Microsoft ending support for Windows 98/ME

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
How old is link19 anyways?

Hey link19, guess what? I have a machine with windows 3.1 running on it? Goanna flame me? It's a Pentium 166, running windows 3.1, just cause I thought it would be fun, which it was indeed "fun". Also, I've got another machine with a PII 300, running 95 OSR2, 2 machines running Windows 98SE and guess what? I just installed windows 98se about 4 hours ago! And because I desperately want to play NFS4 (not the user although I'm sure thats where he thought of the screen name) I'm thinking of dual booting Windows 98SE with XP, lets just say the machine was made only 2 years ago..

No need to call names. There are a lot of us that would like to see Win 9x dissapear. Link is just passionate.

 

[MadRat]

And some of us would of rather seen some elbow grease applied to a good consumer OS rather that forcing a farce (XP Home) on the user.

 

[0roo0roo]

if your comp is that old or your that cheap, u are better off with linux. so no big thing at all.

 

[jazzboy]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
Hey link19, guess what? I have a machine with windows 3.1 running on it? Goanna flame me? It's a Pentium 166, running windows 3.1, just cause I thought it would be fun, which it was indeed "fun". Also, I've got another machine with a PII 300, running 95 OSR2, 2 machines running Windows 98SE and guess what? I just installed windows 98se about 4 hours ago! And because I desperately want to play NFS4 (not the user although I'm sure thats where he thought of the screen name) I'm thinking of dual booting Windows 98SE with XP, lets just say the machine was made only 2 years ago..

Cheers!
:beer:

As far as I remember NFS4 installs and runs fine on my windows XP machine without any patches. If you're having problems with graphics/frame rates, then you may find that updating your d3da.dll file in the main NFS4 folder with the version from NFS5 (porsche) might work - or of course there's software mode lol.

Great game though.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
Hey link19, guess what? I have a machine with windows 3.1 running on it? Goanna flame me? It's a Pentium 166, running windows 3.1, just cause I thought it would be fun, which it was indeed "fun". Also, I've got another machine with a PII 300, running 95 OSR2, 2 machines running Windows 98SE and guess what? I just installed windows 98se about 4 hours ago! And because I desperately want to play NFS4 (not the user although I'm sure thats where he thought of the screen name) I'm thinking of dual booting Windows 98SE with XP, lets just say the machine was made only 2 years ago..

Cheers!
:beer:

No, I am not going to flame you. The only people that are being ridiculous are the ones who use POS Windows 98/ME for the sole purpose of running fully compatible Windows 2000/XP/2003 software on fully compatible Windows 2000/XP/2003 hardware. That is because there is FLAT out NO reaosn to use those POS operating systems for running software and hardware that is fully compatible with Windows 2000/XP/2003.

And because of the ignorant Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers who lived in this fantasy world where they blindly believed that Windows 98SE was by far the best OS Microsoft ever released who continued to insist on using POS Windows 98/ME even for running modern software on modern hardware which has only made the software and hardware manufacturers support POS Windows 98/ME for way too long which has only hurt performance and stability the last few years.

It would have been much better if new software was designed for Windows 2000/XP only the last few years.

It is understandable if someone runs them because they want to play an old game that flat out won't work in Windows 2000/XP/2003 no matter what you try to get it to run.

However, IN NO WAY should anyone be using POS Windows 98/ME for the sole purpose of running fully compatible Windows 2000/XP/2003 software on fully compatible Windows 2000/XP/2003 hardware.

 

[jazzboy]

Link 19, I think we get the message now that you don't like Windows 98/ME so please can you stop calling it "POS" 98/ME - it does get rather annoying.

 

[MadRat]

And his whole argument is a POS juvenile rant.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: MadRat
And his whole argument is a POS juvenile rant.

No it is not. Windows 9X is a POS OS.

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: MadRat
And his whole argument is a POS juvenile rant.

No it is not. Windows 9X is a POS OS.

Thats your opinion.

Windows 98 brought the advancement of DirectX. Windows NT 4.0 only supported up to DirectX 3. If you wanted to game, you had to run Windows 98, there was no getting around it. Most users chose to dual boot Windows NT and Windows 98 for optimal use of their systems. To say that Windows 98 is a "POS" operating system as you frequently call it, is absolutely absurd. I guess Windows 1.0 , Windows 3.0, and Windows 3.11 were "POS's" too, right?

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: MadRat
And his whole argument is a POS juvenile rant.

No it is not. Windows 9X is a POS OS.

If this statement is qualified I could go along with it.

"Compared to Windows XP Pro Windows 9x is a POS"

And of course it's opinion, what do you think 90+% of what you read here is?

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: MadRat
And his whole argument is a POS juvenile rant.

No it is not. Windows 9X is a POS OS.

If this statement is qualified I could go along with it.

"Compared to Windows XP Pro Windows 9x is a POS"

And of course it's opinion, what do you think 90+% of what you read here is?

I agree. I would have to add that:

Compared to Windows NT/2000/XP/2003, Linux, BSD, OS/2 WARP, Solaris, Unix variants, and MAC OS X, Windows 9X is a POS operating system.

I think 90+% of what I read here is Windows XP users. Is that what you meant?

 

[spyordie007]

I think 90+% of what I read here is Windows XP users. Is that what you meant?

No I meant that 90+% of what is posted on AT Forums is opinion.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

I think 90+% of what I read here is Windows XP users. Is that what you meant?

No I meant that 90+% of what is posted on AT Forums is opinion.

Oh I see.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: JASANITY
So I gotta ask the question, who still actually uses these old OS's?

Answer - people who run necessary software that will not work under 2000/XP. Heck, where I worked there is a machine still running MS-DOS 6.22 because the accounting software did not run properly from even Win98.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: MadRat
And his whole argument is a POS juvenile rant.

No it is not. Windows 9X is a POS OS.

Thats your opinion.

Windows 98 brought the advancement of DirectX. Windows NT 4.0 only supported up to DirectX 3. If you wanted to game, you had to run Windows 98, there was no getting around it. Most users chose to dual boot Windows NT and Windows 98 for optimal use of their systems. To say that Windows 98 is a "POS" operating system as you frequently call it, is absolutely absurd. I guess Windows 1.0 , Windows 3.0, and Windows 3.11 were "POS's" too, right?

Any version of a Microsoft Windows OS not based on Windows NT was a POS OS. The reason for that is because they are not true 32-bit operating systems. So, yes, that means Windows 1.0 to 3.11 were also POS operating systems. I am not referring to the GUI or interface of them. I am referring to the architecture of all DOS based versions of Windows that is a POS.


Actually, Windows 1.0 to 3.11 were ok for 16-bit computing. WIndows 9X was probbaly the best 16-bit OS one could use. However for 32-bit computing, WIndows 9X does NOT belong in that camp and was a complete and utter POS.

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: MadRat
And his whole argument is a POS juvenile rant.

No it is not. Windows 9X is a POS OS.

Thats your opinion.

Windows 98 brought the advancement of DirectX. Windows NT 4.0 only supported up to DirectX 3. If you wanted to game, you had to run Windows 98, there was no getting around it. Most users chose to dual boot Windows NT and Windows 98 for optimal use of their systems. To say that Windows 98 is a "POS" operating system as you frequently call it, is absolutely absurd. I guess Windows 1.0 , Windows 3.0, and Windows 3.11 were "POS's" too, right?

Any version of a Microsoft Windows OS not based on Windows NT was a POS OS. The reason for that is because they are not true 32-bit operating systems. So, yes, that means Windows 1.0 to 3.11 were also POS operating systems. I am not referring to the GUI or interface of them. I am referring to the architecture of all DOS based versions of Windows that is a POS.


Actually, Windows 1.0 to 3.11 were ok for 16-bit computing. WIndows 9X was probbaly the best 16-bit OS one could use. However for 32-bit computing, WIndows 9X does NOT belong in that camp and was a complete and utter POS.

Is this all that you can come up with for a basis on why Windows 98 is an "utter POS" ?

From my research, Windows 98 was NEVER touted as being a 32-bit operating system to begin with. It offered the possibility of running 32-bit applications; had a 32-bit mode "protected" kernel running on top of 16-bit DOS, with 32-bit file access, long filename support, FAT32 support, 32-bit driver support, etc, etc, etc..
Microsoft claims it is a 32-bit operating system, just because Windows 98 would run without installing it on top of an existing DOS installation.

Your "Windows 98 is not a 32-bit operating system" gibberish, as you've stated numerous times doesn't make Windows 98 the "POS" operating system that you want others to believe. Come up with something new besides the 16-bit / 32-bit garbage.

 

[networkman]

Whether it's a "POS" or not, I will continue to use Win9x for my radio-astronomy programs that do not run under Win2k/XP(yes, even tested with compatibility mode) because it works for what I need it to do. On top of that, all of my Win9x licenses are legit so I have no reason not to use them.

FWIW, I do not expect any further support from Microsoft.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: MadRat
And his whole argument is a POS juvenile rant.

No it is not. Windows 9X is a POS OS.

Thats your opinion.

Windows 98 brought the advancement of DirectX. Windows NT 4.0 only supported up to DirectX 3. If you wanted to game, you had to run Windows 98, there was no getting around it. Most users chose to dual boot Windows NT and Windows 98 for optimal use of their systems. To say that Windows 98 is a "POS" operating system as you frequently call it, is absolutely absurd. I guess Windows 1.0 , Windows 3.0, and Windows 3.11 were "POS's" too, right?

Any version of a Microsoft Windows OS not based on Windows NT was a POS OS. The reason for that is because they are not true 32-bit operating systems. So, yes, that means Windows 1.0 to 3.11 were also POS operating systems. I am not referring to the GUI or interface of them. I am referring to the architecture of all DOS based versions of Windows that is a POS.


Actually, Windows 1.0 to 3.11 were ok for 16-bit computing. WIndows 9X was probbaly the best 16-bit OS one could use. However for 32-bit computing, WIndows 9X does NOT belong in that camp and was a complete and utter POS.

nt wasn't home user friendly. i had access to it and didn't bother. too easy to break where it wouldn't boot, just like win2k. more or less stable for work use,but home use win9x was just more convenient.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: MadRat
And his whole argument is a POS juvenile rant.

No it is not. Windows 9X is a POS OS.

Thats your opinion.

Windows 98 brought the advancement of DirectX. Windows NT 4.0 only supported up to DirectX 3. If you wanted to game, you had to run Windows 98, there was no getting around it. Most users chose to dual boot Windows NT and Windows 98 for optimal use of their systems. To say that Windows 98 is a "POS" operating system as you frequently call it, is absolutely absurd. I guess Windows 1.0 , Windows 3.0, and Windows 3.11 were "POS's" too, right?

Any version of a Microsoft Windows OS not based on Windows NT was a POS OS. The reason for that is because they are not true 32-bit operating systems. So, yes, that means Windows 1.0 to 3.11 were also POS operating systems. I am not referring to the GUI or interface of them. I am referring to the architecture of all DOS based versions of Windows that is a POS.


Actually, Windows 1.0 to 3.11 were ok for 16-bit computing. WIndows 9X was probbaly the best 16-bit OS one could use. However for 32-bit computing, WIndows 9X does NOT belong in that camp and was a complete and utter POS.

nt wasn't home user friendly. i had access to it and didn't bother. too easy to break where it wouldn't boot, just like win2k. more or less stable for work use,but home use win9x was just more convenient.

LKets put it this way. If it weren't for Microsoft's anti competitive practices in the market place, the whole home consumer market would have been using an OS far superior to anything Micro$oft had to offer the last 10 years. OS/2 WARP was a great OS, but didn't stand a chance all because of marketing failures.

 

[MadRat]

OS/2 WARP was not a consumer OS due to IBM's decisions. Take it up with IBM why it was such a loser in the desktop wars.

Otherwise your argument in regards to win95 is riddled with fallacy.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Ding dong the DOS is dead, the wicked DOS is dead!

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: MadRat
OS/2 WARP was not a consumer OS due to IBM's decisions. Take it up with IBM why it was such a loser in the desktop wars.

Otherwise your argument in regards to win95 is riddled with fallacy.

Even if it was a consumer OS, they still would have failed because they didn't have the control Micro$oft did. I have heard that IBM tried to market OS/2 by pre loaidng it on their PCs sold, but they failed because people were uninstalling OS/2 and installing DOS and Widnows 3.1 because they thought OS/2 wasn't any good.

EIther way, why didn't MS come out with a real 32-bit OS that was efficient back in the early 1990s? DIdn't Microsoft and IBM jointly develope OS/2, so wouldn't Microsoft have had licensing rights to the OS/2 code? So why didn't they design Windows from the OS/2 kernel and slap the Windows interface on it? Windows NT just so you know was not based on OS/2. Itr was based on VMS I believe.

Did Microsoft not really have the licensing rights to the OS/2 code?

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Ding dong the DOS is dead, the wicked DOS is dead!

Exactly!! The wicked Dirty Opertaing System is dead.

 

[skyking]

FWIW, I am still using DOS on voicemail systems, with total reliablility.
I just got the last win98 computer gone at one client, and another still has an old ME laptop that should just die soon I keep spilling coffee in the keyboard

Everything else is 2K or better.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: bsobel
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)

Either that, or use Ghost 2003 regularly to make backup images of a working install.

A couple of other bonuses with Win98: 1) no "activation" hassle. 2) Much easier to move a complete working installation between motherboards/computers. Can always drop down to using Int13h extensions for the HDs (aka "MS-DOS mode"), without fear of a BSOD from not having the proper IDE controller driver loaded as in W2K/XP.

The downside, and probably the strongest reason for running Win98 in a VM - the code is old and crufty, and tends to have strange issues from modern machines. (CPU too fast, too much RAM installed, etc.) Running it in a perhaps more-compatible VM could help with those limitations.

I really wish that MS would release the full set of QFEs for Win98(se), even the non-public ones, once they drop official support for it.

I kind of like MS's VirtualPC myself, haven't tried VMWare yet.