Microsoft ending support for Windows 98/ME

[JASANITY]

So I gotta ask the question, who still actually uses these old OS's?

 

[spherrod]

Where's Link19? I know a few people still using 98 - a garage I support can't upgrade as their Parts database will not work correctly on 2000 or XP and the company that supplied it went bust. It's far more efficient for them to keep running 98 rather than pay for the application to be redeveloped.

 

[imported_Kiwi]

For stuff like reading forum traffic on the 'net, I prefer Win98se because I can run without near as much constant abuse from the malcontents writing assorted Malware. The fact that I'm in a neighborhood that has only a single fiber optic cable in place so far means there is no competition and thus broadband is seriously overpriced until another supplier brings in a fiber link. Win98 is probably better for dial-up, although I know it's worse for broadband . .

My "business" OS is W2K. The only thing I've used XP for is some gaming. I don't like it much at all, but I am possibly going to use it somewhat more, if I do like Oblivion, and if that one doesn't run decently in W2K.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: spherrod
Where's Link19? I know a few people still using 98 - a garage I support can't upgrade as their Parts database will not work correctly on 2000 or XP and the company that supplied it went bust. It's far more efficient for them to keep running 98 rather than pay for the application to be redeveloped.

VMware to the rescue

 

[ForumMaster]

i used w2k for a long time. got to love rock hard stability! i then moved on to xp in my next upgrade. my gramp had windows ME and it was SSSOOOO slow! i was really happy when he finally baught a new computer.

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: spherrod
Where's Link19? I know a few people still using 98 - a garage I support can't upgrade as their Parts database will not work correctly on 2000 or XP and the company that supplied it went bust. It's far more efficient for them to keep running 98 rather than pay for the application to be redeveloped.

VMware to the rescue

well, the machine only has 128Mb Ram - it would be cheap to upgrade this but they see no need as everything works as they want it to.

But when I worked at LEGO we moved legacy 98 systems to VMWare - it's a great platform

 

[bsobel]

well, the machine only has 128Mb Ram - it would be cheap to upgrade this but they see no need as everything works as they want it to.

I was actually thinking new machine with the 98 code running in a vm. The reason for them to do it is to actually have a backup of that environment. When that eventually crashes they might have more trouble getting it back running than booting up a backup vm image.... (IMHO)

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: bsobel

well, the machine only has 128Mb Ram - it would be cheap to upgrade this but they see no need as everything works as they want it to.

I was actually thinking new machine with the 98 code running in a vm. The reason for them to do it is to actually have a backup of that environment. When that eventually crashes they might have more trouble getting it back running than booting up a backup vm image.... (IMHO)

nice idea, it's worth considering as and when they have the funds :beer:

 

[Jeff7]

Wow, out of the hits on my website, less than 2% show a user agent of Win98. Most show "WinNT 5.0" or "WinNT5.1" - so WinXP I guess.
Also looks like about 10% are Firefox users.

I guess it's just one of those things - old products eventually lose support.

 

[Link19]

Here I am. I am awaiting for support to end for those POS opertaing systems. I wish MS would have ended support for them in early 2004 like they originall planned.

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: Link19
Here I am. I am awaiting for support to end for those POS opertaing systems. I wish MS would have ended support for them in early 2004 like they originall planned.

just wondering - are you ever able to refer to these operating systems without using the POS term? Not that I'm a particular fan of them really.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: Link19
Here I am. I am awaiting for support to end for those POS opertaing systems. I wish MS would have ended support for them in early 2004 like they originall planned.

just wondering - are you ever able to refer to these operating systems without using the POS term? Not that I'm a particular fan of them really.

Yes I can, but I hate them so much that I feel the need to call them POS every time I refer to them. I just cringe in disgust every time I encounter someone wanting to run those opertaing systems for the sole purpose of running software produced in the last four years on hardware produced in the last four years!!

It is flat out stupid and ignorant for somone to have constructed a system back in 2002 to present, and use it for running software made in the year 2002 to present, and run POS Windows 98/ME on it for that purpose.

There was flat out NO reason what so ever to be using Windows 98/ME except for the need to run legacy applications that flat out won't run and/or run extremely poorly in Windows 2000/XP, and there is no work around no matter what you try to get them to run in a Virtual machine on 2K/XP, Linux or any other true 32-bit OS for that matter.

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: Link19
Here I am. I am awaiting for support to end for those POS opertaing systems. I wish MS would have ended support for them in early 2004 like they originall planned.

just wondering - are you ever able to refer to these operating systems without using the POS term? Not that I'm a particular fan of them really.

Yes I can, but I hate them so much that I feel the need to call them POS.

fair enough

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: Link19
Here I am. I am awaiting for support to end for those POS opertaing systems. I wish MS would have ended support for them in early 2004 like they originall planned.

just wondering - are you ever able to refer to these operating systems without using the POS term? Not that I'm a particular fan of them really.

Yes I can, but I hate them so much that I feel the need to call them POS.

oh boy.... I'm sure when Windows 98 was out, you were running it .. so stop bitching about it..
Microsoft had to advance their operating systems over time.. its not going to happen overnight..
When Windows 98 was the operating system of choice in its day, it was great for what we had.. you either ran it, or you opted for Linux.. the same as it is today..
Windows XP is leaps and bounds better than Windows 98..especially when XP was released.. but now.. numerous flaws have been exposed from the Windows XP operating system... I would be willing to bet that there are more flaws with Windows XP today, than there was with Windows 98 in its time.. so, based on that alone, today we could call Windows XP a POS operating system.. since you like to use the term quite alot in these forums..

 

[zbalat]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: Link19
Here I am. I am awaiting for support to end for those POS opertaing systems. I wish MS would have ended support for them in early 2004 like they originall planned.

just wondering - are you ever able to refer to these operating systems without using the POS term? Not that I'm a particular fan of them really.

Yes I can, but I hate them so much that I feel the need to call them POS every time I refer to them. I just cringe in disgust every time I encounter someone wanting to run those opertaing systems for the sole purpose of running software produced in the last four years on hardware produced in the last four years!!

It is flat out stupid and ignorant for somone to have constructed a system back in 2002 to present, and use it for running software made in the year 2002 to present, and run POS Windows 98/ME on it for that purpose.

There was flat out NO reason what so ever to be using Windows 98/ME except for the need to run legacy applications that flat out won't run and/or run extremely poorly in Windows 2000/XP, and there is no work around no matter what you try to get them to run in a Virtual machine on 2K/XP, Linux or any other true 32-bit OS for that matter.

Hey Link,

There are actually a lot of people that don't have the cash or need to update/upgrade their computers every four years so they aren't really wanting to run a POS OS but actually have no choice or simply do not care because it still suits them fine.

98 and Me(ugh) are fine for the average user (internet, IM and word processing..etc) and believe it or not, there are a sh!tload of people, even on this forum, to which that is the extent of their computer use.

Calling anyone ignorant for using ANY product no matter how antiquated it is in your eyes is plain and simply asshatted and quite frankly you should shut your pie hole.

EDIT: Name calling deleted

 

[Cdeck]

i would be surprised if anyone on a gaming site would select windows98. steam surveys have win98 at 0.03%. before christmas, I would have had to select win98 but i gave the wife and kids 3700+ san diego comps for xmas with ubuntu intalled. they love it. for three months now, i never had to image any drive in the house. before xmas, i was averaging about one drive per month using ms os's.

i primarily use suse and when i do occasionally play a game (once per week), i'll bootup to winxp.

 

[mechBgon]

Win98 runs Mechwarrior2, Mechwarrior2 Mercenaries, and Descent 1 & 2

 

[DBSX]

Win98 runs Mechwarrior2, Mechwarrior2 Mercenaries, and Descent 1 & 2

Awesome games, all of them.

My site shows 0.13% for 98SE and 0.11 for Windows 95(!)
And 16.47% are firefox users

\Dan

 

[Noema]

My parents have an old Toshiba Laptop, Pentium III with 64 megs of RAM.

So WinXP and possibly even 2000 are out of the question. It came with Win98SE and that's its current OS.

I keep it clean of Malware everytime I visit them and I installed Firefox as well.

It runs suprisingly well and its very stable for having a Win9x OS.

My dad's main PC is an early P4 (1.4GHz) with 128 RDRAM. It has Win Me as OS and it also runs well. It's not as stable as the toshiba and it does crash or BSOD every couple of days.

I'll probably install W2000 on it as soon as I get more RAM for it.

At home I have XPSP2. I am very happy with it, as it's quite robust. It's a 1 year install and it's as stable as the first day.

In fact my only BSOD with it was due to a defective CD that got stuck and crashed the whole thing.

 

[Link19]

Hey Link,

There are actually a lot of people that don't have the cash or need to update/upgrade their computers every four years so they aren't really wanting to run a POS OS but actually have no choice or simply do not care because it still suits them fine.

98 and Me(ugh) are fine for the average user (internet, IM and word processing..etc) and believe it or not, there are a sh!tload of people, even on this forum, to which that is the extent of their computer use.

Calling anyone ignorant for using ANY product no matter how antiquated it is in your eyes is plain and simply asshatted and quite frankly you should shut your pie hole.

I don't refer to anyone uses them as ignorant. I am only referring to those who decide to use POS Windows 98/ME on a new system for running modern software that are ignorant. When I say new system, I mean a system built in the year 2002 or later designed to multi task and run software released in the year 2002 to present. You are right that not eveyrone can afford to buy the newest stuff. But people who upgrade their hardware certainly can easily afford to upgrade an OS.

But all in all, I think Windows 9X is a pile of crap. I don't bash older opertaing systems. I think older operating systems are ok as long as they aren't the DOS based versions of Windows. I am just making a compromise by saying that those who use it on old systems for running old software I'm ok with. But in NO WAY is Windows 9X acceptable for the sole purpose of running any software on any new hardware produced in the timeframe Windows XP was released to present.

 

[stash]

There should be a moratorium on 9x threads so that we wouldn't need to be subjected to all the bold formatting.

 

[Jeff7]

98 and Me(ugh) are fine for the average user (internet, IM and word processing..etc) and believe it or not, there are a sh!tload of people, even on this forum, to which that is the extent of their computer use.

Or else they just haven't used WinXP enough to like it. A friend of mine moved to WinXP recently from Win98SE, which I view as the best of the 9x OSes. He loves XP. Never wants to use 98 again.

But of course, as you say, some people....well some people probably couldn't even tell the difference. Set WinXP to Classic Start Menu, and tweak the startup splash screen to say Win98, and they'd never know the difference. For them, there's no need to change.

 

[networkman]

I have some radio-astronomy programs that still require access to a DOS shell/window for some portions to run correctly, thus my need to still use Win98, but those are speciality scenarios.

My gaming and productivity rigs are all either Win2K or WinXP Pro.

 

[JASANITY]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Wow, out of the hits on my website, less than 2% show a user agent of Win98. Most show "WinNT 5.0" or "WinNT5.1" - so WinXP I guess.
Also looks like about 10% are Firefox users.

I guess it's just one of those things - old products eventually lose support.

yeah, looks like no one uses windows 98 or ME anymore

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: stash
There should be a moratorium on 9x threads so that we wouldn't need to be subjected to all the bold formatting.

agreed :beer: