I was reading a thread here with somebody asking if they can build a modern system and still use Windows 98, and I thought "Why?" I wasn't the only person, as somebody did ask such a question, but responses were primarily brought with a bit of heat and, let's say, resentment.

I was actually about to press the issue there myself, but I didn't want to hijack that person's thread, since I sure they wanted a specific answer to their inquiry, and this is going a bit offtopic.

I'm not trying to start a flamewar (which given the forum I'm in, will undoutable be rather one-sided), but I'm genuinely curious.

I mean, I used to do the whole DualBoot Win98SE/WinXP, but after a time, that grew too cumbersome for me, so I adopted full-force, and overall have been quite pleased. And just recently I've given the Vista RC2 beta a go, and it was a very rocky adjustment, but on the whole I've grown accustomed to it, and will probably buy it when it comes out.

In fact, all my original misgivings about XP, and Vista have given way. I'm sure part of that is because I've gotten myself two moderatly-large (1440×900) monitors, so I'm no longer put off by the increasing amount of desktop real-estate everything takes now.

I even installed Microsoft's beta of Virtual PC 2007, and I have (over the last three days) installed Virtual machines of a wide range, including Windows 95B, Windows 98SE, WindowsMe, Windows2000, and given each a small run through. It was merely a refresher, since I had used each and every one of those extensively in their decade+ history.

And after having used WindowsXP for as long as I have, I could not imagine going back to those older Windows OSes.

So, now that you have a small bit of my background, and where I'm coming from, why continue to use Windows 9x?

Use the search function. There was a master thread in this sub-forum on this exact topic, 20-30 pages long. Somebody asked your question already, and got an answer.

You Know Why To Use Windows 9x?

1)Most of the Bugs is worked out...you don't need many patches anymore.Even without Mzoft' Support, Windows 9x can still be updated by Private Projects.

2)Its Does not carry all the unnecessary whistles and bells that come with Windows Xp.At least in 9x, you can choose what components to use

3)I have tried All of the OS's Made By Microsoft(Even Windows 3.1 and a little bit of the DOS 1.0) and by far the 9x series was the least buggiest.

4)Unlike the new OS's Windows 9x doesn't Sap your precious resources.I went to the task manager and saw all these programs...

5)There was no protection.Windows XP, after installing the OS, as I connected to the net for the first time these annoying popups came up.Later I found out that People can manipulate the Windows XP Alert Messenger(not MSN Messenger) to send targeted ads.

6)There are so many viruses made for XP and Vista(Even With SP2) there are many ways to easily go through the security.

7)Many Virus Developers forgot about 9x so theoretically its much safer.

I'd Post More reasons but I have to go to sleep.

That's perfect, a nice long discussion to read... you wouldn't happen to know what the thread was called, do you... I ran a quick search, but couldn't see it for looking.

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=60251&hl=

and

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=76515&hl=

HTH

Windows 95 is the only OS Microsoft made a real effort on. They spent a lot of money on usability research. The result is a clean interface with no fancy bells and whistles, for maximum productivity. My Software Engineering teacher agrees that Windows 95 is a good system, and that it went downhill from there.

Win95 only has the minimum of services and processes necessary. It's not bloated. Right now I'm running 9 processes.

SYSTRAY.EXE
KERNEL32.DLL
-MSGSRV32.EXE
--EXPLORER.EXE
---PROCEXP.EXE (just to be able to look at these)
---SEAMONKEY.EXE (my web browser)
--mmtask.tsk (Multimedia background task support module)
--MPREXE.EXE (WIN32 Network Interface Service Process)
--SPOOL32.EXE (Spooler Sub System Process, for whenever I want to print)

That's it. I don't need anything more.

Windows 95 never really got IE integration, unlike newer Windows OSs. It was just a forced install. However, by editing the install files, you can fix that. I'm running IE-free since months, with no lost functionality, and more free memory.

The lack of many network services and a secure web browser make Windows 95 pretty secure. Additionally, it's behind a router, as no matter what Windows version you run, you should close most ports for maximum security.

As for applications, there's a long history of freeware you can run. I can also still run my older games flawlessly. My web browser is a fresh one from a tinderbox.

In short, I'm happy with it and how it works.

Because I like knowing that I don't have any layers (like running as non-admin in XP) preventing code from writing all zeros to my BIOS and leaving me with a paperweight.

The scenario you're describing only happens to people who don't have a clue. Most exploits nowadays are social engineering that Joe Blow runs into because he doesn't know much about computers. NT5's layer won't do anything to protect him from that.

Knowledge is power.

I just wrote this in another thread, but I think it applies here as well:

The issue is this: (and I have said this many times in many threads before) Windows 98SE does everything for me an NT based OS could (photo/audio/video editing, website design, gaming, word processing, web browsing, you name it) , plus Windows 98SE does some things an NT OS can't (primarily legacy DOS support and support for legacy hardware as well), and does all of it with much higher overall performance and less fuss. By fuss I mean the lack of a crappy Hardware Abstraction Layer which can be found in NT based operating systems. (2000/XP included of course)

Hardware Abstraction Layer is one of the primary reasons I stay away from NT based operating systems. I've said this before in a previous thread but, HAL was a half-assed attempt at pushing NT into the mainstream by attempting to correct the obvious lack of hardware support NT kernel had at the time. HAL was supposed to assist developers in creating device drivers much faster by writing less code and letting HAL itself deal with any portability and compatibility issues. One way HAL does this is by emulating hardware and/or hardware features that are not even there to begin with. (Which is not unusal for an OS) In theory this was a dream come true. You could write minimal code with maximum results in record time. In theory of course. Problem is, the abstraction layer in NT operating systems is seriously flawed and simply inadequate when it comes to what it was designed to do. Also, HAL depended (and still does) on the driver creator to be responsible and create a retail strength driver in the time it would take to create a alpha driver for the same device. This is many times impossible, which ends up giving the user or consumer a buggy alpha strength driver.

For basic information on what HAL is and what it does go here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/hardware-abstraction-layer

I can throw virtually any type of hardware setup at Windows 98SE and it will boot, it might not support the hardware in question, but it will boot. In Windows 2000/XP when it came to hardware upgrades I had to deal with all kinds of issues that are non-existent on Win9x platforms. Can you say Windows Stop Messages? I can! Nothing nicer than installing a new piece of hardware and then having a nice Windows Stop Message induced BSOD, courtesy of s***ty implementation of HAL. Sure, I got hardware induced BSODs on my Windows 98SE system every now and then, but not nearly as many as I did under NT based operating systems.

Another primary reason I stay away from NT based operating systems is the clownish bul*****. XP is a toy OS, Vista is even more of a toy OS. Only Vista is even more bloated and restricted, and colorful. All the hallucinogenic color themes and LEGO-like shells are a major turn off to me. When XP was released one of the first things I noticed was all the colors, almost neon in their intensity. The window bars were over sized, all the buttons were huge and illustrated, there was even an animated dog in the search window! My first thought was: how clownish! It looked like a toy OS, something for kids to play with. Then I noticed the bugs, lack of performance, and lack of software and hardware compatibility. It was a toy alright, not even a good one.

As for the multi-core CPUs, well, my single CPU along Win98SE handles everything just fine.

i use windows xp because i really like it. but, for some people, they may not have hardware that can handle XP so i see why they would use 98. but the reverse can happen. where they have a system that handles xp much better than it can 98 (like my inspiron 7000 laptop)

on my laptop, xp runs a lot better than 98. its faster and handles my video card a lot better.

however, my armada 1700 laptop runs with 98 a lot better than xp, it boots faster, runs programs faster, and handles the hardware just better.

so it vastly depends on your hardware configuration.

For those that have the funds, then need, the intellegance, training, or whatever to keep up with Microsoft and their continued updates then so be it. For the rest of us that are trapped in limbo with Win95, Win98, Win98SE, WinMe, NT, XP, 2K, 2K3, or whatever you are happy with then so be it again. I, for one, like working with somethingy I have done some learning on and know a little about and can keep it running without having to reinstall every year, 6 months or whatever you are having to do it. AS my system stands there has been only one re-format and re-install of Win98SE, since Dec. 1998 not saying there have not been other crashes, but; they were recoverable.

I thank those that are doing this site, and "98SE2ME" and any other they are working with because I plan on testing, testing, testing, well you get the picture.

My postings will have to be plain jane without any flowers, bells or whistles as I use text only and if I do any capitalizations to accent any word there has been the threat that I will be banned, so be it if that is what the powers to be want. I do not flame, but they probably will think this is a flame and no matter what I say or do will make no difference, so be it.

I enjoy reading and posting to some of these forums, Croatia does not like me and I will have to go when they tell me so.

Thank you for reading my post,

@ NativeTexan, i know what ya mean. i have the same way of looking at things. i run an old dell inspiron 7000 with windows xp and i love it. it may be a little slow, but its **** reliable and i have no need to update/upgrade to the latest version.

i like using my laptop, and it runs very well for what i want to be able to do. i can do email, browse the web, and chat with my friends. does what i want.

Hello!



Windows NT 3.51 is the best Windows:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/n...p.mspx?mfr=true
http://pclt.cis.yale.edu/pclt/OPSYS/NT.HTM



Regards, Roman

Too bad they are talking about design only in the sense of stability and speed. The user interface was still as crappy as Windows 3.x.

I use 98 because I provide free computers to the disabled. I collect any old computer parts and assemble them into working computers. The fastest computer that has been donated so far is a 500MHz Pentium III. Windows 9x OS’s are the only ones that have been donated and are the only OS’s that will run on these old machines. These machines change the lives of many of the recipients and I’d like to thank everyone here for keeping the old OS’s working. You’re helping a lot of people who otherwise wouldn’t have computers at all.

two reasons for me --

first, is a concept of ownership which requires that before a person can confess to owning something, it first has to have full and exclusive control over it. With 98, if I want to boot from an image and/or hack my HDD without requiring any permissions or shells from M$, then I am free to do so. With all the M$ secrecy around NT's relationship with the 1s and 0s on the HDD, the "owner's right of access" to "his or her very own HDD" is restricted to what HAL allows, which raises the question why did the designer of NT hdd system have in mind when he, she, it or they, decided to hide its low-level contents from its theoretical "owner" and thus the question arises, given this secrecy, who then is the actual owner of an NT HDD? This is not the case with 98, or nix. IMHO, the person who paid money for the HDD, and on whose desk or lap the HDD sits, can *not be the actual owner/controller of that HDD, because they do not have a right to examine its 1's and 0's except by going through a M$ shell. (admittedly there has been a recent nix crack of NT HDD which doesn't require use of a MS core or shell.)

second, is that for internet connections, 98 is IMHO the safest for the owner, simply because absent installation of NT driver, a dos-98 internet shell cannot mount and corrupt an NT drive elsewhere in the system. Thus, if an owner is hacked, wormed or slithered or whatever, while using 98, the infection is limited to the FAT partitions in the system. (98se is IMHO safer than a virtual shell on an NT core, especially one by MS.). The owner offers up 98 as a sacrificial lamb as it were, and can easily reboot from an image for a clean start. IMHO, governmen-financed hacker's don't care about 98 partitions, because they know it's too easy for an owner to put the banking and political stuff on an NT partition, which a 98 core cannot see. Absent a reboot during an internet session, there is no easy way for a hacker to mount a NT partition in the system, if all they have to work with are 98's core services. OTOH, if I browse with an NT system, the hacker can easily mount and control FAT and NT partitions from core services.

It's my hypothesis that the paranoid communists, and the Microsoft monopoly that they protect, will eventually disallow 98 connections to the internet, precisely because 98 allows a HDD owner full control of his system. Thus, the main reason to keep 98 alive, is to keep the concept of a purchaser have a right of full ownership of his or her HDD alive (free of MS restrictions and peeking rights).

I continue to use Windows 98SE because it does what I need it to do.


Really its that simple!

What security do viruses go through, in XP or 2000, when you are running as administrator? XP as an administrator has no more security than running 9x. In Vista you have to give viruses permission (and viruses are fundamentally like any other program, so you have to give other programs permission as well) to compromise the entire system.

But I should say my install of XP Pro is still chugging along 1 1/2 years without even a repair install (heck, my profile is just as old and never "refreshed" it yet) thanks to not running as administrator.

Many run XP as administrator, so combined with their ignorance, it has its share of problems. But those are not exploits. What gets exploited is the wide variety of network services of XP so that it can get through and get the same priviledges as them. I have only limited knowledge of that, though, so I could be wrong.

KEW,

Welcome to MSFN forums.
I hope you enjoy your stay.

Wow.
Keep up the good work.

Best wishes.

I'm about tired of Win98SE too its getting old now
i just got my Win2000 professional cd i haven't installed it
but i will soon.It seem like the only ones who's keeping Win98SE alive
is Petr, LLXX, erpdude8, the guy, MDGx, soporific, jimmsta.
And once these guys and gal quit its over with because most people don't have the
drive and ambition these people have.

People wanna keep Win98 alive then finished these abandoned
packages these so called Win98 lovers left if not stop crying and upgrade your
system and move on because life will with or without you.

'cause (unfortunally) our -perfectly working- Guillemot Maxi Studio ISIS don't have any other driver than Win9x...



We lend -almost for free- the machine equipped with this card/software to emerging artist, allowing them to learn how to autoproduce their music.

Nonsense. It's not like your PC or OS will suddenly die when those people quit, nor will it suddenly lose all the existing functionality.

i meant unofficial patches, as far as i know these are the only ones i know who make unofficial patches
for Win98/SE/ME and are consistent with it once they quit its over with like i said before

I wouldn't worry too much about future patches. Most eventually will be so incompatible with 9x that even our guru friends here won't be able to modify them enough to work. However, as many have commented, 9x updated with all currently known patches and run with sensible security software does not need as many holes plugged as our current Windows (XP, Vista) do.

Previous holes have been mostly patched up and malware makers concentrate on the OS's used by the masses, not the dwindling 9x OS.

Future hardware will make it impossible, but how slow is my Socket A AthlonXP3200+ with a gig of memory? Either my ATI Radeon x850 Pro or my Gigabyte NVidia 6600GT work fine as long as I install the AGP Gart from Via 4-in-1 4.43 and the rest from the latest Hyperion. And I've collected a nice assortment of backup motherboards and processors so I think I'll be able to use 98SE for quite a while.

He says this with only XP SP2 on his box. Sheesh, better get a 9x system installed. Heh, heh.

I actually did yesterday take a nostalgic trip back to my first computer of the modern era. I say that because my first was really a Coleco Adam!

HP4430/4440 recovery cd on a SiS5598 AMD K6-2/366 ASUS SPAX-M with a whopping 256MB of SDRAM! Glorious Riptide Audio/Modem with a wavetable midi synth (that kind of works like a fixed Soundfont) and Dos support and a big 4MB onboard Video chip with software Direct 3D acceleration. Wow! And my old HP Cd-Writer Plus 6110i still burns great at 8x4x24 speeds (We don't need no bloody burn proof!). Woo Hoo!

Boy it was fun to see all that old stuff. Works great since I removed the 80GB HD I had been fruitlessly trying that board out with and put in a 20GB Western Digital. The thing is just too old to run a large HD, even though the Bios sort of supports it. It will report up to 64GB on the 80GB HD and Windows will see the whole thing, but eventually the IDE Controllers will get bogged down and start with those long file transfer delays and stuff. Works great with the little 20GB HD.

Um, played with it for a few hours and then unplugged everything and put back my real pc. We've come a long way, but if I wanted to that old thing CAN be made usable for certain purposes.


Edit -

Okay, I'm cool now because I unhooked the XP hard drive and installed 98SE. Whew! Worried there for a minute.

Kind of annoyed at myself for keeping the M-Audio Revo card there instead of using the Audigy 2 ZS. Although music is great, especially when I use QSound QMAXII, there are hoops and ladders due to no Sensaura on the M-Audio VXD's, needing to install Roland Virtual Sound Canvas and Yamaha S-YXG50 to get sporadic midi support (they work better on XP with no hardware Direct Sound available for midi related games).

The Creative card offers essentially the same features on 98 that it does on XP, so even though I like the Revo sound and light drivers better I'd have been better off with Creative for 98. Too late as I've got too much audio related software installed. I'd have to format for the card change to be stable. Shucks, I'll just live with it for a bit.

thats my next move

Greetings,

If I may add my $0.02 worth of information?

I am not like some of the other members or supporters, retired, on a fixed income, Medical bills to chock a herd of elephants. It is very restrictive when it comes to my favorite past time, keeping Win98SE running to the best of my abilities. My abilities are still learning to be a USER, have been trained by the School of Hard Knocks, make it crash and learn how to regain the hi-ground and working again. Some of the info I have been able to pick-up has been from forums such as this one, CastleCops, Geek.Com, Net-Integration, AntiVir, Wilders, SaferNetworking, X-SetUp (X-Teq SetUp at one time.) and several other.

Cannot afford to keep up with all of the latest technology, hardware or software, will be in LIMBO for the remainder of my life is how thingys are going for me at this time. Unless I can hit the LOTTO, that is another expense that is on hold until these Medical bills are under control.

NO, I am not looking for sympathy nor donations, simple fact of life that there are some of us that are here on a shoe-string budget, meaning it is not very flexable at this time. Hopefully one day thingys will improve, until then I send my largest THANK YOU to those that have so graciously provided this life saving, computer saving, any other type of saving you can think of that would help can be included.

I use TEXT ONLY no html that is why the THANK YOU is only in caps.

Thank you for reading my post,

P.S. One other point for you to consider, you cannot make anythingy "fool proof because we fools are too creative," if you would like a "fool" to do some testing for you just send me a note or PM. Would be very happy to assist if I can, NOT a programmer, Geek-a-zoid, Techy, etceteras. Just a very curious animal and willing to take chances to see what I can learn.

Now Happy Holidays, thank you for reading my post,

I use Windows 98 FE for numerous reasons.

Little Process Needed

Windows 98 can run on 5 processors (6 if you count Opera)

Speed

No matter how you toss it, Windows 98 shuts down faster than XP. This is very important to me when I'm running out the door, and want my computer to shutdown instantly.

No Phoning Microsoft to Activate

Freedom. I can wipe my hard drive clean, add/remove hard drives, processor, memory, sound cards and don't need to phone Microsoft why I'm doing so.

Software Adaptability

I'm shocking a lot of developers that I'm using Windows 98 FE to try out their software, vst plug-ins, etc. when they specify Windows XP requirements. Most (If not all) the programs I use or demo work fine on Windows 98 FE

Less Cluttered

When using XP (Yes. I own XP) I find myself going through a whole ordeal to get where I want to go.


For my requirements Windows 98 FE is simple clean and to the point. And this is why I use it. I've actually changed Windows XP to "Classic Mode." Never liked the kiddie controls Windows XP offered. I don’t need eye candy, Administrator Logins & all the other perks XP offers. I just want something that works.

I believe i summed up my answer [although slightly aggressively] in this post quite some time ago: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&...st&p=533732

Windows 2000 does not phone home, why not just use that?



Yeah but I bet even more stuff works on Windows 2000.



Heh, Windows 2000 works and is vastly superior to Windows 98 and its
FAT32 limitation. How do you store a 4Gb+ ISO file on FAT32? The answer
is you don't, because you can't.

This topic is called "Why continue to use Windows 9x?" but for me the
full question would have to be "Why continue to use Windows 9x when
you could just use Windows 2000?"

People use 98 because they don't like the RAM consuming Luna theme
and Windows Product Activation in XP... well then just use Windows 2000.

Who "could just use Windows 2000"? Windows 2000 is not freeware, you have to pay $219 or $199 for the license (official upgrade price from Microsoft for W2000 and for WXP respectively).

(not mentioning how slooooow Windows 2000 is and that the mainstream support was already discontinued by Microsoft)

Petr

What is it with these "Why use xxxx?" threads?

We've had too many of these already and the same points get repeated over and over, all these threads seem to do is benefit users who want to increase their postcounts.

Windows 98 is not freeware either.

Windows 98 is not supported with Windows Updates and
Windows 2000 still is, but you're saying the opposite?

I don't really understand your logic.

Regarding prices - Windows 98 costs £58 here in the UK.
You can buy Windows XP Home for the same price.
None of these are upgrades, they are the full OS.

Don't you want to be able to plug things in and they work?
Windows 98 never did that! It isn't even compatible with
DVD drives either. But nevermind, its all been said before
as LLXX said.

For people who still use Windows 98 I guess it is like a sort of religion?

There is no feasible argument in my eyes for using it. Don't like the theme
in XP? It can be put on classic theme. Don't like WPA? Well, you got me there,
its a kicker. But the advantage to XP is... all your devices are instantly recognized,
all your networking works with barely any setting up to do, heh, you have support for
DVD drives and of course, you can still get Windows Updates.

The fact is we're on a Win98 forum so we all already have it...
Don't worry, this won't last.
lol What did you smoke man?
Seriously, that just proves you don't know what you're talking about...
Just like there is no feasible argument in our eyes for using Win2k. The difference is we respect that.
You're the one coming in a Win98 forum to make 2k proselytism...

We really should have a sticky topic saying this forum is for Win98 USERS to avoid this...

Originally Posted By Atmosphere XG Dec 10 2006

No Phoning Microsoft to Activate

Freedom. I can wipe my hard drive clean, add/remove hard drives, processor, memory, sound cards and don't need to phone Microsoft why I'm doing so.



Windows 2000 does not phone home, why not just use that?

Because Windows 2000 offers more security in which I don't need or want. I'm the only one that use my Computers. And if I want Security, I'll use My Windows XP Computer. Bare in mind I use my 98 computers primarily for Audio, which doesn't need the extras that Windows 2000 offers.




Originally Posted By Atmosphere XG Dec 10 2006
Software Adaptability

I'm shocking a lot of developers that I'm using Windows 98 FE to try out their software, vst plug-ins, etc. when they specify Windows XP requirements. Most (If not all) the programs I use or demo work fine on Windows 98 FE


Yeah but I bet even more stuff works on Windows 2000.

As I mentioned before, I'm using Audio. Audio doesn't require the extras Windows 2000 offers.

Originally Posted By Atmosphere XG Dec 10 2006
Less Cluttered

When using XP (Yes. I own XP) I find myself going through a whole ordeal to get where I want to go.

For my requirements Windows 98 FE is simple clean and to the point. And this is why I use it. I've actually changed Windows XP to "Classic Mode." Never liked the kiddie controls Windows XP offered. I don’t need eye candy, Administrator Logins & all the other perks XP offers. I just want something that works.



Heh, Windows 2000 works and is vastly superior to Windows 98 and its
FAT32 limitation. How do you store a 4Gb+ ISO file on FAT32? The answer
is you don't, because you can't.


Why would I need a 4GB file ISO for Audio? That's Video (DVD) in which I have no interest of. The Fat 32 limitation is not an issue for me because I use separate internal Hard Drives. I'm into Audio, and it's common for guys to use multiple Hard Drives for Audio purposes. So, relying on one Hard Drive to do it all is not what Audio Professionals do.




This topic is called "Why continue to use Windows 9x?" but for me the
full question would have to be "Why continue to use Windows 9x when
you could just use Windows 2000?"

What I mentioned previously says it all. I use my Computer primarily for Audio Purposes. Which doesn't need Windows 2000. Operating systems don't hold any factors when it comes to the quality of sound. What matters is the sound card. My sound cards offer 96Khz/24 Bit with MIDI. So I'm not losing anything remaining on Windows 98.

lol, so true

I use whatever I need wherever I need. Windows 98 was alright for its tme, but if your going to buy a brand new computer, go with XP or Vista. Then at least your system is running the OS it was meant to be using.

(I know I'm using XP on a 7 year old laptop, but it works better than 98 does. If that isn't saying something, then I don't know what is)

This thread is a fantastic waste of time and energy with only very few relevant answers. I'm new to this 9x forum but ...amazed.

Most of computer users older than 30 have already purchased w98.

Sure. Try to plug in a pre-XP era Creative Webcam in an XP computer. Good luck.



The problem is that on XP I can only change the things I don't want to change (why removing XP themes and skin, seriousely) but I can't change what realy annoys me.

Bah, this isn't religion. I'd at least put Linux on it.

You might enjoy this MozillaZine thread. Looks like I'm insane.

Nope. You're not insane. You gave your reasons why you use Windows 95. Unfortunately, it seems the Moderator on Mozilla forums needs some growing up to do.



I rest my case.

This is a switch. A forum with a Windows 98 section that actually gets posted in more than once a month.
Maybe the thread title should be "Why not continue to use Windows9X?"
I haven't found any reason to switch to anything newer, save the Linux distro that's also installed on this old box.
My reasons for not switching or "upgrading":

1. My 98 box is stable. Runs 24/7 with no problems.
2. It's fast, even on low power systems. On good hardware, it screams!
3. It performs all the tasks I ask of it.
4. Much less bloat.
5. It isn't vulnerable to many of the exploits and pests that take down the newer "more secure" operating systems.
6. I can perform multiple tasks using less resources that XP can even run on.
7. I have full access to all system files without interference from Windows.
8. It's easier to stop "calling home" and other forms of "babysitting-ware". No DRM problems. No validation issues.
9. I can deny the operating system internet access with no ill effects. No "services" trying to connect out.
10. I don't have to worry about kernel rootkits
11. There's more than enough freeware and Open Source software available to cover all my needs.

Developers do tend to underestimate the old DOS based systems. Fortunately, a few recognize it's potential and the fact that millions still use it, whether by choice or necessity, and chose to support these systems. I do a fair amount of beta testing with this old box too, primarily security software. Testing the early beta versions of System Safety Monitor was pure joy. As long as apps like SSM are available, 98 can be used very securely for whatever the user chooses to.

That's pretty close to what's happening. Operating systems are becoming spyware. Windows has always had some spyware capabilities, but they're far worse than earlier versions. With 98, it was index.dat files and hidden history folders. Now it's ADS, DRM, and rootkits.
Now consider Vista and M$ locking security-ware out of the kernel. It's already proven that they haven't actually secured the kernel, but they've made it illegal for security software (or users) to hook it. It wouldn't suprise me at all to find this is government ordered to allow for NSA snoopware under the guise of national security. Think about where that leads. Anyone who 'discovers" such an item in the kernel had to comit an illegal act to do so. Maybe I am paranoid, but the "official" answers to questions regarding kernel security don't hold up.
It isn't so much Win98 that concerns them. It's DOS and its ability to access files free from interference from windows. Windows can't defend or hide files/processes when it isn't running.

Why keep using 98? Because it runs good for me and I don't trust anything newer from M$. Besides, I can always boot to Linux.
Rick

WOW... what a forum !
Or he could have been waiting for august 1981 and IBM to invent the PC at first. Then wait for the portable.
This guy obviously also was first to get one:

Well, I have something to throw into the mix...

I currently admin a tiny spec of a network for a custom engine shop.

The shop has to have DOS compatibility- the dyno machine uses a DOS program to read all the ports and whatnot.

While there *is* a version that will run on XP, it does NOT give similar results. The DOS version will make a jagged line across the graphs, showing every little lag in power over the curve...

The XP version shows a clean, constant curve. Methinks it is the HAL (mentioned ealier in this thread), which just sucks. I mean, because of the lack of detail, the XP version is virtually useless.

This poor guy running the shop is STUCK having to use '98.

And in that respect, I must thank everyone that keeps this place running, and everyone working still on keeping the OS alive...

Now if we could keep the hardware alive...

Or make the DOS and Windows 9x work on the brand spankin' new hardware.

It seems you have problems to understand what was written in this and other threads.

There were given many strong reasons why to use Win9x and many strong reasons why not to use it, it is always depending on your existing hardware, existing applications and personal preferences.

If the reason that specific hardware or specific software does not work with NT based systems is not "one good reason" for you - then there is nothing to discuss.

My opinion is different - I understood that DukeBlazingstix wrote this becasue he wanted to express that he wants really to listen and discuss, not just start a flamewar like some other people (Link21 and you) often do.

Please also keep in mind that people just have personal preferences and most discsussions like "What is better - ATI or Nvidia? AMD or Intel? Western or Seagate? Gigabyte or Asus? Firefox or Opera? Windows or Mac or Linux? Mercedes or BMW?" are mixed with 1% of technical things and 99% of personal opinion.

Not respecting this fact and not respecting other people opinion leads just to flamewar, nothing else can be the result.

Petr

This is getting more and more ridiculous.

Since when do people decide what someone else's question "would have to be" ?

exactly. ... so then why post ?

To answer globally to your posts, there are two types of peoples in this thread, those who ask an honest question and get answers, and those that start a flamewar. Don't expect the same kind of reaction.
Do you realize you're not making any sense? We're in a Win98 forum !!! If people don't have it they won't come here! You don't like this forum then don't come here!
We live fine without it. There are tons of unofficial updates and everything is fixed way better than when just M$ was on it. So indeed, Win98 is still supported.

So because you heard of one guy who had a problem with a DVD drive in 98, DVD drives don't work on 98?
Lol. The guy was not smoking but you've got to be pretty high to post such conclusions seriously.
You definitly don't know what you're talking about...
Why would anybody want your win2k in 2006? NT crap without the advantages of eye-candy and game compatibility XP provides...
But we respect your choice. "Respect" means that even if we don't like it, we don't come in your forum to say it's useless.
Petr and Ponch already answered very well so no point wasting more time.

Yet I'm sure that, say a year ago, when Windows 98 was still supported, it wouldn't have made a difference to you.

Hi all,
This is my first post and I see this topic has some up before, but not for me. I understand why any person would not want to use XP or Microsoft in general. I have used Windows 4-ever and I do look for something better, and Microsoft is hard to beat. 98 was fast and a solid OS. I think it should have been supported more or upgraded or something and not just left for dead, which some are trying to breath new life into it. Even with Revolutions 98 pack and all the other changes made from private parties, it is growing bloated. Now I understand everyone has a copy, just sitting there, so they think it makes since to use it. Me personally, I have been testing linux and their are tons of crappy versions of linux and there are some very nice ones. I started testing this year and Mepis lite was a good OS and it is fast.( You got a laptop or older computer? put Mepis lite on it and your set) and it can do anything windows can execpt run windows apps(lol) but some are trying to port that, some are even aiming to run all made for windows apps, like ReactOS, which I have seen posted chat about ReactOS in this forum. I now test Dreamlinux, it's very new and it is fast as well. It's sometimes hard to change or let go of something you liked or something you think you can salavge, but 98 is dead. No matter what you do to keep it alive, it will never be the King it once was. Linux has passed it and win2000 and XP and is just a step or 2 behind Vista. The only thing that Microsoft has to it's advantage is all the apps and programs made for it and not linux. I guess everyone would have to try linux to know what i'm saying, like I said before, I always have used Windows, but this year I figured it was time to give linux a try before Vista was released and see what I was missing. I found out I was missing alot, as linux is the future and it's free and linux has tons of support with regular updates. I am not gonna tell you that Dreamlinx, (the version i'm testing now) is the best OS today, you have to make that decision yourself, but I can tell you, it will soon be. It's that good! So just let 98 (rest in peace) as it should and move on to the next best OS of the future, which is Linux!
thanks for reading
Trailboss