[jimc52]

I just thought I would throw this out to the 9X community. I ran Win 98SE perfectly well years ago on an AMD K-6 500 Mhz processor using some off-brand
motherboards. I never had a problem with crashes that i could not relate to some other non-AMD problem. It wasn't AMD's fault that vendors built poorly
constructed drivers, it was more like, Intel people being bigoted against AMD. I remember that AMD made more sense to me in terms of dollars
when it came to price camparisons...at the time, I could buy a 500 Mhz AMD processor for $90 while Intel was charging $350 for it's Pentium III 500 Mhz and I could
see absolutely no apparent performance difference. Sure, if you ran SYSMARKS against both procs, you would see slight improvements in the
Intel hardware, but who cared???? The differences amounted to nanoseconds, not minutes. That meant I had over $250 to spend on memory, m/b and other
things I wanted.... I was reading the post argument on whether or not Intel or AMD were better processors for Win 98...in my opinion, at the time I used Win 98,
the AMD K-6 processors were perfectly stable and as far as I can see, transparent compared to Intel processors or m/b's. Frankly, I despised the Intel m/b's at
the time and found them inferior to cheap Taiwan boards. When the very first 300 Mhz Intel Pentium III came out, 128 Mbytes of SD 66 Mhz RAM at the time cost $600!
An 8 Gigabyte HD from Maxtor cost $420. And Intel released their first m/b's for the Pentium III without the AGP drivers! Go figure! They were so eager to release
Pentium III they didn't have the time to build adequate drivers for the AGP bus. I just want to remind you 9X fans out there, of what Intel cost compared to AMD
and the fact that AMD didn't have the driver support from vendors like Intel did, in a time when Intel didn't have the ba**s to build adequate drivers
for their own motherboards.

I can see only one reason to even think of Windows 98/SE/ME these days and that is if you have an ancient computer you want to use for some
miserable task like being a firewall to a server. The fact is, I run a lot of games on Windows XP from the Win 98 era using the Program Compatibility
Wizard with no problems. I think it is a mis-understanding generally that Windows XP does not run older software well, in fact, I think it does....
and does so, much better that 98 ever could. I like the fact that the NT kernel on which XP is based, is much more stable, much less likely
to crash, blue screen and have significant hard disk error problems (like lost clusters and so forth). I found myself constantly battling '98 over
stability and driver issues. Especially, graphics driver issues...as I remember, I had to completely uninstall a graphics driver in Win 98 before I
could re-install a new one. In XP, it's on-the-fly. I have never had an actual blue screen in the 6 - 7 years of using XP, pretty dogone stable, on
dozens and dozens of new computers I have built. And further, who wants to deal with DirectX 7 level graphics on a 1X, 2X or 4X AGP card
with 16 or 32 MB of dedicated memory on the graphics card???? Whew, those days are long gone friends! Not only is AGP bascially a dead
issue, it's a done-dead issue. So if you cannot get good drivers for newer hardware, why are you complaining? The vendors aren't going to
waste their time building drivers for dead hardware and a dead o/s. Ya gotta step up to the plate sometime, I figure.

I like XP more than any other MS platform because of its rugged stability and I prefer NTFS over FAT32. I think it is a mirage to think that FAT32
is preferable to NTFS. It also has age on its side now, with 6, going on 7 years of improvements and is still supported until April 2009 when
it goes into extended support. Just think about the improvements in Windows Explorer compared to '98...a world of difference in file handling.

Unless you are running a very old computer which is incapable of Win XP I don't really see the point in using Win 98/SE/ME. MS isn't supporting it
any longer. Most vendors have said "Adios" to it and maybe its time to move on and spend a few bucks to upgrade to a newer hardware.
I remember building computers back in the '98 days could cost 2 Grand. I can build a computer today, which is vastly faster, vastly greater in
memory, hard disk and video abilities in every respect, for around $600 give or take. So unless you are into antique's, why bother with
this outdated O/S? I would like to hear some rational reasons other than you want to play quake 1 on it or you prefer the 9X version of
MS Solitair...just trying to figure out why anyone would be running '98/me in this day and age.

[Mijzelf]

Quote

I ran Win 98SE perfectly well years ago <snip>. I never had a problem with crashes

Quote

I like the fact that the NT kernel on which XP is based, is much more stable, much less likely to crash

What are you trying to tell?

[awergh]

after seeing this, im a bit like do we have to have another why run 98 thread, havent there been enough 20+ page threads that have been locked about this.

unless you being more specific

Quote

Especially, graphics driver issues...as I remember, I had to completely uninstall a graphics driver in Win 98 before I
could re-install a new one.

i installed a graphics card driver today, i just installed it over the top and it just worked, fixed my problem that i was having as well

Quote

The fact is, I run a lot of games on Windows XP from the Win 98 era using the Program Compatibility
Wizard with no problems.

but try to run games pre 98 era

anyway your entitled to you oppioion and i dont want to start an argument

[fastlanephil]

I agree with awergh, and don't take this as an insult jimc52, we should file this under dead issues. jimc52, if it helps any, ask yourself this question: Why do some people spend a lot of money fixing up their '65 Chevy when a 2007 Lexus clearly outperforms the Chevy, gets better gas mileage, is safer, is easier to drive, is more comfortable, and should run longer between maintenance intervals? Nostalgia? Preference - Taste? Comfort zone? Or could it be that the '65 Chevy owner just finds it easier to add their own personal touch to the '65 Chevy (fix it up)? That said, perhaps you should start a computer-psychology board. On a side note, as I can see that you love your XP system (for now) and are sold on the virtues of NTFS, take a peak at these articles for a nanosecond:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=169
http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=168
http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=167

This post has been edited by fastlanephil: 20 September 2007 - 05:50 AM

[Ponch]

This post is a joke, ain't it ? BenoitRen will back me up this time Someone call the firemen.
Wow, this is your first post after your presentation, why not register to a cricket forum to ask them why they don't stop that odd game to play something more modern like ... football ?

jimc52, on Sep 20 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

When the very first 300 Mhz Intel Pentium III came out, ...

No, it never did.

Quote

Most vendors have said "Adios" to it and maybe its time to move on and spend a few bucks to upgrade to a newer hardware.

Exactly, so why don't you post the same thread on the XP forum and promote Vista instead ?

Quote

I remember building computers back in the '98 days could cost 2 Grand. I can build a computer today, which is vastly faster, vastly greater in
memory, hard disk and video abilities in every respect, for around $600 give or take. So unless you are into antique's, why bother with
this outdated O/S?

Exactly, why spend 600$ ?

[jimc52]

Hello everyone and thank you for the replies. No intention here to insult anyone at all. So apologies all around.
I just wanted to hear some reasons why people continue to use 9X beyond the "old games" reason. I guess if
you are satisfied with 9X and want to remain there, all well and good. I just wondered why anyone would
stick with it when so much has been done to advance beyond 9X. BTW, I always found it adviseable in '98
to first uninstall the older graphics driver and then re-install a new one. I believe I remember that you can
have multiple graphics drivers installed simultaneously in 98SE, but quite often, this caused more problems then just
uninstalling the old driver and re-installing the new one. I remember having some serious conflicts from time to time
when trying to install a newer graphics driver on top of an already installed older driver...this caused blue screens
sometimes, and other times, odd or difficult to troubleshoot instability errors. And sometimes, things would work
alright for a while but then I would see other issues which seemed to be unrelated but eventually could be traced
back or troubleshot to the multiple-graphics driver situation. After a few experiences and talking with a lot of other
9X users at the time on forums such as http://www.computing.net (which I sat on for years as a troubleshooter),
I advised to remove the old graphics driver first and then re-install a single new graphics driver. This solved the
majority of problems people had in 9X with graphics driver issues and a host of other problems that seemed to
result from different drivers, multiple drivers, or disperate multiple installed drivers.

Even though this part of the forum is for 9X users, the fact is, a lot of us came from the 3.0/3.1/95/98/9.8SE/ME
era and in fact, we all have things in common as a result. No intention here to create a flame war at all...
more curiosity than anything else.

[Andrew T.]

While I honestly don't care for Windows 98/SE/ME (which I take is the focus of this topic), these are some of my reasons for using Windows 95 OSR2:

* Fast performance
* Small install size
* No Internet Explorer integration
* No DRM or "activation" schemes
* No annoying animations or button-style menu bars
* No unnecessary processes running
* No open ports presenting security risks
* A clean, intuitive, fully OS-native user interface (thanks to usability research)
* Compatibility with all the hardware and software I care to use (yes, including the "old games")

[BenoitRen]

Why don't you link your weblog post while you're at it.

I am of the same opinion, by the way.

[Andrew T.]

BenoitRen, on Sep 20 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

Why don't you link your weblog post while you're at it.

I am of the same opinion, by the way.

Ah yes, that page. The people on SomethingAwful.com didn't take kindly to it, for some reason.

[eidenk]

So guys, BenoitRen and Andrew T., there is no topic about all what is needed to install to keep a 95 system as up to date as possible, which I believe is quite different than for 98/ME.

Would you be willing to create one as you seem to be two expert users of that OS ?

[Sfor]

Well. Windows 95 does have some advantages. Now here are the reasons to switch to Windows 98:

- No newer Flash Player support. (Some sites do require this plugin)
- Very limited USB support.
- Problems with LBA 48 hard drives. I know there is a fix, but it is believed to be untested and unstable, still.
- Some small nuisances like up to 4 GB file set size couter limit.

It is not much, but the LBA48 limitation forced me to switch to Windows 98 a few years ago. Finally the Flash Player problems persuaded me to abandon Windows 95 as an Internet browser platform.

This post has been edited by Sfor: 22 September 2007 - 12:25 AM

[BenoitRen]

Quote

Would you be willing to create one as you seem to be two expert users of that OS ?

Sure, as soon as I get Nathan Lineback to explain to me how to install the newest TCP/IP stack included with Dial-up Networking Upgrade 1.4.

Quote

No newer Flash Player support. (Some sites do require this plugin)

IMO, those sites can go to hell. No site should require a third-party plug-in to be viewed.

Quote

Very limited USB support.

Aye.

Quote

Problems with LBA 48 hard drives. I know there is a fix, but it is believed to be untested and unstable, still.

If it is untested, it can't be deemed unstable.

Quote

Some small nuisances like up to 4 GB file set size couter limit.

Isn't the same true for Win98?

[galahs]

I like Windows 98 SE because it works.


Really there is no other reason.

[Sfor]

BenoitRen, on Sep 22 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

Quote

No newer Flash Player support. (Some sites do require this plugin)

IMO, those sites can go to hell. No site should require a third-party plug-in to be viewed.

Perhaps you are right. But, trying to persuade the whole world to do something other way is like changing a direction of a river with a stick.

BenoitRen, on Sep 22 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

Quote

Problems with LBA 48 hard drives. I know there is a fix, but it is believed to be untested and unstable, still.

If it is untested, it can't be deemed unstable.

If the author says his solution is untested, and possibly unstable, I will not argue.

BenoitRen, on Sep 22 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

Quote

Some small nuisances like up to 4 GB file set size couter limit.

Isn't the same true for Win98?

No it is not. Windows 98 reports space taken by folders correctly, while Windows 95 starts from 0 after reaching 4GB mark.

Well, true. The Windows 98 works. But there are a few things driving me nuts in it, while Windows 95 just works. And the Explorer freezing after large file related operations is the one I hate the most.

[modicr]

BenoitRen, on Sep 22 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

Quote

Would you be willing to create one as you seem to be two expert users of that OS ?

Sure, as soon as I get Nathan Lineback to explain to me how to install the newest TCP/IP stack included with Dial-up Networking Upgrade 1.4.

http://www.infinisou...5.html#upgrades

Quote

On the 27th February '98, Microsoft released Windows Sockets 2 for Windows 95. also called Winsock 2. This is an update of the Windows Microsoft Sockets 2 version which was previously available as a Software Developers Kit (SDK) version only. This new release is available as W95ws2setup.exe [986 KB]. This release includes a new version of the TCP/IP stack and resolves several previous winsock issues. This winsock should supercede all previous winsock upgrades, however, Microsoft, in its infinite wisdom, still has the other two versions available, as mentioned below, so we'll leave that information available here until we learn otherwise.

http://erpman1.tripo...m/win95upd.html

http://articles.tech...46-1061913.html

http://wiki.oldos.or...loads/OSUpdates


HTH, Roman

[BenoitRen]

Quote

Perhaps you are right. But, trying to persuade the whole world to do something other way is like changing a direction of a river with a stick.

You can always try. And it is definitely possible. Firefox certainly is doing a good job of persuading people to recognise web standards.

Quote

If the author says his solution is untested, and possibly unstable, I will not argue.

The key word here is "possible". Again, you can't know if it's untested.

Roman, the WinSock 2 update is what I'm using. The update shipped with DUN 1.4 is more recent, though.

[Mijzelf]

Quote

But, trying to persuade the whole world to do something other way is like changing a direction of a river with a stick.

<offtopic>In the summer of 2003 in the Netherlands several (small) rivers were reversed in direction by a penstroke. Because it was hot and dry the groundwater level was becoming too low, which should cause great damage. So the water of Lake Marken was directed to South Holland to compensate for this.</offtopic>

[Fredledingue]

jimc52

W98SE unstability can be fixed by:
-Newer hardware (if compatible): More ram, more processor speed, faster HD etc
-Updates: windows updates (officials and unofficials), IE updates, multimedia codecs etc

When this is done, XP offers very little advantage for a home user PC but adds some disadvantages:
-Less safe against viruses and hackers
-Slower (except for internet based activities)
-Obligation to use "safely remove hardware" when removing devices (not on W98)
-More complicated to manage services, manualy modify systen files, tweak/hack etc
-Useless services and features
-No boot batch script (Autoexec.bat) (An advanced feature but realy useful sometimes)
-Wannabe "intelligent" interface is in fact very dumb and irritating
-Default settings realy suck (that can be fixed easily)

Finaly XP has its instances of BSODs, driver issues, installation incompatibilities etc. If at least it was good in this respect, but it isn't.

HTH

[Andrew T.]

BenoitRen, on Sep 22 2007, 08:38 AM, said:

Quote

No newer Flash Player support. (Some sites do require this plugin)

IMO, those sites can go to hell. No site should require a third-party plug-in to be viewed

FWIW, the only site I visit regularly that uses Flash for a meaningful purpose is YouTube, and that works perfectly with Flash 7. Flash 8-only content, in any case, is still largely the exception to the rule.

[BenoitRen]

YouTube movies likely wouldn't run well on this PC, unfortunately. But I like to view Flash content from sites like NewGrounds. I use the stand-alone Flash Player 7 for that purpose, which I discovered a couple months ago.