?
Well, because the computer it came on was specificly designed around it. NOT for W2k or XP.

Now if you've just built your own version of the HAL 9000, go for a more up to date OS.
I do love 98/SE and still install it on older systems. It does however have a max ram and max HD upper limit. XP does not. Even just to FDISK a large HD, I need to break out the Windows ME boot disk.

Even though I've been forced to put XP on my main PC, I kept what I thought was the best part of Win 98/SE. That is....the FAT-32 file structure on my HD.

I'm kind of a Control Freak and being able to boot my system from a DOS floppy or CD just gives me 100% control over every file on my HD. There's absolutely NO such thing as a virus, spyware or other bogus file that I can't get rid of.

My advise to anyone who, for whatever reason, has to upgrade to XP is:
Use an XP-Pro Upgrade CD and if it asks you, tell it to keep your existing file structure.

Enjoy 98 while you can,
Andromeda43

For those who are going to keep their Windows 98, 98SE OS,,,,you might just as well get all the performance out of it that you can. Here's a couple of 'tweaks' I've been using for years with very good results.
*******************************************
Tweak Win 98,or '98/SE, to make it run more effeciently:

1: START---Settings---Control Panel
Double Click "System"
Click "Performance" tab
Click "File System" Button
Set, "Typical Role of this computer" to 'Network Server'
Click the Apply button
Then:
Click the "Floppy Disk" tab
Un-Check the little box in 'Settings' window
Click "Apply",,,,,,then click OK
Click OK again
(this change will become permanent after a Re-Boot

2: START---RUN--- type in Sysedit , and then press ENTER
Maximize the "System Configuration Editor" window
Maximize the "System.ini" window
Scroll down till you can see the entire [386Enh] grouping
Place your mouse cursor on the first blank line at the bottom of the group
Then, type in the following line....

ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

(type the line exactly as shown,,,with NO spaces and caps where I've put them)
Then press enter.
The above line will help Windows to use RAM more effectively.

Click "File" in the upper left corner of the Editor window. Then click "SAVE"
Close the Editor window and Re-Boot your computer.

After a re-start, windows will now operate at 15% to 30% faster and more efficient than it did before.


Happy Computing,
Andromeda43

I do this copy and paste this on a new text document on your desktop. name this file tweak.reg and double click it and reboot, now you got tricked out options more than network server

-----Begin cut & paste here-----
REGEDIT4

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates]
@="Max Cache"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Super Cache]
@="Super Cache"
"NameCache"=hex:00,ff,00,00
"PathCache"=hex:ff,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Max Cache]
@="Max Cache"
"NameCache"=hex:00,18,00,00
"PathCache"=hex:c8,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Huge Cache]
@="Huge Cache"
"NameCache"=hex:80,13,00,00
"PathCache"=hex:90,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Large Cache]
@="Large Cache"
"NameCache"=hex:a0,0f,00,00
"PathCache"=hex:80,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Medium Cache]
@="Medium Cache"
"NameCache"=hex:20,0f,00,00
"PathCache"=hex:50,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\control\FileSystem]
"NameCache"=hex:00,18,00,00
"PathCache"=hex:c8,00,00,00

------End cut & paste here------



and this is in View/Folder Options/View and look under Advanced Settings in windows explorer, reboot needed

REGEDIT4

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\Advanced\IconCache]
"Text"="Icon Cache Size"
"Type"="group"
"Bitmap"="SHDOC401.DLL,6"
"HelpID"="update.hlp#51140"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\Advanced\IconCache\Small]
"RegPath"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer"
"Text"="1024 Icons"
"Type"="radio"
"CheckedValue"="1024"
"ValueName"="Max Cached Icons"
"DefaultValue"="2048"
"HKeyRoot"=dword:80000002
"HelpID"="update.hlp#51140"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\Advanced\IconCache\Medium]
"RegPath"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer"
"Text"="2048 Icons"
"Type"="radio"
"CheckedValue"="2048"
"ValueName"="Max Cached Icons"
"DefaultValue"="2048"
"HKeyRoot"=dword:80000002
"HelpID"="update.hlp#51140"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\Advanced\IconCache\Large]
"RegPath"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer"
"Text"="4096 Icons"
"Type"="radio"
"CheckedValue"="4096"
"ValueName"="Max Cached Icons"
"DefaultValue"="2048"
"HKeyRoot"=dword:80000002
"HelpID"="update.hlp#51140"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\Advanced\IconCache\Huge]
"RegPath"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer"
"Text"="8192 Icons"
"Type"="radio"
"CheckedValue"="8192"
"ValueName"="Max Cached Icons"
"DefaultValue"="2048"
"HKeyRoot"=dword:80000002
"HelpID"="update.hlp#51140"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer]
"Max Cached Icons"="2048"

You should get an immediate "connection refused" or "network/host unreachable" error for such attempts, as on the other systems. Besides, why would waiting for a reply from unreachable
sites consume 100% CPU?

My tests don't seem to confirm that. However, there are numerous variables involved (the
hardware itself, the drivers, TCP/IP config. parameters, choice of application to perform the
transfer, etc.), so all in all, not much (if anything) is evident at all about Win9x network
transfer priorities or other details from such limited data.



On the other hand, if you must have XP, I think it would be a better idea
to put it on a separate partition (or disk) rather than overwriting your
Win9x install.



It's a very good idea if have 128 MB or more, as it will drastically reduce unnecessary
swap usage. Basically, Win98 (not 95) tries to be smart and allocate swap space
ahead of time, during times of low system load, which may improve performance
on low-memory systems.

What is a Rootkit?
The term rootkit is used to describe the mechanisms and techniques whereby malware, including viruses, spyware, and trojans, attempt to hide their presence from spyware blockers, antivirus, and system management utilities. There are several rootkit classifications depending on whether the malware survives reboot and whether it executes in user mode or kernel mode.

Persistent Rootkits
A persistent rootkit is one associated with malware that activates each time the system boots. Because such malware contain code that must be executed automatically each system start or when a user logs in, they must store code in a persistent store, such as the Registry or file system, and configure a method by which the code executes without user intervention.

Memory-Based Rootkits
Memory-based rootkits are malware that has no persistent code and therefore does not survive a reboot.

User-mode Rootkits
There are many methods by which rootkits attempt to evade detection. For example, a user-mode rootkit might intercept all calls to the Windows FindFirstFile/FindNextFile APIs, which are used by file system exploration utilities, including Explorer and the command prompt, to enumerate the contents of file system directories. When an application performs a directory listing that would otherwise return results that contain entries identifying the files associated with the rootkit, the rootkit intercepts and modifies the output to remove the entries.

The Windows native API serves as the interface between user-mode clients and kernel-mode services and more sophisticated user-mode rootkits intercept file system, Registry, and process enumeration functions of the Native API. This prevents their detection by scanners that compare the results of a Windows API enumeration with that returned by a native API enumeration.

Kernel-mode Rootkits
Kernel-mode rootkits can be even more powerful since, not only can they intercept the native API in kernel-mode, but they can also directly manipulate kernel-mode data structures. A common technique for hiding the presence of a malware process is to remove the process from the kernel's list of active processes. Since process management APIs rely on the contents of the list, the malware process will not display in process management tools like Task Manager or Process Explorer.

I have a dual-boot system, running Win98SE SP2.02 and Win2k SP4.

I use Win98Se to run old games, plus my scanner doesn't have 2k drivers, so I am forced to run it under Win98SE to use it.

Win2k is great for running everything else, especially when I have several programs open at once while I'm manipulating large graphix. Win98SE would bog down and crash.

Best of both worlds on one computer. Works for me!


.H*P*D.

"When in doubt, I whip it out!"

Why run 98? Because I don't actually run it... I mean, I use Virtual machines, and some old hardware from my collection, here and there... but I really don't use it, because I have better things to do with my time than fix problems with new hardware and old software...

I do, however, try to help out this community with Win98 compilations... I guess I help some people....

would there be even a minor security advantage to having a dual boot setup, using (a) an "out of date" 98se-FAT32 partition for browsing (which inherently, e.g. without modification, cannot anticipate let alone read or write on a NTFS partition), and (B) a w2k-NTFS partition for personal work?

the 98se-FAT partition would have only a browser installed, with no or deceptive personal information, and even if "uncle bill" grabs the "root" he is limited to the 98-FAT partition you voluntarily give up to him -- OTOH, when the w2k user logs on, he could see the FAT partition, so he or she could access any downloaded files etc (but not vice versa, absent hassles by an attacker)

then again, *if* a hacker figured out that there was a silent NTFS partition lurking behind the FAT, he might find it easier to attack a NTFS partition from the 98 platform, because the w2k system which would normally protect it, wouldn't be running ...

??

That "why not just" makes the "why 98" come across as a loaded question (like there's a need to upgrade from 98 that us ignorant technophobes haven't quite grasped yet) but the simple answer I have for you is that my Win98SE system currently does all I need it to, and any benefit Win2k might offer over Win98 would be marginal at best and certainly not worth the cost as far as I'm concerned.

Native large hard drive support is nonexistant but third-party solutions do exist (like this one), and I can't envisage needing a single partition larger than 127.53GB. (Yeah that's right, I don't ever plan to install Vista. :*)

Amen to that.

I actually considered the opposite for a while, though I intended using FAT-32 thoughout.

Bend over so I can thwack your ignorant butt with my dead Amiga keyboard.

Well I'd say that part of the issue lies with Microsoft's naming scheme...
'Windows 98SE' just sounds to be older than 'Windows 2000' despite the
fact that Win98SE was released near the end of 1999...(which is why I
suspect that we'll eventually see the return of year based releases at a
point in the near future.)

Now contrast that with 'Windows 4.10' versus 'Windows 5.0' and the gulf
doesn't seem as wide...especially for those of us running with one or more
of the unofficial service packs or third party system updates...it seems to
be largely at matter of perception.

--iWindoze

Ya my friend has two amigas and they are pretty powerful with 2 mb of ram and you can make music and graphics. Supposedly some startrek movie was made with one.
Impressive ? yes
Capable of playing GTA SA or sending a reply to this forum ? I dont think so.
Wanting to bother and try to get online with one ? not in your life.
Went out with the 8-track ? 10-4

Perhaps he should check out AmigaOS4.0 which has internet and browser support then.

We ain't talkin about Amiga here, we're talkin about windows 98. I can feel the days of windows 98SE fading off into the distance support wise. Once Vista comes out, all of us who still want to run Windows 98SE using any new software or high end games will be totally screwed. Oh well, no one's gonna stop me from running the OS of my choice. I know in the world of technology, the developers are the ones that are continuously progressing further and further; but frankly, I don't see much progress anymore. All I see now are old ideas getting bloated and somewhat more "user friendly."
Examples: Windows, AOL, AOL Instant Messenger (actually anything made by AOL these days), Norton AntiVirus, *Any* store bought pre-loaded computer.

Windows98:
Throws balls and voices instead of bricks and beeps with Speedball II? I dont think so.
Entire OS fits on a 512K ROM and a floppy disk? Not in your life.
Pattern matching and Command Line Interface that Catweasle would feel at home with? 10-4
78 RPM vinyl record?

What suprises me about your response was that it sounds way too much like the sophistry XP trolls like to throw at us Win98 users. I was angling at humour kartel, and didn't mean to be offensive, nor to start a flame war or shift the conversation off-topic.

Do I think Windows98 impressive? Sure. All OS have their pros/cons, and the "best" is the one that sit on your desk and works well enough to do what you want it to.

All this Amiga talk, as off-topic as it seems, at least reinforces the point you made earlier about old<>bad, and highlights how things that can be done "out of the box" on later OS are often equally possible (and sometimes better handled) with older OS and third-party software.

I can't agree more with your comments about rehashed technology though. I figure many like to re-invent the wheel just to get the chance to whack their own ©'s ®'s on it. In newspeak that's called Consumerism...

Cheers

Ok it was Babylon 5,not star trek.
My friend had a 2000 and a 2500 with itchy and scratchy and stuff look like 3.1.

Anyway I apologise if offended anyone, I am just very pro-98 and am impressed that i can do things that "apparently" it's not supposed to.

I wanted to play sa on my pc but it says 2000 and xp only.

I mucked around with xp pro and 2000 pro and I'm not going to lie to you, they didn't make me happy,,, at all.
I found 98se the best choice "for me". I am happy with it and i don't have to spend coin on it.

AND it plays GTA san andeas without a problem.
Which I "should" have had to spend large for a new computer and operating system just to play it, which offends me, to be honest.
I don't like being suckered into anything and the way its going Its whats happening to lots of people.
I am sorry if I offend anyone, that's not my intention.

I just want people to understand that 98SE works mint and if there is a problem, it not, cause you have a back-up copy of your hard drive, using , say , data lifeguard from WD at least I do.
If something out of the ordinary happens, back up your recent documents and format, then restore your "mint back-up" from last week or month and your set. Problem solved, just a few AV updates later your done.
It beats a cd reinstall hands down.
I tried doing this with xp and 2000 and it wouldnt boot.
Too many problems to list, for that matter.
Data Lifeguard Tools 11 for Windows http://support.wdc.com/download/index.asp?...&pid=999&swid=1

i use win98se because it had a half-decent dos with lfn support.

in any case, if you use windows, you are using tomorrow's legacy system. all windows have a shelf life that ends on general availability. saves support cost.

W

Oh yeah, I forgot about mentioning san andreas in my post before. Yeah, the people at rockstar games are morons; if they wanted to make their game for only 2000/XP, they should've put an OS check on the installer. But the fact is, the game DOES run perfectly, DEPENDING ON YOUR CONFIGURATION. I was using an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro for san andreas, which i accidently destroyed, while trying to replace a heatsink (don't ask about it... its a touchy subject cause I broke $200 worth of computer hardware.) So, yeah, now I'm using an nVidia GeForce4 MX 4000, which, on win2000/XP san andreas runs fine, but on 98SE... LAGGY LAGGY LAGGY. Oh, and I ran into the notorious "sound problems" on all of the operating systems at least once. I love the game, but I hate rockstar now. (I know this is off the subject, but I had to get it off my chest somehow!)

I installed 2000pro on a different hard drive and then installed the game on yet another hard drive thinking that it had a version checker.
Oh well, live and learn.....

Don't mind me kartel - no offense taken here. (Us bitter old Amigos don't get offended, we just get loud and obnoxious )


Off-topic: C'mon! I'll show ya mine if you show me yours! (Ignored a semi-functional fan for so long that I killed my old gfx card; was so eager to play more DiabloII that I forgot to power down before trying to fit it's replacement... Pop! BEEP-BEEP-BEEP-BEEP... $400 )

Cheers.

$400? Wow, that sucks. Well, I noticed the fan had been dying periodically, so decided to just go and replace the whole heatsink. Well, I could NOT figure out how to take off the old heatsink. I googled how to pull off the old heatsink, and after 20 minutes of pulling, shoving and yanking plastic pins, I got the thing off. I put the new one on perfectly and put the card back in my computer. I turned on my computer and saw green, red and purple dots floating across the screen, next to a disfigured "window 98" boot logo. The only reaction I had to this was slowly uttering "f***" and pulling the card out and shoving it into a box in my closet. Then, I went to Fry's and bought an nvidia geforce4 mx4000 for $50, and it works pretty **** well (and it has no fan to mysteriously die.)

why not run 98se its small easy 2 use plenty of apps etc sure u cant run msn 7.5 or beta 8 but 7.0 still cool.its a os and it works well sure maybe in a old p133 with 32ram it froze crashed but not today .

The point is this... Why use something you don't need? If you only need Win98se to do the stuff you want, why upgrade? I always hop on the new stuff software-wise when it comes out, but with the exception of a couple of programs... I could make do with Win98. Like we tell our customers at the shop, if you don't do anything but card games and email.. there's no need to upgrade. So if you are still doing dos games, why upgrade? Why change anything that still works, for something that may not? L33t1sm is not the way for all.

To swing back on topic, it sucked enough to keep my ideas of dual-booting Win98/Win2k from happening...


You initially suggested Win2k is compatible with all new software and games but I wonder to what extent that's true. I admit to being ignorant on the matter but get the impression that Win2k is neither here nor there in the scheme of things - likely to have incompatibity issues with both Win9x and WinXP software. Have you since come across any newer software that Win2k doesn't handle, or have findings like HighPingDrifter's regarding Win2k's software/hardware compatibility and potential issues?

For example, mjc questions how well 98(SE)/ME functions on PCI express machines - I'm curious to know if Win2k would function any better/worse with that type of hardware.

Cheers.

The only things I can think of that Windows 2000 won't run are some of the newest highend games, and of course old software/games designed primarily for Windows 9x/DOS. But, judging from the results I've seen from games like Battlefield 2, the reason that a lot of games say they ONLY run on XP is because they simply haven't been tested on any other OS. In fact, when I went to install the game on Win2k, the installer *said* that the game had only been tested on Windows XP Service Pack 2. Don't worry, you can expect windows 2000 to be mostly compatible with most stuff for years to come, because it's still an NT OS, and its practically Windows XP with all the sh!t cut out of it. DO worry about Windows 98/98SE/ME though, Microsoft is doing their best, along with other companies to faze those operating systems out. I can't say that I'm helping though, because I'm turning my primary desktop into a windows 2000 box, but I still got a good old Dell Dimension XPS T-500 that runs win98se like a charm.

EDIT: I just read the counter results for OS usage in October. I can't believe that 74% of all computer users are using XP now; that stat sends shrills down my spine!

Hello,

I still run Win98 on a newish AMD pc, (about 18 -24 months old), because with the help of 98Lite, I don't find any need to keep updating it... unlike WinXP! I can multi-boot as many copies of Win98, any position on my hard drive... with no problems.

With Ghost I can restore a fully working copy of Win98, plus programs, in well under 5 minutes... from start to finish. Win98 is extemely hackable for personalisation. I can run a top-notch Dos based anti-virus, which can catch a virus before Windows actually boots and gets infected.

The only reason I'm running WinXp at all, on a multiboot system, is just to familarise myself with it and because my partner likes Spider card game!

Waywyrd.

for now, and only for a short time yet. nLite has come a long way and using it, at least for me, is pure joy.
WPA can easily be disabled a variety of ways.

IF the product key is ever transmitted, and i'd like to see any evidence you have to that effect, i seriously doubt it's transmitted unencrypted.

the whole "activation" scheme is a flaky joke right from the beginning and i agree that MS has it's head up its behind in this regard. however, like anything else, there's ways around this crap.

I've used almost every Microsoft OS from DOS 3.20 to Windows XP Pro, but still 98se is my favorite.

Reasons to run 98se:
- Small. A base install consumes less than 200M of disk space, and the OS can be trimmed down to <100M without excessively losing functionality.
- Simple. The architecture is simple when compared to that of an NT-based OS. This makes configuration, customisation, and troubleshooting easier.
- Compatible. It's based on the legendary DOS kernal, so it'll run most older games etc. with no problem. It's DOS emulation environment is considerably better than that of 2K or XP. It can also run most newer software as well, and certainly a large amount of software is available for it.
- Fast. On an old 386DX25 I have (250M HDD, 16M RAM), it boots to the desktop in ~20 seconds and is surprisingly usable. For older machines, it runs extremely well. On new machines (e.g. my 4.17GHz P4) it simply flies and the response time is excellent.
- Efficient. Compared with XP, 98se consumes very little resources and its minimum requirements are very low. The kernal and associated components require very little memory, leaving the rest available to programs.
- Ease of maintainence and recovery. Files such as the kernel32.dll can be edited and manipulated freely with a boot to MS-DOS 7.10, for customisation purposes. FAT32 filesystem is widely documented and data can be easily recovered, not to mention the FAT32 structure is simple and easy to fix with only a disk editor and some basic knowledge.
- Secure (as in remote-exploits). In all my years of running 98se I have never been exploited remotely or have the OS infect itself with no user intervention. There are no large amounts of background services to exploit (unless you install some yourself, like an ftpd), and the OS does not automatically access the Internet at periodic intervals. It accesses the Internet when you want it to, and only when you want it to. A firewall is definitely not needed, and a virus scanner need not continously monitor the system if you're careful of what you run. Most newer malware (including rootkits) no longer function under Win98

Reasons why I don't like WinXP
- Huge. It takes nearly 2Gb for a base install which includes many unwelcome features. It can certainly be reduced in size, but not as much as 98se can.
- Complex. All NT-based OSs tend to be extremely complex - the more complex, the more chance for bugs and exploits to be present. The amount of critical updates issued illustrates this.
- Noncompatibility. Older hardware and software are not supported well. The DOS emulator is more secure, but lacking in features and noticeably slow especially when running in a window. Many older programs for Win9x won't run on XP. (Nor does the compatibility mode help that much...)
- Slow. It's barely usable on a P133 and needs plenty of RAM. They may have improved the boottime a bit, but response time is more important. When working in WinXP the system tends to periodically freeze for brief intervals of less than a second; it's small, but noticeable. Redrawing icons and windows also feels slower than for 98se. The OS just feels sluggish. All of the (optional) fade-in/fade-out effects make it seem even worse. It also tends to access the HDD more (for the swapfile?) which further slows it down.
- Inefficient. The core components require copious amounts of memory to reside in, leaving less for applications programs. The "new" skinnable GUI with all the bitmaps takes further memory. (I disabled this on my WinXP installation) I also prefer the clean, elegant rectangles of the traditional GUI to something more fancy and totally frivolous.
- Difficulty of Maintainence. Booting to DOS is impossible without a dualboot system. The "recovery console" is not very featureful and difficult to use. Although there are utilities available for reading NTFS, it is still a proprietary filesystem of Microsoft. "Extended attributes" and "alternate streams" (which some malware use to hide themselves) are troublesome to deal with. Data recovery is more difficult than with FAT32. The NTFS filesystem is complex and easily corrupted structure.
- Insecure. The OS can be exploited remotely and thus a firewall and virus scanner is essential. I've had a virgin install become infected as I was downloading the critical updates from the MS site, supposedly to fix the vulnerabilities that the trojan exploited. Removing unneeded services is an undesirable task that must be done. Most new virii and trojans target XP.

If I am *forced* to use XP, I can, but otherwise I will keep running 98se for as long as I can

Hello,

With regard to the above (why run Win98) I only wish I could have some up all the benefits of Win98 as well as that!

I "went off" WinXP because of the almost constant need to update. At the last count there's at least 30+ critical updates alone... since Service Pack 2!

Waywyrd

@LLXX

although i like XP, i do miss the raw simplicity of 98 sometimes and agree with much of what you had to say regarding "Reasons to run 98se" (though i've never run SE, just 98).

most of your reasons for not liking XP can be easily overcome however...

size: one word: nLite - you can cut the size WAY down and still have every bit of functionality you require. a typical installation size for me is about 1/2 of the default and i'm not exactly a 'minimalist' (others cut far more out).
complex: no argument there - services, hidden services, component services, group policy editor, etc., etc..
slow: not as slow if you lighten it up, though a P133 is certainly an extreme. i ran XP on a P3 800 however and it seemed to be more responsive than 98 with very little tweaking.
inefficient: not so with minor tweaking (turning off themes, disabling unneeded services, uninstalling typical windows junk, etc.).
difficulty of maintenance: if the NTFS filesystem is easily corrupted, i have yet to experience any problem and i've been using NTFS and XP for several years (over 3). on the other hand, 98 produced filesystem errors on a regular basis. this point is moot anyway since you can format FAT if you want to.
insecure: more insecure then 98? maybe so, but this is easily overcome. 98, XP, whatever; you should be running a F/W (which is included in XP) and AV regardless. XP can be hardened pretty well because of the configuration tools it provides.

anyway, i'm not trying to disuade anyone from using whatever OS they want, just pointing out possible flaws in your argument

For me, I ran XP on my CarPC for a while, and it took a while for it to boot once my car started... I know I can use hibernation and all of that junk... but in all honesty, I installed 98se and it was perfect, i don't have any worries about my hardware setup, it runs on my CF card perfectly with no worries at all

i totally agree with ya.if i didnt have 2 run xp just to use latest messengers etc id never leave 98se.98se is fast easy to use and so on.probably why gapes and other continue to write apps for it.

I run win98 in on a virtual machine on my secondary PC so I can play calssic games that refuse to run on xp... Specifically The Feeble Files.

I only see two valid reasons.

One reason is if you want and/or have a need to run leagcy games and applications that flat out won't work and/or run very poorly in Windows 2000/XP regardless of what you do to try and make them run well in Windows 2000/XP. But Windows 98SE should only be used strictly for those purposes on modern hardware and be dual booted with Windows 2000/XP/2003 for running more modern applications on modern hardware.

Another reason is if you have really old hardware that you will use just for running really old applications or simple modern applications designed to run on just about anything produced the last 10 years.

So to sum it up, the only logical reason I see to run it is for legacy hardware and software produced in the year 2000 and prior.

you run 98se simply because your cant afford xp or you run a P2 or less or you might be in emerging countries that still rely on 98se like korea for one ,at least 10% of bussiness do and thats just the tip of the icebergand lets not forget older laptops etc.you should normally run the os that best perforances on your pc/motherboard/ram etc.those that run it on new mobo are probablydiehard fans and i dont blame them abit if u dont play dvd based major ram comsupting pig games then u could use 98se to surf chat etc.i realize its 2006 soon but i know so many new pc users that are given second hand pcs from friends or family usually with 98se on it.so i guess if your ok with what u got ride it out .