darrelljon

Why use Win 9x on new PCs in 2013?

42 posts in this topic

I agree. I do like creating these threads from time to time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why use Win 9x on new PCs in 2013?

Never underestimate the power of legacy software or hardware.

You would be unpleasantly surprised at the amount of stuff, especially in the corporate world, that MUST be run under some older version of Windows, or even DOS, and can not be virtualized. More often than not, there is no newer version of the software or hardware to upgrade to, as the company that made it is long out of business, or it was an in-house project. If there is a newer version, it costs several hojillion dollars - so either shoehorn Windows 9x on a newer computer or head off to eBay.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there is a newer version, it costs several hojillion dollars - so either shoehorn Windows 9x on a newer computer or head off to eBay.

Instead of spending several hojillion dollars on some new software, spend about US$ 50 on a couple of RLoew's patches, and Windows 9x will fit confortably in pretty new hardware, no shoehorning needed at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Compatable with a wider range of hardware.

When people say it can't be done' date=' I do it.

[/quote']Ok, so please tell me how I can use just about all the new hardware I bought recently (scanner, printer etc), when drivers fail to install?

We are stuck with old versions of internet browsers, of flash, of javascript ewngine, ... and it makes 5 years we can't update any of our favorite software.

So, why using W9X in 2013? BECAUSE WE ARE FANATICS!!!:D

And more seriousely, in my case, I find W98SE much safer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some things to ponder.....

The .zip archive format has been around since the late eighties, or early nineties. When Philip Katz enhanced the .arc format for compressing files. He was then sued by System Enhancement Associates and so he changed the name from PKARC to PKZIP. Thus, the zip format was born. It's been the defacto archive format, universally supported every since... and that was oh, about, 1993. Sure, there's been rival formats, like LZH, ARJ, RAR, and now 7zip. But since zip is so widely used, and the format has a good speed to compression ratio, none of those other formats have been able to replace ZIP.

Now, you could use zip in a DOS command prompt, you could use it on Windows 3.1, Win9x, and everything since. Sure, the zip format has changed a little (with newer Deflate methods) but it's still pretty much the same. I can use Info Zip's executables on any platform. I can still unzip a file made from Windows 7 or 8 and open it using DOS.

Another thing is the picture formats have hardly changed. Jpeg format has been around like twenty-five years. They tried to "improve" it by creating the Jpeg2000 format. But it resulted in much larger files and not much noticeable improvement in quality. Might as well just use TIF or PNG formats. The majority of images on the net are using the same format that was around in the days of DOS and windows 3.1

MP3 format has hardly changed a bit. I can still listen to MP3's using any older Win9x program.

Well, movie files are a pain in the butt with all the different "codecs"... this is definitely one area where older systems are at a disadvantage, but with the right software you can convert newer files into playable videos for DOS, Windows 3.1, Win9x.

Also, proprietary formats like Microsoft Word documents and PDF files, both of which I don't like and try not to use, are part of the whole "planned obsolescence" scheme of forcing users to "upgrade" to the latest and greatest every few years. Just to make Microsoft and Adobe richer than they already are. I don't see what is great about any of the upgrades.

When I was sending resumes to potential employers I sent my resume in RTF format. Does anyone know if MS Office will open Abiword documents???? I'd really like to know. Because I can do more formatting and stuff with Abiword than I can using a basic RTF or Wordpad document. But anyway, the point is, I could still send people my resume using Windows ME and they could still open it.

In reality I could log onto Microsoft Word 6.0 using Windows 3.1 and type a paper or resume that looks just as good, and with all the options and features that most people use, as the latest "Office 2012." The former program was simple, elegant and efficient, and it runs lightly. The latter is just bells and whistles, bloatware, with useless hieroglyphic symbols to make it look newer. They both do the same exact thing. And I prefer the look of Word 6.0 to all the newer office programs.

I can play audio CD's and burn them and rip them on my Windows ME machine. I can burn data CD's and iso files using Windows ME. The audio CD hasn't changed since the 1980's. It's the same piece of technology for the last 30 years. Why do I need a brand new computer from 2012 to read/play something that is technology from the 80's?

Lastly, I'm not a computer whiz or anything, but I know how to and I'm comfortable with formatting my computer in DOS, and reinstalling Windows 9x. I also have Windows 2000 and I mess around with that OS as well. But because of "product activation" I've never bothered with XP and newer systems to reinstall the OS. But I guess that's beside the point. Basically, I grew up in the DOS and Windows 3.1 era, and I'm still actually living in it, LOL, seeing as how I'm using Windows ME.... and I'll continue using Windows ME. Because I think it is the zenith of Microsoft Windows. The most intuitive, easy, yet powerful user interface. I didn't like the newer version of Windows that I've tried..... (Windows 2000 was good, Windows XP was okay and I like it, Vista was bad, 8 is totally terrible, haevn't tried 7 because the stores around here don't sell it anymore. They only sell Windows 8. Blech..)

I think it just boils down to the following... I'm set in my ways, I thought the newer versions of Windows were needlessly complicated, and I didn't like them. So I'm sticking with Widnows ME :-)

Oh and, the internet is still decent if you turn off javascript. I'm using K-Meleon 1.5 and I can still check my Gmail and read the news. So that's good enough.

Edited by LostInSpace2012
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if talking about formats, there are some newer formats. More and more often I use music in flac, alac, m4a, ac3 formats. There is now a new picture format - webp, that have chances to become common. Though picture and music formats are not a big problem for older systems

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why use Win 9x on new PCs in 2013?

Well in my opinion WIN98/98se is the BEST WIN OS they ever released! (It started to go downhill with the Win2000 SP4 update (Started being locked down,privacy removed,etc))

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Windows 9x would even work on new PC's.

I just spent the last month being forced to use Windows 2000 because my WinMe computer went kaput.

Never Again!

Windows ME is my OS of choice. I got a "new" old computer, and now I'm back in business.

I'd rather use Windows 3.1 (my second favorite OS) than be force to use 2000 or XP or anything else.

Edited by LostInSpace2012
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP brought up a legitimate question; though probably not in the way he intended. What's the benefit of running Windows 9x on a new computer, when it's easier to run it on an older one instead? It isn't as though a Pentium III isn't fast enough.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if he meant to ask "WHY RUN WIN98 INSTEAD OF A NEWER OS??"

I could give many answers for this!!!!!!

Edited by Dude111
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP brought up a legitimate question; though probably not in the way he intended. What's the benefit of running Windows 9x on a new computer, when it's easier to run it on an older one instead? It isn't as though a Pentium III isn't fast enough.

Assuming someone likes Windows 9x or has a need for it, for any of the long list of reasons described elsewhere in this forum, there are several reasons.

1. It will run faster. Faster is good until you get rug burn on your fingertips.

2. Older Computers break down and are becoming harder to replace.

3. Faster Peripherals such as Ethernet, USB and Video.

4. More RAM, bigger Hard Disks, more Cores. With a few Patches Windows 9x can handle them all.

I have 32GiB of RAM, 8TiB of Hard Disk Space and 8 Cores at 3.1GHz. I'm not stopping here.

Without further Mods, Windows 9x can support 1024GiB of RAM, 384TiB of Hard Disk Space and 16 Cores at 21GHz.

Edited by rloew
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 32GiB of RAM, 8TiB of Hard Disk Space and 8 Cores at 3.1GHz. I'm not stopping here.

Without further Mods, Windows 9x can support 512GiB of RAM, 384TiB of Hard Disk Space and 16 Cores at 21GHz.

Wow, that is amazing! :thumbup

However...

If and when the time comes to do a fresh install of Windows 98 -- where does one go to get all the official updates through July 2006? (I'm thinking of Win98 FE, not SE.) Are there any repositories elsewhere, now that Microsoft has killed/repurposed the one(s) that stored the Windows Updates for 9x that you used to be able to get by clicking on "Windows Update" on the Start Menu?

And, is it possible still to get 9x drivers for all the peripherals that one might have today (modern printer, current graphics card, and so on)?

Not trying to be argumentative here, just genuinely curious.

--JorgeA (still with a soft spot for Win98)

Edited by JorgeA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows 98 is a resilient OS and unlike windows vista ,7 or 8 its not dumbed down and automatically does it. You actually have to do something :). (also people like to tweak stuff)

If it ain't broke DON'T FIX IT.

Edited by lolnousernameforyou
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 32GiB of RAM, 8TiB of Hard Disk Space and 8 Cores at 3.1GHz. I'm not stopping here.

Without further Mods, Windows 9x can support 512GiB of RAM, 384TiB of Hard Disk Space and 16 Cores at 21GHz.

Wow, that is amazing! :thumbup

However...

If and when the time comes to do a fresh install of Windows 98 -- where does one go to get all the official updates through July 2006? (I'm thinking of Win98 FE, not SE.) Are there any repositories elsewhere, now that Microsoft has killed/repurposed the one(s) that stored the Windows Updates for 9x that you used to be able to get by clicking on "Windows Update" on the Start Menu?

I may have the 98FE Updates, but I primarily use 98SE so I have not looked at them.

I repackaged the 98SE Updates into a more easily installed Pack I call SP0 to distinguish it from others SPs.

This is not relevant to your post as you would have the same problem installing on an old Computer.

And, is it possible still to get 9x drivers for all the peripherals that one might have today (modern printer, current graphics card, and so on)?

External peripherals are also not relevant to your post as they are not dependent on the age of the Computer.

Built in peripherals such as Video, Audio, and LAN are more problematical. You will often need to add a card.

Not trying to be argumentative here, just genuinely curious.

--JorgeA (still with a soft spot for Win98)

Hopefully you are satisfied. Edited by rloew
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.