[Atmosphere XG]

So, I'm on another popular forum, and a lot of people are now realizing that Windows XP will not be top dog anymore.

As I read, most are all for Vista, while a few are clinging on to XP.

What I find amusing is the response of by the posters. I could've sworn I read the same replies when XP was going to be the big dog on the block back in 2001. I give it a year, and you'll hear the same negativity we Win 98 users received when we chose not to upgrade to XP, directed toward XP users.

I'm already reading a few replies from posters stating XP wasn't great anyway. Those who don't upgrade will soon feel what many of us Windows 98 users felt.

Just something I needed to get off my chest, that I knew many Windows 98 users would understand.

For the record, I am a Windows XP user. I just know that many who constantly abused us throughout the years using Windows 98, will be getting their share abuse, when Vista becomes the standard in Windows Operating Systems.

This post has been edited by Atmosphere XG: 14 November 2006 - 01:15 AM

[Andromeda43]

The world is full of computers that simply cannot run Windows XP.
They are too slow, or have too little RAM or too small hard drives
to accommodate the bloat of XP.

That's not going to change, regardless of the fact that MS has
withdrawn its support of 98, 98/SE and ME. Big Deal!
What support did we really get from them anyway. I never got
any! The only update that was ever worth spit was the ones for
I.E......that buggy browser. Use FF and you don't even need those
anymore.

So 98 will continue for as long as those old computers continue to
operate. In a few years we'll see the same thing happen with XP.
Many of our old XP machines just won't run Vista. Period.
So XP will be around as long as these 'old' computers continue to
run.

[BenoitRen]

Quote

Just something I needed to get off my chest, that I knew many Windows 98 users would understand.

And how do you think the Windows 95 users feel? "OMG, you're running an 11 year old operating system!"

[Ambassador]

or how about Windows 3.11 users?

[jcarle]

DOS anyone?

[glocK_94]

I'm more optimistic. You're right about OS being linked to PCs (especially in companies) but I think this is not ONLY a matter of old computers. I mean, I have a recent gaming computer and I still dual boot with Win98 (main OS). Many 98 users could probably upgrade to XP but stick with the OS they really like. The choice here is important. That's why I believe we can make Win98 live longer than the PC it's installed on.

The drop of XP is good for us. Sure those that stick to XP will live what we lived but maybe more people will understand why we resist again the "change your OS cos' there's a new one" obligation.
Many XP users already don't like Vista because of the way it's built (security made in M$, DRM...) and will stick to XP even if they can upgrade.
Yes. This should make our life easier.

[Steven W]

You guy made me think of a comic strip:

http://ars.userfrien...ns/?id=20061104

Enjoy.

[JayScore]

Just a few points.

Win98 for old, slow machines, or those with limited memory, or for users who can't afford to upgrade.
Perhaps, but none of those are the reasons I still use 98.

I still use real DOS occasionally. I sometimes use it to delete files that 98 and "Restart in MSDOS Mode" won't let me. I also used it extensively to write a food dictionary because Word's sort is wrong, while the DOS Sort is good, just a bit limited (I'd love a really good, fancy bells and whistles Sort - anyone know). I believe 98 is the last to give real DOS, and anything that removes control from me is a distinct no-no.

I fiddle a lot, and I have often needed to use SYS.COM, and a couple of other commands. I know some are not supported in ME. I assume they're not supported in subsequent OSs either. Again, more loss of control - why did they remove useful stuff?

I think 98 is the least controlling, that it was written to some degree with the hobbyist in mind, more in keeping with the spirit of the time - it is just a WIN95 upgrade. (I've still got my WIN95 CD. I also had DOS 3.3 (better SORT) on floppies for a while until they all refused to read. Floppies are crap, aren't they.)

I think XP is far too wordy - compare the Start/Find screens. It's definitely too hand-holdy.

Win2000 seems to refuse to do anything - it's got a no-can-do personality. Doesn't like these drivers, doesn't support that thing. When I was using public terminals, I refused to use 2000, I could get nothing done.

I know 98 fairly well, and I can tweak it, and modify it to suit me.

Lazyness, too. When I'm reinstalling, I have it, I don't have the others. And once installed, I don't think much about upgrading (?). I justs gets on and does the things I gots to do. When I'm using a wordprocessor or a photo manipulation program, or a drawing program it don't really matter what the OS behind it is.

It seems to me from reading the net stuff that installing XP is not as straighforward as 98, so that, too, puts me off. (When I use other PCs running XP I get alarmed at the amount of crap that's on them. Is that because it IS difficult to do a clean install? I don't know.)

The net is littered with dire warnings about the flakiness of ME.

Like everyone, I suppose I'll have to upgrade eventually, unless linux (Tin Hat, as far I'm concerned) gets its arse into gear, or I die before that becomes necessary.

Why do all pop-up boxes always sit right in front of the work area, or appear as far away from the mouse-pointer as possible? There are few mods I'd like to see made to 98, though. Which is why I hope it eventually becomes public domain - one can have harmless little fantasies, OK.

[LLXX]

JayScore, on Nov 14 2006, 08:08 PM, said:

I still use real DOS occasionally. I sometimes use it to delete files that 98 and "Restart in MSDOS Mode" won't let me. I also used it extensively to write a food dictionary because Word's sort is wrong, while the DOS Sort is good, just a bit limited (I'd love a really good, fancy bells and whistles Sort - anyone know). I believe 98 is the last to give real DOS, and anything that removes control from me is a distinct no-no.

I fiddle a lot, and I have often needed to use SYS.COM, and a couple of other commands. I know some are not supported in ME. I assume they're not supported in subsequent OSs either. Again, more loss of control - why did they remove useful stuff?

My machine still boots to a DOS prompt, and I type WIN if I want to load the GUI. I have XP on another partition and I once tried to write a WINXP.COM that would load XP from DOS. Haven't had much success though.

BTW, speaking of sorts, here's something you might find interesting: http://www.frontiern...oold.htm#compo5

Quote

I think XP is far too wordy - compare the Start/Find screens. It's definitely too hand-holdy.

Definitely. The Find dialog in 9x is simple and pretty much self-explanatory. I actually found the 2K/XP one more confusing since it tries to hide some of the options (e.g. search for hidden/system files is not enabled by default, but in Win9x it follows the Explorer settings).

Quote

There are few mods I'd like to see made to 98, though. Which is why I hope it eventually becomes public domain - one can have harmless little fantasies, OK.

What mods would you like in particular? We already have Enable48BitLBA and Copy2GB, even though it's not public domain yet, but I doubt M$ cares at all.

[galahs]

I am a user of Win98SE, 2000 and XP.

Each have their benefits.

But I'm yet to see any reason at all to need Vista. It doesn't really offer any major improvements other than its fancy looking GUI.

Then again we all said that about XP in comparison to Win98.

I guess you get the latest Win OS to support newer, bigger and faster hardware. Other than that, its just cosmetic.

[BenoitRen]

Quote

I think 98 is the least controlling, that it was written to some degree with the hobbyist in mind, more in keeping with the spirit of the time - it is just a WIN95 upgrade.

I don't agree. Windows 95 controls you less than Windows 98. There's also less clutter. When you are done installing Windows 95, it's usable. You don't have to change anything. With Windows 98, you have IE4 breathing down your neck, warnings when you try to open C:\Windows or C:\Program Files, annoying tooltips, and other clutter.

Quote

I guess you get the latest Win OS to support newer, bigger and faster hardware. Other than that, its just cosmetic.

Cosmetic is only part of the story. The newer OS also requires more processing power to do the same things. Newer Windows versions exist to rake in more cash and continue the perpetual upgrade cycle.

Most users don't realise this, and when you point it out to them, they tell that it's because the OS is better. I really don't understand that logic. A better OS wouldn't suddenly jack up system requirements for doing the same things. Case in point: you can't run WinXP on older computers because it wants to use more resources, and then people tell you that it's because WinXP is better and 'more advanced'. Yeah, right.

[Atmosphere XG]

Hey, thanks for your input!

I'm really enjoying the read and the civil manner that's taking place.

BenoitRen, on Nov 15 2006, 03:42 PM, said:

With Windows 98, you have IE4 breathing down your neck, warnings when you try to open C:\Windows or C:\Program Files, annoying tooltips, and other clutter.

Quick question!

I used to work in a big retail store when I was 16 the time Windows 95 became available. I didn't know anything about Computers much less Operating Systems (I actually had my first experience on a Mac Computer/Monitor integrated system) until I purchased my first Computer in 1998 (Thus, Win 98 FE)

Pre-dating Windows 98, were there no Internet Explorer?

This post has been edited by Atmosphere XG: 15 November 2006 - 04:45 PM

[Steven W]

IE existed for win95, but it was installed separately, it was not integrated into the OS. IE 4 would allow you to opt-out of the "shell integration". It also wasn't necessary for the 5.x versions of IE.

This post has been edited by Steven W: 15 November 2006 - 05:42 PM

[BenoitRen]

Quote

Pre-dating Windows 98, were there no Internet Explorer?

Disk versions of Windows 95 didn't come with IE. The CD-ROM version of Windows 95 had IE version 1.
Windows 95 OSR2 (Win95 came with IE3.

These instances did not integrate with Windows, though, and while there was no uninstall option, you could get rid of it by other means.

Windows 95 OSR 2.5 (Win95 C) installed IE3, and if you let the CD-ROM in the drive after installation (which I only did once, forgot to remove it), it installs IE4 with all the integration.

You could install IE5 on Windows 95, but because of complaints about IE4's integration, this version didn't do any integration at all.