Hi guys!

Today is the last Patchday (11th July 2006)
and since there are still 70 000 000 Windows 9x users on the world ~20% of the users
it could be a good idea to write M$ that they shouldn't stop support for Windows 9x.

Maybe everybody who wants to could write an e-mail to support@microsoft.com and billg@microsoft.com(is this Bills adress? ) with the subject "extend support for Windows 98 " or similiar
and then maybe it works like in 2003 .
Otherwise billy boy & m$ gets spammed *ggg* what I think they deserve for there bugs and none support .

What do you think?

I find it good when we don't have to know about new bugs in Windows 98/98SE/ME.

HE double 2 sticks, if they won't listen to the French government? Besides, we've got better support here in this Forum than MS ever provided It's best to be shut of them!

Win95/98/ME is dead as far as I'm concerned. After 8 years, it's time the rest of the world got up-to-date. Don't like XP, use nLite, simple as that. or go to Linux.

Agreed. IF you're running an 8yr old operating system, you need to "get with the times". People were saying the same thing to those Windows for Workgroup 3.11 people when Windows 98 (SE) was the current version.
XP is what, 5 years old now? MS is really slipping on the routinely released (almost annual) operating systems. Windows 95 (A,B,C in '95-97), Windows 98 in '98, Windows 98 SE in '99, Windows ME/Windows 2000 in 2000, and XP in 2001. Personally, I got tired of that routine. Glad to see them bring out XP and Server 2003, and then "support" them. About time to support only them. Well...then we'll have Vista

I've got a friend who still runs 98SE on a P4, purely for games, and Windows 2000 on a P3 for his programming/workstation; but then again, he took my Slot1 mobo/cpu for his MS-DOS box which houses games older than Windows 98.
I should also tell you he's
--just my 2 cents.

Personally I don't think it's needed to go up at all, you can still run Win98 fine if you like. I really don't believe that XP is saver to use because it's still supported. But you have to stop wining now. Win98se has been supported for more than 7 years now and that's long enough. I think that Micrcosoft has been very responsible in this matter.

Classics are always the best.
Win98SE 4 ever

Win98 finally hitting it's end of life is pretty fair at this point, it's been 8 years, and there's been 3 OSs released since then (4 if you count Win 2003) and Vista is right around the corner.

To be honest, MS was being very forgiving with their Win98 support already, generally speaking their rule of thumb is "support the current and the previous OS" and Win98 support reached 2 extra levels back. Demanding any more support is absurd at this point.

No I don't want to make "why I want/need to run 98" war. Heck, Win98SE + uSP2 is a great and efficient OS and I always run it when I come across a low end box. Despite, MS has done a great job embracing 98.

If you want to complain, then fight about the one last flaw in 98 relating to file shares or whatever, that was known in June but MS said they weren't going to release a patch for it in 98. I forget the details.

You've got it a bit wrong guys when you say that MS has been fair with it's 98SE/ME customers.

Just compare WinME and Win2000, both published the same year.

Is support ending for Win2000 ?

No it is not.

Has the 128 GB LBA adressing bug been fixed for Win 2000 ?

Yes with SP3.

Has the 128 GB LBA adressing bug ever been fixed for Win ME ?

Never.

Is there a limitation inherent to the 9x architecture that did prevent MS to fix it ?

No there isn't any.

Dear Bill Gate$, plea$e extend $upport for Micro$oft Window$ 98.. ?

No point in fixing execution flaws in an OS where the only type of accounts are those with absolute power and allows programs like CIH access to your hardware.

@ProblemChild - For videogames, sure... but not for operating systems.
@eidenk, Win2k is probably still worth patchng. WinME was an unfinished pile of crap that isn't worth the dirt under your carpet.
@redxii, WinXP has been out for 5 years. Win98 has had it's run. Time to move on.

...and I'm working on a fix right now. Partially rewriting a disk driver is a lot more interesting than I expected

Is it still illegal to download copies of an unsupported OS now? Or does Micro$oft just not care about 98 anymore?

Good quality operating systems such as Windows NT based deserve to get a much longer support period than low end lousy quality operating systems in Win9X based operating systems.

It doesn't have to do with when the OS was released to the general public. It has to do with how old the technology of the OS is. Even though Windows 98 was released 8 years ago, it is based on ancient, inferior legacy echnology. Windows XP which was released nearly 5 years ago is based on modern technology. Windows 2000 which was released over 6 years ago, and it is still based on modern technology. Despite Windows 98 being only 8 years old, it is based on technology that is over 30 years old. Windows 2000 and Windows XP are based on technology that is only 10 years old.

Microsoft had every right to stop supporting that pile of crap Windows 98/ME early. Better quality operating systems get longer support life cycles. That is how it works.

As much as I don't like Microsoft, I applaud them on this move to get rid of piece of crap operating systems which comprise of the worst operating systems ever released since 1994. I think Microsoft should have stopped supporting piece of sh*t Win98SE/ME in January 2004 like they orriginally planned.

Ohh no Link21 is here we are all going to get stupid ,just kidding!

When you say that Windows 9x operating systems don't deserve to get longer support time in comparision to NT based systems
because they are worse.
Why did then Microsoft stop support for Windows NT 4 and 3.5 if you say they are better than 9x?

Windows 98 rulez =) and I'm sorry to say it but Windows NT 4 sucks even Windows 95 had USB support *g* .

That is only because Windows NT 3.5 and 4 were released earlier than Windows 98/ME and because of customer demand. But anything Windows 2000 or above has enough customer demand in comparison to Windows NT 3.5 and 4 and it is an NT based OS. Windows ME and Windows 2000 were released around the same time, yet Windows 2000 is so much better so it deserves to be supported a lot longer.

It's people like the intelligent and constructive ones here that will enable WIN98SE to continue to be a valid OS fior the near future. All you crybabies and cretins with diffeering opinions, go play on the XP minefield and leave us alone.

I could name the 5 to 10 people here who have added life and stability to W98SE, but we know who they are, and I suggest that from now on, anyone else who cares to badmouth them or W98SE should be banned from posting in this forum section.

Censoring thoughts and espousing dictatorship? No, just weeding out the whiners and purveyors of disorder.

Ther will always be those that appreciate constructive critics, but without a point or purpose, you need not bother to watse out time.

Moderators and administrators - comments and/or suggestions to keep this section free from trolls and wannabees?

THANK YOU!

It always blows my mind when people tell me how superior XP is to 9x, how stable and secure it is, when I've been running the same installation of Windows ME for more than five years without problems (except for the first KB891711 update) or a single security breach. I don't remember the last lock up or freeze I had, probably when that crappy update was still installed.

this topic seems to be very touchy with people. i personally dont care what os im using. just as long as it doesnt crash on me. and right now, XP is where im intending on staying. i run 98SE (with all the updates and stuff found on this wonderful site ) on a compaq laptop and it runs great on there. runs fast, efficient and doesnt lock up on me at all. the worst thing i have happen, is the folders keep getting set back to sorted by names. i like details, sorted by type. and 98 doesnt seem to stick with it. its weird, its only 98 that does it. but meh, once i get it set and dont touch it, its fine. on my other computers i run XP because i have the power and i have 2 dell XP recovery cd's anyway, so why not?

my dell laptops and my desktop both run XP and the compaq runs 98se, and im happy everything is fine.

anyway, thats me.

Please see the Windows 98 + ME *still* alive campaign:
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=78600

98SE rules!!!!!

Sure it does.

I have four copies of Windows 98SE still in the wrappers. I have one computer running windows 98SE and another running Windows XP Pro. Many of my senior customers are running Windows 98SE that I installed for them. They can't afford anything else. I build low end computers for them to use. I make sure that all these computers have all the protection provided out there. Never had any serious problems like viruses etc. happen. Cross my fingers.
Window 98SE

Myself - I've got my gripes about xp and I've got even my own about 98 once in a while (few and far between) but they don't belong here. However, whatever happens happens.

We've had our run with suppprt and it's over. If they [microsoft] are somehow encouraged to extend support further then kudos to them. However, it doesn't matter how long ago supoprt has ended or when doomsday begins. There is still a wonderful user base that supports it and that is all that matters. Think of windows98 as the new linux in a way. It may not be open source but it still has very heavy backing by much of it's user community and will be developed and expanded as such.

Fanatical? Maybe a lil
Zealot? Absolutely not
Crazy? Perhaps but they never admitted me yet

I will use 98se because I don't see the real point in upgrading. I've always been a minimalist whereas if I have something that handles all of my needs without having to dual-boot I'm all for it. If I can get that option in as small of a size and memory footprint as possible, even better. I just truely don't believe in newer always being better when the newer and better just doesn't handle what I need and want. Convinience and performance is key in my eyes.

Can I play all of my legacy games at a whim? YES
Can I play all of my legacy games without emulation (and on kali)? YES
Can I still use older versions of software that still do the same job as the newer? YES
Can I still play even the most recent of games and software? YES
Can I network over a lan and wireless flawlessly? YES
Can I host it as a full time personal webserver\fileserver? YES

At least half of those quests would end up with a no if i used anything newer such as windows xp. I would also be forced to dual boot which is something I didn't want to bother with in the firts place. Why end your session to change O/S just to do one thing when windows 98 can handle it all and then some?

I will still use windows 98se untill the last day I can use it no longer. 'Upgrading' to a supposedly newer but lesser OS is not my idea of an upgrade. Why shoudl I sacrifice additional disk space and ram for something 'just because its newer' and doesn't do what I need? I use multitudes of unsupported software and never complained about it. Sure, we can use a virtual pc but - why go through an extra 5+ steps to set it up virtually when you can just boot into it directly with no problems? Unless you really need to for other reasons I fully understand and Will not debate that as poeple will use what they want to use as they need to use it.

Again, i just do not see the need to shell out for an O/S that is a virtual downgrade in my eyes. More space use, more ram use, does less for me, runs slower, and provides more never-to-be-used features. Don't give me the dismissive 'use xp and nlite it' comments as I will just disregard it. Just because I can make it smaller won't hide the fact that it still doesn't do what I want when I want.

Sure, windows 98 may not be as 'secure' according to many people but have I been 'hacked' or whatever? Absolutely not. I run in my DMZ, I leave it running 24\7, I leave ports open for services I have running such as my webserver and ftp, I also have no firewall. By most if not all standards I'm wide open and just waiting to be 'hijacked'. However, it's yet to happen for the last 5 years...

Yes, I'm fully aware of the 'w9x is still alive compain' and support everybodies efforts.

I love Windows 98 Se and to see it being turned to grabage OS sickens me.This is all micrososft's Fault.WHY THE HECK won't they fix all bugs and vulnurbility.This cuts down on all the patches you need to Download.Windows Xp is the buggiest System I ever seen.and I hate the fact you have to log online and Download all that crap just to make it run straight.

There's a really really really simple answer to all this stuff about microsoft not supporting win98 anymore..... it's this:

MONEY

You guys dont give Microsoft anything, didly squat, wtf would ANYONE in their right mind continue to support and PAY for people to test and write patches for stuff so ancient, for a bunch of people who dont give them anything in return? It doesnt make good business sense at all. In 2004, they may have thought to keep u lot happy so perhaps u'll want to upgrade to vista, but none of u do, so why would they bother? And if u think it's wrong that they release buggy software, well every software in the world is buggy, there tends to be on average 1 bug per every 100 lines of code (and not just from microsoft, in linux or any other software too), win98 contains millions of lines of code, also, u didnt buy windows 98, u bought a license to use it, which is why it doesnt have to be perfect.

Hi,

Well said.

If past experience with Microsft's new, 'superior' operating systems is anything to go by when Vista finally surfaces, not only will it be a monstrously oversize, 'one version for all' o/s it will probably be even more 'insecure' than XP when that first came out!

Waywyrd

I hate to tell you this, Windows NT-based operating systems are notorious for having monster-sized updates.

At least, the unofficial Windows 98 service packs weren't so big! Takes ages for security updates!

Are you gonna flame me for not getting broadband? I currently can't get broadband!

....Are you saying we're supposed reach deep into our pcoket book and give microsoft good,hard erned money so they can make 3rd rate software that crashes on first use?The Only reason I use Windows 98se is not becasue its good on my PC...Windows XP has problems...deep Deep issues that can only be adressed by downloading 200-300MB of fixes they "forgot to update".And you're blaming ppl like us for asking microsoft too much by telling them to make their products more stable?Well if so,here is a message to Microsoft and ppl like YOU!...If you really wana force people into Windows XP then I suggest you clean up your act(and OS)

I'm not saying that at all, it's your computer do whatever you like with it, i couldnt give a monkeys what OS you use, what I am saying is that Microsoft also dont care about windows 98 anymore, and why should they?? It's worthless to them now, and my point about the licenses are, that that is the legal reason they dont have to make a product that works fully - but to actually answer your point, there's nothing wrong with XP at all, it's stable as anything, i've never had it crash in the 5 years i've had it, well in actual fact it did crash once but that was when i had a faulty memory module, so that's hardly XP's fault. (Yes ok there's the odd security problem, or bug here and there which gets patched when it's found, but it's nothing to write home about if u use decent protection from spyware and viruses etc).

But basically for a business to work and to make money, they have to look forward not back to the dark ages - i've got nothing against win98 it was fine 8 years ago, and all i'm saying is, there's no point keeping it up to date anymore especially just to keep people like urself happy who dont give anything back to Microsoft anyways, so why would they care about that portion of the market whom arent really a market at all cos they dont buy anything?

I think they should care. Because it's reasons like this that are in the long run making them loose money. As people are turning to competitors products. Like Mac, Linux, BSD etc.

I wouldn't mind so much if the new operating systems they release weren't so buggy. In the first place.

Maybe if 9x computers start being used a lot more for man-in-the-middle attacks on 2K and XP systems MS will think again about its' decision to stop critical updates? I think it's crappy of them to make the internet an even less safe place for the less knowledgeable folks than it already is.

Micrososft is stubborn.once they make these kind of decisions they can't flip-flop,not becasue they don't want to...becasue they will look stupid if they change thier mind.Thats why I'm switching to Windows 2k in a few days or weeks if my Download Bandwith holds up