Ati 2.3 Radeon 9700 Pro Cataclyst drivers last ones, ever, for Windows 98 machines? Are they kidding me?

[Sub51]

It looks like Ati has stopped supporting any future releases for Windows 98 machines.

I got Win 98 a while ago fro newegg.

Is this true? Any way around? Any hope?

 

[Vadatajs]

Maybe omega will, but it's time to stop living in the past.

 

[jcwagers]

As long as there is a ME download and install.....you should be able to use it on Windows 98. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Windows 98 has no more tech support but ME does and they are VERY similar so you should still be set for a while.

 

[5150Joker]

Dump it and get XP. It's faster in newer games and you will likely run into less problems.

 

[Megatomic]

Well, earlier this year Microsoft announced that they are not going to support any OS older than 98SE (including NT 4.0!) which means no more WHQL drivers for those operating systems. That is why ATI is not developing drivers for 98 anymore.

I agree with 5150Joker, get rid of 98 and use Win2K or WinXP.

 

[sechs]

ATi is developing for Windows98, they just can't get those drivers certified. Because of some Microsoft mumbo-jumbo, this means that they cannot officially release Win98 drivers.

Use the Windows ME drivers; ATi has tested them on Win98, and they will work.

 

[rogue1979]

It is probably microshaft refusing to certify the drivers. All Nvidia and ATI drivers for quite some time have supported WIN98 and WinME with the exact same driver files, so for now everything will still work. This is just another crooked tactic from Bill Gates and company to try and force you to shell out bucks for WinXP. Unless they are gonna get a giant kickback or payoff, I can't see any video card manufacturer not supporting the operating system that is still the most widely used.

 

[alkemyst]

yeah upgrade fast....


7 days.

 

[rogue1979]

Dump it and get XP. It's faster in newer games and you will likely run into less problems.

While WinXP can load most games faster, countless benchmarks tests have proven WinXP does not play games faster than Win98. Actually, when taking into account a wide variety of popular gaming titles, both old and new, Win98SE is still arguably the fastest OS for games. For server use or someone that leaves there computer on 24/7, the NT kernel is more stable. For most of us that turn their PC on and off several times a day, there is no advantage in stability over a properly set up Win98 OS.

WinXP can does some things better and faster than Win98. But for someone like me who uses their computer for gaming, surfing the web, light desktop work, printing, and burning CD's, there is no reason to upgrade. I would venture to guess the majority of people have the same needs.

 

[Mac]

I agree with Rogue1979. I still use Win98SE on my systems. I purchased an ME upgrade over a year ago and finally pulled it off after too many strange bugs and erratic performance.

Currently have a brand new XP license that I picked up through the $40 OEM that is uninstalled. The whole registration issue still rankles me.

What it comes down to is this, Win98 may be an old dog but after the WinMe fiasco and the intrusive licensing of XP, it's a dog that still hunts and brings home the meat.

 

[rbV5]

The whole registration issue still rankles me.

What registration issue? you're not required to register XP at all.

 

[rogue1979]

Well, I have never installed it myself, but weren't you required to call on the telephone to get an install code?

 

[BFG10K]

As has been pointed out already ATi is not officially supporting Windows 98 because Microsoft isn't either. However as long as Windows ME drivers exist you should be able to use those with no problems.

countless benchmarks tests have proven WinXP does not play games faster than Win98

With newer drivers Windows XP is Microsoft's fastest gaming OS for Win32 titles. Windows 98 takes the compatibility crown though.

 

[rbV5]

Well, I have never installed it myself, but weren't you required to call on the telephone to get an install code?

You're confusing registering with activation. MS does not require you to register XP ever, but you are required to activate XP within 30 days of installation, which can be done either over the internet or the phone and does not include any personal information or even type of hardware you have installed...simply a hash number generated by the hardware you have installed and compared when you bootup, hardware hash changes enough(due to a hardware change)...you simply have to re-activate.

It is a non-event IMHO, even as much as I upgrade, ect, I've had to re-activate 3 times in over a year, took only seconds each time.

btw, saying that win98 is as stable as XP is just silly. I agree that it is "fine" for the majority of users, it is in no way as stable as XP in any way shape or form. I haven't missed 9x in well over 2 years, not one bit.

 

[WyteWatt]

Windows 2000 pro is the fastest gaming os! No Ifs, ands or buts about it. I tried windows xp , windows 2000 , and windows 98SE and windows 2000 pro gave the fastest fps in games but sometimes just as fast as windows xp and windows 98 SE. I have tested it 1000s of times over and over again.

Windows 2000 pro = the ulimate gaming os.

 

[Blurry]

No way, Windows 95 is both technologically more advanced and much more compatible than all the OS. Trust me, you won't regret upgrading to Windows 95!

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: imtim83
Windows 2000 pro is the fastest gaming os! No Ifs, ands or buts about it. I tried windows xp , windows 2000 , and windows 98SE and windows 2000 pro gave the fastest fps in games but sometimes just as fast as windows xp and windows 98 SE. I have tested it 1000s of times over and over again.

Windows 2000 pro = the ulimate gaming os.

I'm not a big gamer, so I let my other tasks dictate my OS, and then - well, if a game runs on said OS, cool; if not, too bad. For me, I hate downtime, even if it's just a system-wide hard crash while I'm posting a short message here on the forums. Because reliability matters so much to me, I chose Windows 2000 Professional. Windows XP Pro would have been my first choice, but my hardware isn't the latest and greatest, and Windows 2000 offers better performance.

As far as Windows 98 is concerned, the sooner the world is rid of that OS, the better. My opinion on the matter is this: if your system is too old to run Windows 2000 or Windows XP, you wouldn't be gaming on it anyway, so run Windows NT or Linux. If your system is new enough, there is no reason whatsoever to be running a Windows 9x OS unless it is for compatibility reasons, or simply that the system was put together before Windows 2000 and XP were released - the amount of frames per second given on a computer with Windows 2000 or XP will be about the same, or sometimes even greater, than the amount given from the same computer running Windows 98 (I swear I saw a benchmark that proved this, and I thought it was on THG, but I can't seem to find it at the moment ).

 

[fluxquantum]

Originally posted by: rogue1979
Dump it and get XP. It's faster in newer games and you will likely run into less problems.

While WinXP can load most games faster, countless benchmarks tests have proven WinXP does not play games faster than Win98. Actually, when taking into account a wide variety of popular gaming titles, both old and new, Win98SE is still arguably the fastest OS for games. For server use or someone that leaves there computer on 24/7, the NT kernel is more stable. For most of us that turn their PC on and off several times a day, there is no advantage in stability over a properly set up Win98 OS.

WinXP can does some things better and faster than Win98. But for someone like me who uses their computer for gaming, surfing the web, light desktop work, printing, and burning CD's, there is no reason to upgrade. I would venture to guess the majority of people have the same needs.

very true.

 

[Evnas]

Actually...in a benchmark tests at Toms Hardware...XP and 2k ARE the fastest


http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/02q3/020930/index.html

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Evnas
Actually...in a benchmark tests at Toms Hardware...XP and 2k ARE the fastest


http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/02q3/020930/index.html

Linkified for the lazy.

Now why couldn't I find that yesterday - that's the exact article I was referring to in my last post...

 

[Dulanic]

Originally posted by: rogue1979
Dump it and get XP. It's faster in newer games and you will likely run into less problems.

While WinXP can load most games faster, countless benchmarks tests have proven WinXP does not play games faster than Win98. Actually, when taking into account a wide variety of popular gaming titles, both old and new, Win98SE is still arguably the fastest OS for games. For server use or someone that leaves there computer on 24/7, the NT kernel is more stable. For most of us that turn their PC on and off several times a day, there is no advantage in stability over a properly set up Win98 OS.

WinXP can does some things better and faster than Win98. But for someone like me who uses their computer for gaming, surfing the web, light desktop work, printing, and burning CD's, there is no reason to upgrade. I would venture to guess the majority of people have the same needs.

Your living in the past. The only reason 98 USED to be the fastest was because companies hadnt had time to optimize drivers for the NT Kernel (2K and XP) but they have had plenty of time now and now games run just as fast, and some faster on 2K and XP, but the difference is so small its not worth talking about.

 

[rogue1979]

What is so bad about living in the past?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

btw, saying that win98 is as stable as XP is just silly. I agree that it is "fine" for the majority of users, it is in no way as stable as XP in any way shape or form. I haven't missed 9x in well over 2 years, not one bit.

There a quite a few "tweaks" to enhance Win98 performance and stability. I can't comment too much about the WinXP stability since I am not using it. But I can tell you this. I have six machines running in the house and they rarely have any Windows freezes, lockups, blue screens or problems of any kind. One or two problems a month for all of them combined at the most, probably less than that. Four of them arre heavily overclocked and used constantly for games, web surfing and multi-tasking, I don't see how you can any get more stable than that.

Like I said, Win98 has to be properly set up and maintained. When I first started using it I had a few stability issues like many people have complained about. I believe driver support has improved to near perfection as well as the tweaks that are now commonly available. I also have discovered that using an older version of Nortons (4.0) with a minimum install keeps everything running smoothly indefinately. Let's not forget one of the most important roles of an OS that Win98 is the undisputed master. Compatibility!

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: rogue1979
What is so bad about living in the past?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

btw, saying that win98 is as stable as XP is just silly. I agree that it is "fine" for the majority of users, it is in no way as stable as XP in any way shape or form. I haven't missed 9x in well over 2 years, not one bit.

There a quite a few "tweaks" to enhance Win98 performance and stability. I can't comment too much about the WinXP stability since I am not using it. But I can tell you this. I have six machines running in the house and they rarely have any Windows freezes, lockups, blue screens or problems of any kind. One or two problems a month for all of them combined at the most, probably less than that. Four of them arre heavily overclocked and used constantly for games, web surfing and multi-tasking, I don't see how you can any get more stable than that.

Like I said, Win98 has to be properly set up and maintained. When I first started using it I had a few stability issues like many people have complained about. I believe driver support has improved to near perfection as well as the tweaks that are now commonly available. I also have discovered that using an older version of Nortons (4.0) with a minimum install keeps everything running smoothly indefinately. Let's not forget one of the most important roles of an OS that Win98 is the undisputed master. Compatibility!

Well said.... and even better. How about a dual boot setup?? I have it because my wife's prefered webcam works only in 98..... not to mention that some other hardware I use is the same case.

 

[rbV5]

of the most important roles of an OS that Win98 is the undisputed master. Compatibility!

Maybe "DOS" compatability, but I've more graphic and audio applications that run only on a NT kernel or require working with large files over 4GB (NTFS only there), and since giving up on DN3D <sniff>, NONE that require DOS...so compatability depends on the user, but I'd have to give XP the undisputed king of "modern" OS compatability by a large margin.

 

[The_Lurker]

I've used every Windows GUI interfaced OS out there with the exception of Windows 3.x series and i must say that Windows XP and Windows 2k are the most stable. I've never (to the best of my recollection) had them crash, hard lock, or BSOD on me w/ the exception of OC testing (if you oc, it's bound to crash at some point ). I also have had few infinite loop problems with Mozilla but that's Alpha software and is a known bug. Of course, all it did was crash into the tray, the OS still ran fine. However, i definately can't say the same about Win 95, 98, or 98SE, or ME.

As for not supporting, well, they answered in the above post