The Official Windows 9x is Dead Thread

[ScrewUpgrading]

Whlie attempting to do some stalking of ex-girlfriends on Myspace and Facebook, and waiting forever to load the error-ridden pages, I suddenly had an epiphany: Windows 9x is dead!

I've reached my limit of slowy, crappy internet. Time is a luxury that I don't feel like wasting anymore, not when the vast majority of people enjoy quick, reliable, fully-featured access to the internet.

Being on dial-up is another huge factor, which I don't think high speed users entirely comprehend, but they will soon, as their remaining pool of browsers eventually breakdown and they have no alternatives. It really makes a big difference to have a GOOD browser on dial-up because an outdated browser magnifies the already slow speed of dial-up.

I've also decided to uninstall KernelEx from my computer in a last ditch attempt at getting back some of the speed I sacrificed after installing newer (slower) browsers.

Firefox 3.5 loads pages nicely, but it crawls on dialup. And speedwise Opera 11 isn't any different than 10.63.

I have important things to do online sometimes (banking, email, shopping, keeping in touch with family) and I can't settle for such terrible quality internet anymore. Not in the year 2011, maybe if it was 2005 or something.

My use of Windows 9x has mostly been a circumstance of my miniscule budget and a nostalgic hope of remaining rooted to DOS, but I think I'll spend the money for high speed internet and switch completely over to Linux. It would seem to be a more economical choice in the long run. I basically can't afford what Microsoft is peddling these days. Linux seems to be the only choice for somebody on the poverty line like myself.

I've been getting accustomed to Wary Puppy recently and I plan on using that on this computer.

Lastly, I'm wondering what you guys are planning to do with your computers in this post-KernelEx day and age. I, personally, see no future at all for windows 9x. (Except maybe to read plain pages of text using "Off By One"-- it's faster than anything else available, it'll probably last longer too).

Well, I hope I didn't p*** anybody off.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Yeah, these days the help is just not the same.

Just take a look @ all the un-finished projects. All you see now is abandonment.

[Tripredacus]

Windows 98 isn't dead by a long shot. The reason you have been finding these problems is because you are trying to use Windows 98 like you would a current OS. What you need to do is find a use for 98 instead. For example, it is still perfectly fine for my purposes:

- media server for the lan (I'm in process of moving this role to another PC)

- MAME

- Quake 3 Dedicated Server

I do not try to use it as an every day system, I have Windows 7 for that, and before that it was XP. As soon as my Win98 became my secondary computer, it became more of an appliance for me, and it has worked out fine for that.

I did use it as my backup system (I've even had to use it to post here when my PC was dead) prior to me getting a netbook.

[JorgeA]

I've reached my limit of slowy, crappy internet. Time is a luxury that I don't feel like wasting anymore, not when the vast majority of people enjoy quick, reliable, fully-featured access to the internet.

Being on dial-up is another huge factor, which I don't think high speed users entirely comprehend, but they will soon, as their remaining pool of browsers eventually breakdown and they have no alternatives. It really makes a big difference to have a GOOD browser on dial-up because an outdated browser magnifies the already slow speed of dial-up.

Being on dial-up is, IMO, the source of the bulk of your Internet slowness problems.

I was on dial-up with my Windows 98FE computer as late as December 2008. Having never used any other way to connect to the 'Net, I had nothing to compare it to. But then the PC got sick and I had to run out and get a modern computer with an Ethernet card, and the difference was like night and day. When I fixed my Win98 I even went back and installed a NIC in it. It doesn't load Web pages nearly as fast as my Vista, but it's SOOOOO much faster than it used to be. (That PC uses IE6.)

Mind you, this is Windows 98 as intended by Bill -- I haven't tried any of the fancier Win98 modifications such as KernelEx.

Just reinstalled the OS a few weeks ago and the machine works great, just as if it were 2005... or 1998.

--JorgeA

[Giant2011]

Hello there. Well for me windows 98 is much faster then the rest. I use it for years. I do not have facebook or windows life but I really

can use hotmail msn and yahoo messenger. I have configured many systems, and to make them faster you have to throw away

a lot of those fancy features you really never need. It only makes the system slow. At the end you get the look back of the old windows

95/98 and that is it. Yes of course windows 98 does not have all those fancy features. But it is really what you want to do with it.

And finding drivers is getting difficult I must say. But for the rest it is not bad. When you get the help from something as kernelex

4.5.1. It is just an extension from the kernel Windows 7 is nothing more then and expanded Windows NT or Windows 2000.

[bpalone]

First off, all it is, is an operating system. If it does what you need and you like it then, by all means, use it.

Now, you can't expect an operating system that was left in the dust by its creator, to run the latest and greatest software. But, if the software you have for it does everything you need to do, then why would you want to upgrade? You can keep your hard earned money and use for other needs/wants. Now, someone has taken the time and effort to create a package such as KernelEx that has extended the usefulness of the OS, is nothing more than a gift from heaven. 98 is a good operating system and in my opinion it and Win 2K were Microsoft's peak, everything since has been down hill. My opinion and you r mileage may vary.

If you really wish to use a newer OS for some of your surfing, etc., then try dual booting with a light version of Linux. That way you can have both and decide which one to load at boot up time. All of my computers, except a 98se laptop are dual boot. I personally quit the MS Treadmill with 2K and have no regrets, at this time.

9x is not dead, just not supported in the mainstream anymore. The audiance here is not the normal everyday computer user. It is a far more technically educated bunch of users that see no reason to retire a perfectly good computer and operating system before it croaks on its own. In fact, if you do some searching you will find there are still some folks using DOS and finding ways to continue using it with new hardware. So, 98 is not dead.

Have a good day and consider the dual boot option.

[M()zart]

As for me, OS is alive until there are actively developed software for it. As there are very few such projects, more and more ones drop the support, and KernelEx and Revolutions Pack are not developed any more, Windows 98 can be officially called dead or almost dead. Though I will keep it on my second PC as main OS until the PC is alive. And may be after its death I will keep it in the Virtual PC for old games, such as X-com 1, 2, and 3, and Worms 2, Worms Apocalipse, and Worms World Party, which are my favorite games.

[Monroe]

Have no complaints about Windows 98SE in 2011 ... I have dial-up through my cell phone and it's very slow since I'm on an old plan from 2004 but it's cheap and I'm still getting data with my voice plan. I use the K-Meleon browser and just block JavaScript, Images and Popups and I can really zip around pretty fast on dial up ... when I get to a place with very fast Wi-Fi then I have nothing blocked and have several tabs going at once. I also don't belong to Facebook and such so I can't say anything about those sites in regards to Windows 9x but 98SE still works just fine for me in 2011. As I said in another thread, I do have Win 2000 Pro on a separate small hard drive just to run a few programs that I can't get to run on Win 98SE even with KernelEx installed, but that can be expected in 2011 ... I'm just glad that most everything that I need to use still runs on Win 98SE.

I guess one day some of the people I consider "experts" ... which is just about everyone, will stop posting at this Windows 9x site but I hope that day will be many years down the road ... I'd mention some names but we all know who they are ... the same people who always come to assist with a problem or answer some questions and that includes some "newer" names every so often. If that day ever truly comes when these people are no longer here ... then, in my opinion, Windows 9x will be truly dead.

...

[LoneCrusader]

Whlie attempting to do some stalking of ex-girlfriends on Myspace and Facebook, and waiting forever to load the error-ridden pages, I suddenly had an epiphany: Windows 9x is dead!

I've reached my limit of slowy, crappy internet. Time is a luxury that I don't feel like wasting anymore, not when the vast majority of people enjoy quick, reliable, fully-featured access to the internet.

Being on dial-up is another huge factor, which I don't think high speed users entirely comprehend, but they will soon, as their remaining pool of browsers eventually breakdown and they have no alternatives. It really makes a big difference to have a GOOD browser on dial-up because an outdated browser magnifies the already slow speed of dial-up.

I've also decided to uninstall KernelEx from my computer in a last ditch attempt at getting back some of the speed I sacrificed after installing newer (slower) browsers.

Firefox 3.5 loads pages nicely, but it crawls on dialup. And speedwise Opera 11 isn't any different than 10.63.

I have important things to do online sometimes (banking, email, shopping, keeping in touch with family) and I can't settle for such terrible quality internet anymore. Not in the year 2011, maybe if it was 2005 or something.

My use of Windows 9x has mostly been a circumstance of my miniscule budget and a nostalgic hope of remaining rooted to DOS, but I think I'll spend the money for high speed internet and switch completely over to Linux. It would seem to be a more economical choice in the long run. I basically can't afford what Microsoft is peddling these days. Linux seems to be the only choice for somebody on the poverty line like myself.

I've been getting accustomed to Wary Puppy recently and I plan on using that on this computer.

Lastly, I'm wondering what you guys are planning to do with your computers in this post-KernelEx day and age. I, personally, see no future at all for windows 9x. (Except maybe to read plain pages of text using "Off By One"-- it's faster than anything else available, it'll probably last longer too).

Well, I hope I didn't p*** anybody off.

As others have stated, the majority of your problem comes from Dial-Up, not from Windows 98. I spent over 6 years on it myself, so I know how it is. Also, if you are serious about running Windows 9x systems these days, IMHO you need to max out your hardware. 9x drivers exist for Pentium 4 class hardware, and with RLoew's patches you can correct RAM, HDD, and SATA issues.

I use Windows 98 on a daily basis, for everything I need to do. Now that means I have to accept that some things will not work or not work 100% properly. But that doesn't matter to me, I accept it and deal with it. I keep a copy of Windows XP for the few games I have that require it, and for handling >4GB files - but that is ALL I use it for. And I'll be d@mned if I EVER use Windows 7. At least Vista still has the Classic Start Menu.

It does take a lot of dedication however. I'll admit that it is frustrating sometimes. But I'm an idealist, I'm dedicated. If something doesn't work with Windows 98, then I will avoid using it. Until only a couple of years ago, I refused to purchase ANYTHING whatsoever that connected by USB, simply because it would not work with Windows 95. To this day the only USB hardware I own are flash drives and USB-to-IDE adapters for hard drives.

I don't compromise my positions or my principles for convenience - and I'm used to being on the side of the minority.

Edited September 8, 2011 by LoneCrusader

[herbalist]

Dialup is definitely a big part of your problem. It's wasn't that long ago that it was my only option as well. Any OS will feel dead slow on dialup if you've used DSL or better. There are a few things that can help speed things up for you.

1, Use an alternate browser. Internet Explorer 6 is slow compared to SeaMonkey and K-Meleon.

2, Use a web content filtering app such as Proxomitron. Most of the time, it's ads and javascript that slow down the web. Pages load much faster with the junk removed. Extensions like FlashBlock will also help speed the web up.

3, Use a rule based firewall. Contrary to popular opinion, a good firewall doesn't slow your internet. It can in fact speed up the apparent speed by blocking system components (like Windows Explorer) from consuming bandwidth. The difference isn't big, but on dialup it can be noticeable.

4, Use a download manager that supports pause and resume. They're a lifesaver when you lose connection. When I had dialup, I used Star Downloader which was excellent on 98. I managed to download an entire Knoppix Live CD with it by pausing it during the day and letting it run at night.

My present 98 unit started as an XP-Pro, converted to dual boot. It has a Pentium 4, 2.4 GHZ with 1GB ram. Both operating systems are modified, stripped down, and well tuned. Comparing the 2 as fairly as I can:

Speed and reliability:

98 starts up and shuts down faster. On DSL (1184/448Kbps) their internet speeds are about equal. User apps seem to start up and run at about the same speed. USB speeds seem equal, thanks to NUSB. There might be speed differences but I'd have to measure the speeds to tell. There's no noticeable difference. Regarding stability and reliability, using just "official" updates and upgrades, XP is far more reliable and stable than 98. If you remove Internet Explorer and the other excess components with 98lite and add the unofficial upgrades like KEX, RP9 and others, then 98 becomes a very stable and reliable OS that performs far better than it ever did when it was officially supported.

Compatibility: There are some apps that I can't run on 98, even with KernelEX. One is a multi-player game I enjoy. 98 can't handle the graphics. 98 can't run the latest version of SeaMonkey, 2.3.3. It can run version 2.0.14 with KEX. I don't play facebook games or stuff like that, so I have no idea how they compare at this. For my use, both work just fine, and as far as I can tell, they work the same. Both OS run the latest version of Flash Player. Both will play flash full screen. The rest of the software that I use runs equally well on both, with one surprising exception. For me, Tor-Vidalia has been more stable on my 98 unit that it is on XP. Both OS work equally with the USB devices that I have, an external hard drive, a couple of flash drives, and a card reader that I borrow on occasion. I haven't managed to get the printer/scanner/copier combo unit working properly on 98. Haven't found drivers. The same applies to a Phillips Webcam, no 98 drivers.

Security:

Users that prefer security packages based around anti-virus are finding that most are dropping support or already have. Default-permit based solutions are no longer a viable option for 98. While most malicious code doesn't target or work properly on the 98 operating system itself, there is plenty of malicious code that targets applications which do run on 98. The only real option left for 9X users is a default-deny security policy, which is also the most effective solution for all versions of Windows. XP users have more security software options to choose from. 98 users will have to rely on older and unsupported applications, several of which are still very effective. Kerio 2.1.5 and the free version of System Safety Monitor are 2 powerful examples. 98 has a much smaller attack surface to defend. The few ports open by default on are easily closed by configuration. XP has a lot more open ports but they can be closed by disabling services that are unnecessary for most users. On Win-7, it might not be possible to close all of the open ports without using a separate firewall. How quickly Slammer and the consequences of unnecessary open ports is forgotten.

Out of the box, both 98 and XP were very insecure. Both can be made much better with the included tools. Both can be secured quite well with available 3rd party software. The primary downside to securing 98 is that it will require a good deal of knowledge from the user. Unlike XP, there are no security solutions left for 98 that will do the work for you.

Privacy:

Windows stores a lot of records of its users activities. Each new version of Windows stores more than the one before in more places, using more varied methods. It gets harder to find and even harder to access or remove, often requiring specialized 3rd party tools. When it comes to giving the user control over and access to the data Windows stores about their computer activities, 98 is better by far. Thanks largely to DOS, all of the stored user tracks can be accessed and/or removed. With batch files, removing this data can be made part of the regular startup or shutdown process. On NT systems, performing the same tasks will require 3rd party software and at times accessing the file system from another OS. If you feel that the web pages you visited, the e-mail you've read, the documents you've opened, the applications that you ran today, etc are no ones business but your own and you don't want records of these and other activities stored on your PC, then 98 is the better choice than the newer NT systems.

Even if there is no more development in projects like KEX, 98 will remain viable for at least a few more years if not longer. For me, 98 is my OS of choice and will remain so for the forseeable future. IMO, an operating system should be an interface between the hardware and the user, and a platform that runs the users applications. It should do what I tell it to and only that. It should store what data I want stored, not what someone else wants. It should connect out only when I want it to and only to where I specify. It should not receive or acknowledge incoming connection attempts unless I specifically allowed it. Beyond that, the operating system should stay out of the way. Windows has been going in the opposite direction for some time, with each new version giving the user less control over what it does and less access to the data it stores. Except for some gaming, a PC to me is a tool. I have no use for a tool that does what it wants or what someone else wants.

[Steven W]

I'm curious as to what kind of hardware you have, ScrewUpgrading. The PC that I maintain that has Win 98 SE on it has a 733 MHz P3 processor and 384 MB of RAM. I notice it's a little slow when running modern browser like felicitas's Aurora build or Opera 11.5x, but it's not that bad. The only real gripe I have is with Flash performance, but I think a much better graphics card would help. It currently has an onboard Intel 82810 card. Of course it's currently hooked up to DSL. The last time I had dial-up was in the early 2000's and I thought it was too much hassle then. I have to at least partially agree with the others; sites today just aren't designed with dial-up in mind, of course, there's probably a limit to how low system requirements could be and one could still get decent performance out of modern software with KernelEx. Personally, I'd hate to be trying it on anything much lower than what the PC I spoke of has.

Edit: I've also been toying with the idea of setting it up to dual-boot with Bodhi Linux.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Steven W

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

I've reached my limit of slowy, crappy internet. Time is a luxury that I don't feel like wasting anymore, not when the vast majority of people enjoy quick, reliable, fully-featured access to the internet.

...

I have important things to do online sometimes (banking, email, shopping, keeping in touch with family) and I can't settle for such terrible quality internet anymore. Not in the year 2011, maybe if it was 2005 or something.

That's you're problem right there. Blaming the operating system for a slow computer (Pentium II or III ?) on a slow physical connection (dialup!) while using browsers (Opera 10, FF 3) that hate Win9x anyway since the developers were probably using WinXP+ on blazingly fast computers on broadband.

My use of Windows 9x has mostly been a circumstance of my miniscule budget and a nostalgic hope of remaining rooted to DOS, but I think I'll spend the money for high speed internet and switch completely over to Linux.

No offense, but judging from your stated opinion you're likely ill-equipped with the required patience or tech skills for any flavor of linux. Perhaps something with an apple on the logo?

In all seriousness, most people trusting critical information and solid online security to Win9x are not thinking clearly. You want a bombproof computer without blue screens from a flaky browser or network driver or hardware problems. This really requires Win2k or above OS because of the practically crashproof kernel which has the ability to quietly terminate buggy applications and resist corrupt or hostile websites and attacks. Well, that's the way I see it.

But if you are just casually browsing *without* regard to critical data and banking and you couldn't care less about bluescreens and reboots then Win9x with ethernet to a router on broadband can work fine. But if online banking and security is required you should build a secure internet facing computer on the NT kernel using firewalls and the latest browsers. These are two completely different scenarios, and you wanted them combined into one on the cheap. I'm not saying it's impossible, there are plenty of people here who are using Win9x online on muscular hardware configurations, but you mention not wasting time, when I hear that I point to NT because they are pretty much 'fire and forget'.

Of course, there is nothing stopping you from having two computers ...

Computer-1 :: Win2k or WinXP for the secure and always updated internet appliance (people are throwing away WinXP computers everyday, one should easily be found). This one could even be a laptop and using something recent like Vista or Windows 7 I mean 6.1. You will not need to waste time maintaining this one because auto-updates can be left on. This computer would be off a NAT router and possibly have a firewall and antivirus for maximum security. Naturally the hardware specs should be high with at least a 2-core CPU and a few GB of RAM.

Computer-2 :: Win9x for offline which is not connected so it removes all the screwing around with internet, browsers, security and such. Since it would not need a realtime antivirus, the computer will much snappier in its response. It can be tweaked for games and local file work and whatever. BTW, this operating system, Win9x is *not* slow and is actually faster than all it's successors on identical hardware because it does less work behind the scenes (less overhead). Of course that missing overhead includes better memory management and multitasking and device management that made the NT family hardened against crashes.

Well, I hope I didn't p*** anybody off.

Made me LOL actually!

[ScrewUpgrading]

Thanks you guys. I read every single reply.

I was probably being too pessimistic when I started this topic.

I agree with you guys, being on dial-up is probably the biggest detriment to enjoying Windows 9x on the web. And don't get me wrong, I do prefer using Windows ME. I wouldn't otherwise be using it in 2011. I don't like newer versions of Windows at all.

Steve, my computer setup is this:

HP Pavilion model 7845

866 MHz Pentium III

128 Mb RAM --> (I upgraded to 384 Mb)

40 GB Hard Disk

Integrated graphics - Intel 82810e graphics controller w/ 3 MB shared memory

AC'97 Sound Card

Lucent Win modem

Realtek networking card

2 USB ports (1 front, 1 back)

CD-RW

3.5" Floppy Drive

....browsers that I use:

SeaMonkey 1.1.19 (with Flashblock)

Opera 10.63 (Turbo mode)

To get the full benefit of Kernelex and Firefox 3.6, I'm going to fork out the cash for DSL, even if it's $40 per month. It's something that I'm going to have to do eventually anyway.

But Windows 9x is certainly the last windows for me. All the newer ones seem like spyware. I'll stick with Windows Me as long as humanly possible, but I'm also going to start using Wary Puppy and Vector Linux more.

Have a good day you guys. And who knows... maybe KernelEx will continue in some form or another.

[TmEE]

My 98SE machine has been on dial up few times, something I will not want to experience again. 98SE serves as my primary hardware and software development machine, aswell as everyday use machine. I do fire up XP occasionally as there's quite some programs that do not get along with 9x, or I get an urge to play some more modern game requiring hardware that 9x lacks drivers for.

One other big reason is performance, 9x is incredibly fast compared to XP or 7 on same hardware, even with years of use and hundreds of experiments and installed programs.

Lack of KernelEx development will certainly make 9x live less

[Steven W]

Integrated graphics - Intel 82810e graphics controller w/ 3 MB shared memory

That may be the biggest culprit, right there. Although mine has 4 MB shared, it still sucks!

It may be worth considering investing in a better card, even a used one, and disabling that P.O.S in the BIOS.

Using Flashblock should certainly help when browsing.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Steven W