[glocK_94]

Jeremy, on Dec 3 2006, 08:38 AM, said:

Windows 9x is Dead.
It's inevitable.

Your opinion is not a fact.


Now again... you want to say you don't like Win98. Fine, you have the right to do that but DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE! At least do what DukeBlazingstix did and write your thoughts in a dedicated thread.

The question is Windows 98SE on the lastest hardware so if you're not trying to help, GET OUT OF HERE !!!

It's a Win98 forum where people have made their choice to stick with 98. And we don't have to justify everytime some XP fan wants to start a fight. Thanks for ruining this thread.

This post has been edited by glocK_94: 03 December 2006 - 08:13 AM

[BenoitRen]

Quote

Don't get me wrong, I think needing 512MBs of RAM just to run a vanilla default OS is rediculous, but it is the way it is.

That statement defeats your entire argument. It IS ridiculous, and we choose not to follow that.

Quote

Not to mention all the drivers for hardware and compatibility for devices and new technologies being implemented into games, and M$ not supporting Win9x... bigger harddrives, more RAM, faster CPUs, dual core, SLI, upgradable GPUs, etc... Windows 9x is Dead.

As if our older computers will stop running. We don't have to go with this.

Quote

I'm not trying to shove my opinion up anyone's a** here

You are succeeding in doing that.

Quote

I understand all that as well. However, even for the most basic person may become exploited by some flaw and have their personal info that's saved in IE's AutoComplete feature stolen. M$ wouldn't be able to help them with it since 9x is in the dust now. I'm not saying I know of a particular exploit that results in this, it was just an example.

As if that doesn't have on XP. Look, there are precautions you can take, and apply common sense. Get your computer behind a router, and activate its firewall. Run a secure browser. That's it.

[Lunac]

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.c...straction-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.

[xtrm]

Mine does too, but if you do not want to stand still and move with time, you have to upgrade your system from time to time. I do everything to NOT have to update to 2k/XP/(not to mention vista), but I do update my hardware from time to time - and after over 4 years, it just is about time.

[BenoitRen]

I don't understand why you would need to update your hardware when you're on Windows 98SE. There's also no law saying you should move with the times. "because everybody else does it" is never a good reason to do anything.

[xtrm]

Like, playing games and stuff?

[E-66]

Ok, we're 40+ posts into this topic. My Win9x system that I love dearly software-wise, is old, hardware-wise. So let's get this thread back on topic. Maybe not the very latest in hardware, but how about some good hardware suggestions, both AMD & Intel, for a stable running Win9x system? I think I read that you should stay away from nVidia chipsets and look for a VIA based motherboard? That's all I know, really.

Like I said earlier, I'm no expert, and I never even considered that Win9x wouldn't run on the newest systems. I mean, I knew that there was other hardware that didn't support Win9x, but I guess I thought a motherboard was different somehow, like it was 'root' hardware that would work with anything. But since that's obviously not the case I'd be very interested in seeing what kind of system can be built that will still run Win9x.

Lets's see some examples.

This post has been edited by E-66: 03 December 2006 - 12:44 PM

[xtrm]

I have been an Intel user most of my comp time, and the one time I had an AMD was with a VIA chipset, and that was just a complete mess, it was a horrible experience. I will not use a VIA chipset again, so I hope that this ASUS board and/or the ASRocks really are conroe ready (some big german hardware page says that a BIOS update is not enough and you do need a new board for the conroe, even if you have an only 6 month old socket 775 board).

[BenoitRen]

Quote

Like, playing games and stuff?

Games will always be an exception. The newer ones require the newest hardware and OS. PCs weren't designed with games in mind in the first place, though. If you can avoid it, don't play newer games on your PC, but on game consoles. They were designed for that.

[xtrm]

Shooters just don't play any good on consoles . Also, playing around with hardware is quite fun, and we do not have 98SE2XP for no reason here in this forum .

[glocK_94]

To go along with this thread, here's an exemple of recent hardware config that works on Win98: my own system. Ok. I'm a gamer so I "need" XP as long as KUP isn't totally complete. So I made a config that can dualboot WinXP and my good ol' main system: Win98.

I bought a Asrock 939 Dual-VSTA (new version of the Dual-SATA2) with both AGP and PCI-E ports. It supports 939 CPUs and even 940 with an add-on card. So it supports everything from Athlon 64 to X2, FX or even Opteron. Officially the card doesn't support Win98 (weird, it used to until it was renamed Dual-Vsta... ) but it's based on Uli chips. It's fast and different drivers are avaible at Asrock or at Uli.

Anyway here's the trick: I kept my old AGP card (Fx5600) and got myself a PCI-e card. Win98 uses the AGP and XP the PCI. The only thing I needed to make that happen was a switcher to commute signal from both graphic cards to one monitor (it's cheap so no problem). The only problem I got was when I tried to add more than a gig of ram. Impossible to boot Win98, no matter how many tweaks I used. I'll try again with XMSdsk some day. But for now, 1 go is enough.

I can play every game I want today and if needed I can upgrade my AGP GPU to some nice card like a 6800 (except it's still expensive and quite hard to find), a X800 (well, when I'll but 100% sure it works) or at least a 6600GT / 9800 Pro (that I'm sure). And if some day PCI-e cards work on 98, the system will be ready.

This is my solution, post yours !

[oscardog]

Jeremy, on Dec 3 2006, 06:38 AM, said:

Lunac, on Dec 2 2006, 08:03 PM, said:

Dual-core or multi-core technology to be specific, just shows how much IT world has regressed. They are simply out of ideas. There is no innovation left. Anyone remember 3DFX's Voodoo5 6000?

I think most people who p*** on new IT's (anything before 2000) just have trouble coping with how big Windows is, since you're probably some 35 year old whose been using PCs since the day they only needed such-and-such KBs of RAM to run, and with how "insecure" and "unstable" many "pioneers" seem to believe XP is. Don't get me wrong, I think needing 512MBs of RAM just to run a vanilla default OS is rediculous, but it is the way it is. With RAM drives and dual core becoming main stream soon and 1GB sticks of RAM becoming cheaper, the filesize of an OS just doesn't matter to as many people as it used to.
Not to mention all the drivers for hardware and compatibility for devices and new technologies being implemented into games, and M$ not supporting Win9x... bigger harddrives, more RAM, faster CPUs, dual core, SLI, upgradable GPUs, etc... Windows 9x is Dead.
I'm not trying to shove my opinion up anyone's a** here, I'm not saying you can't stick with what you like, but I believe someday... and sooner rather than later... it is going to catch up to you. Let's face it... times change, people change, everything changes. It's inevitable. 1995 was nearly 12 years ago. 1998 was nearly 9 years ago. Technology now changes by the month, if not every few weeks....

If Windows 9x is dead, XP is a very poorly os in the next bed trying to have a transfusion from the alleged deceased os which judging by the forum is blatantly alive. I would suggest that intrinsically money might be better spent on purchasing a system which via any means, supports win 9x still. In this way people have a built in redundancy if a system fails.
It can easily be farmed for example via a lan if any of the multiple ghz systems needs to record and compress captured videos via wol it can be made to do this. This way you are not running goodness knows how much wasted capacity when doing ordinary everyday tasks browsing,emailing etc. Plus saving any wear and tear. Multitasking, simultaneously playing music,browsing the web,downloading files,programming etc has never been a problem for me and this is mostly on a P2 system whilst the faster machines are working,hibernating or shutdown. I appreciate that after all these years XP has most of its foibles ironed out and is on the road to redundancy, but I will not go to that forum and hyperthetically fish from the vista side of the pond.
I appreciate that for the future a concerted effort is required in re/writing future device drivers for this os, but time permitting and the intelligent people gathered here I am hopeful.
This xmas I will be getting a new laptop, one that enables me to carry out my work and does not require me to carry around a hydrogen fuel cell

[Jeremy]

oscardog, on Dec 3 2006, 10:12 PM, said:

XP is a very poorly os

Nothing is perfect, but I have no problems with Windows XP, and no malware in years. How is that poor?

[Jeremy]

glocK_94, on Dec 3 2006, 10:12 AM, said:

Your opinion is not a fact.

Now again... you want to say you don't like Win98. Fine, you have the right to do that but DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE! At least do what DukeBlazingstix did and write your thoughts in a dedicated thread.

It's a Win98 forum where people have made their choice to stick with 98. And we don't have to justify everytime some XP fan wants to start a fight. Thanks for ruining this thread.

Temper temper. I mean it's dead in one sense but not in another, of course. Microsoft sure feels that's it dead, otherwise they'd still support it.
I'm not an XP fan. I started on Windows 95, then 98, then ME, then Win2k and at this moment XP. I'm considering trying Linux virtually soon. I'm not trying to fight anyone here.

BenoitRen, on Dec 3 2006, 11:29 AM, said:

Quote

Don't get me wrong, I think needing 512MBs of RAM just to run a vanilla default OS is rediculous, but it is the way it is.

That statement defeats your entire argument. It IS ridiculous, and we choose not to follow that.

How does that defeat my... argument? I'm not arguing.

Quote

Not to mention all the drivers for hardware and compatibility for devices and new technologies being implemented into games, and M$ not supporting Win9x... bigger harddrives, more RAM, faster CPUs, dual core, SLI, upgradable GPUs, etc... Windows 9x is Dead.

BenoitRen, on Dec 3 2006, 11:29 AM, said:

As if our older computers will stop running. We don't have to go with this.

I didn't say that you would have to. But you're sure not going to play a DirectX10 based game on Win9x (or XP for that matter it seems). I'm not directing what I say at you specifically, BenoitRen.

Quote

I'm not trying to shove my opinion up anyone's a** here

BenoitRen, on Dec 3 2006, 11:29 AM, said:

You are succeeding in doing that.

That's your interpretation, not my intention.

Quote

I understand all that as well. However, even for the most basic person may become exploited by some flaw and have their personal info that's saved in IE's AutoComplete feature stolen. M$ wouldn't be able to help them with it since 9x is in the dust now. I'm not saying I know of a particular exploit that results in this, it was just an example.

BenoitRen, on Dec 3 2006, 11:29 AM, said:

As if that doesn't have on XP. Look, there are precautions you can take, and apply common sense. Get your computer behind a router, and activate its firewall. Run a secure browser. That's it.

I run a D-Link DI-604 router and the latest weekly of the Opera web browser. What I'm saying is, just because you and I do, doesn't mean everyone else does too.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Hey again all,

This is just plain silly... I mean, unless you have some software that you really need that
REQUIRES XP, why shell out another hundred or more clams to Big Brother Bill ???
What makes 98SE Dead? That Big Brother Bill declared it so? Who the @$@^ cares what
that scumdog thinks? There, I said it: Bill Gates is a scumdog. I am still mad at him for
paying through the nose for DOS 4 something and finding out it was crap compared to 3.3.
Proved to me right then that newer just as often as not ain't better.

Why does one need to pointlessly stay "current" - not just in OS's but in all things??
For most it would be idiotic and wasteful. OK, I suppose, if you are into Doom 18, or
whatever is around today, get XP or Vista - otherwise pull out that old copy of 98SE and
spend that hundred bucks you just saved on a bigger moniter or decent sound system, instead
of those cruddy little speakers most people use.

With 98SE (the same copy I bought back in 2000) I can do everything l like with my PC - from
simple to the not so simple things like word processing, chat and surfing, to burning CDs, video DVDs, editing and tweaking and compressing sound and video files, and it plays all my old DOS games.
That's what I have a computer for!

Current system I just put together that runs like a whipped ape using 98SE -

MB - Biostar K8M800 (don't laugh it's a good board - cheap, too, with all the 98 drivers on the CD)
CPU - Athlon 64 3200 (socket 754)
video - Cheapie AGP 8x Geforce 4
Memorex 16x DVD burner
Seagate 120 gig HD PATA
512 DDR RAM

-All for like 350 clams -

Win98SE Setup went smoothly - only trouble was the video card; took 2 tries to get it to load.


In contrast, an almost identical system I put together for Dad and loaded with XP, does NOT run like
a whipped ape, but rather like a walking catfish with gout.

Best,

Ron

[BenoitRen]

Quote

Microsoft sure feels that's it dead, otherwise they'd still support it.

Oh come on. We both know that they just want us to forget them and buy their shiny newer toys.

Quote

How does that defeat my... argument? I'm not arguing.

Semantics.

Quote

That's your interpretation, not my intention.

No s***, Sherlock!

Quote

I run a D-Link DI-604 router and the latest weekly of the Opera web browser. What I'm saying is, just because you and I do, doesn't mean everyone else does too.

You were arguing/saying/pointing out/whatever that XP was pretty much secure without these things, and/or that M$ could help with this. Obviously, it doesn't matter one bit, and XP is not secure at all.

[Jeremy]

BenoitRen, on Dec 4 2006, 05:36 PM, said:

You were arguing/saying/pointing out/whatever that XP was pretty much secure without these things, and/or that M$ could help with this. Obviously, it doesn't matter one bit, and XP is not secure at all.

No, I didn't. Once again your interpretation is way off anything I originally said. I'm finished babbling in here anyway, since most people here seem uncivilized for the most part. Have fun with Win9x.

[modicr]

Hello

Quote

Officially the card doesn't support Win98 (weird, it used to until it was renamed Dual-Vsta... )

It's not the same as 939DUAL-SATA2, which has different audio chip:
939DUAL-SATA2: Realtek 850
939Dual-VSTA: C-Media CM6501 (HD Audio - that's why it's Vista Premium Ready - http://www.asrock.co...s/vista-01.html )

AFAIK there is no HD Audio driver for Windows 98SE. How is this audio chip recognized in your PC?

Regards, Roman

This post has been edited by modicr: 05 December 2006 - 08:15 AM

[glocK_94]

modicr, on Dec 5 2006, 04:04 PM, said:

939Dual-VSTA: C-Media CM6501 (HD Audio - that's why it's Vista Premium Ready -
AFAIK there is no HD Audio driver for Windows 98SE. How is this audio chip recognized in your PC?

Hi Roman.

Yeah, you're right, it's not exactly the same.
Here's what's new:
-C-Media CM6501 7.1 channel audio
-Support for "Hot Plug" SATA functions
-CPU Quiet Fan Capability
-2.8v Vdimm Option

The audio card is why I would have prefer the Dual-sata2 but it was sold out. So I just use my Sound blaster. However I've tried the integrated chip for a while and it works fine on Win98. It's recognised as an USB sound device which is exactly what is is.

[Jeremy]

I've been PMing oscardog and I'd like to share with you my response:

Quote

I really appreciate your message. I've been looking at this in totally the wrong way. I never meant to say that it's wrong to use an older OS, if I did I take it back. Sometimes you lose yourself amongst others who share the same opinions overall. I like to be one with my own standings on things, not to mix in with others. I like to be the guy who doesn't prove someone else wrong, but just try to get them to respect a different perspective. I realize now that I was the one who wasn't doing this. Thanks oscardog.

Jeremy
PS: I am not an XP fanboy, and it came off like that. I was only talking about technology trends and how support for these trends would be lacking in older OSes. I like Windows, not just XP specifically.

My apologies to BenoitRen and others.

Cheers!