Microsoft ending support for Windows 98/ME

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: 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.

Does DOXBOX work for them?

 

[jazzboy]

I used to dual-boot Win98se and WinXP to play some older games but I don't play them anymore so it's just WinXP now.

I would say that whilst windows 95 was good for its time, windows 98/me should never have been developed and MS should of gone with a Windows NT based consumer windows instead (of course which they finally have now).

 

[spike spiegal]

I'm sure when Windows 98 was out, you were running it .. so stop bitching about it..

Uh, I was running NT 3.51 Server, and using to run an entire lab along with Photoshop. This was well before Windows 95 OSR3 (Win98) hit the streets. Even as a desktop, NT 3.51 was a lightyear ahead of ME in terms of stability.

NT 3.5x, NT4, Windows 2000, and XP all share a similiar kernel while the Win95 family died (thank god) at ME. So, to imply that Win98 was the only game in town when it wasn't is a lie.

The biggest advantage with NT 3.51 (that MS wrecked with NT 4.0) is the video subsystem didn't have access to Ring(0), so faulty Direct X commands couldn't lock your system like they do in XP and Windows 2000. Microsoft *finally* fixed that debacle with Server 2003.

Many of you claiming you can't run legacy apps on Win2k or XP don't have your NTVDM system variables set up right. While I can't get all DOS/Win95 (is there really a difference?) apps to work on XP/Win2K, I can get most of them.

In other respects Microsoft's biggest FUBAR wasn't killing off the Win95/98 Kernel soo enough because all it did was slow down the evolution of the much superior NT4 to Win2k/XP migration. I figure all foot dragging MS did with Win98 and ME put Windows development behind by 3-4 years.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: spike spiegal

I'm sure when Windows 98 was out, you were running it .. so stop bitching about it..

Uh, I was running NT 3.51 Server, and using to run an entire lab along with Photoshop. This was well before Windows 95 OSR3 (Win98) hit the streets. Even as a desktop, NT 3.51 was a lightyear ahead of ME in terms of stability.

NT 3.5x, NT4, Windows 2000, and XP all share a similiar kernel while the Win95 family died (thank god) at ME. So, to imply that Win98 was the only game in town when it wasn't is a lie.

The biggest advantage with NT 3.51 (that MS wrecked with NT 4.0) is the video subsystem didn't have access to Ring(0), so faulty Direct X commands couldn't lock your system like they do in XP and Windows 2000. Microsoft *finally* fixed that debacle with Server 2003.

Many of you claiming you can't run legacy apps on Win2k or XP don't have your NTVDM system variables set up right. While I can't get all DOS/Win95 (is there really a difference?) apps to work on XP/Win2K, I can get most of them.

In other respects Microsoft's biggest FUBAR wasn't killing off the Win95/98 Kernel soo enough because all it did was slow down the evolution of the much superior NT4 to Win2k/XP migration. I figure all foot dragging MS did with Win98 and ME put Windows development behind by 3-4 years.

Well said!! I totally agree!! Finally someone says it exactly right!! Windows NT 3.1 was light years ahead of POS Windows 98/ME!!

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: spike spiegal

I'm sure when Windows 98 was out, you were running it .. so stop bitching about it..

Uh, I was running NT 3.51 Server, and using to run an entire lab along with Photoshop. This was well before Windows 95 OSR3 (Win98) hit the streets. Even as a desktop, NT 3.51 was a lightyear ahead of ME in terms of stability.

NT 3.5x, NT4, Windows 2000, and XP all share a similiar kernel while the Win95 family died (thank god) at ME. So, to imply that Win98 was the only game in town when it wasn't is a lie.

The biggest advantage with NT 3.51 (that MS wrecked with NT 4.0) is the video subsystem didn't have access to Ring(0), so faulty Direct X commands couldn't lock your system like they do in XP and Windows 2000. Microsoft *finally* fixed that debacle with Server 2003.

Many of you claiming you can't run legacy apps on Win2k or XP don't have your NTVDM system variables set up right. While I can't get all DOS/Win95 (is there really a difference?) apps to work on XP/Win2K, I can get most of them.

In other respects Microsoft's biggest FUBAR wasn't killing off the Win95/98 Kernel soo enough because all it did was slow down the evolution of the much superior NT4 to Win2k/XP migration. I figure all foot dragging MS did with Win98 and ME put Windows development behind by 3-4 years.

Well said!! I totally agree!! Finally someone says it exactly right!! Windows NT 3.1 was light years ahead of POS Windows 98/ME!!

oh my...
NT and 9X were marketed toward two totally different markets...
NT was initially targeted toward business users.. 9X series was mainly a home user operating system...

As I asked earlier, Link19.. could you care to enlighten us with why is Windows 98 such a POS operating system?

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: spike spiegal

I'm sure when Windows 98 was out, you were running it .. so stop bitching about it..

Uh, I was running NT 3.51 Server, and using to run an entire lab along with Photoshop. This was well before Windows 95 OSR3 (Win98) hit the streets. Even as a desktop, NT 3.51 was a lightyear ahead of ME in terms of stability.

NT 3.5x, NT4, Windows 2000, and XP all share a similiar kernel while the Win95 family died (thank god) at ME. So, to imply that Win98 was the only game in town when it wasn't is a lie.

The biggest advantage with NT 3.51 (that MS wrecked with NT 4.0) is the video subsystem didn't have access to Ring(0), so faulty Direct X commands couldn't lock your system like they do in XP and Windows 2000. Microsoft *finally* fixed that debacle with Server 2003.

Many of you claiming you can't run legacy apps on Win2k or XP don't have your NTVDM system variables set up right. While I can't get all DOS/Win95 (is there really a difference?) apps to work on XP/Win2K, I can get most of them.

In other respects Microsoft's biggest FUBAR wasn't killing off the Win95/98 Kernel soo enough because all it did was slow down the evolution of the much superior NT4 to Win2k/XP migration. I figure all foot dragging MS did with Win98 and ME put Windows development behind by 3-4 years.

Well said!! I totally agree!! Finally someone says it exactly right!! Windows NT 3.1 was light years ahead of POS Windows 98/ME!!

oh my...
NT and 9X were marketed toward two totally different markets...
NT was initially targeted toward business users.. 9X series was mainly a home user operating system...

As I asked earlier, Link19.. could you care to enlighten us with why is Windows 98 such a POS operating system?

Windows 98 is such a POS opertaing system because it is not a true 32-bit OS. It is a native 16-bit OS with 32-bit extensions. It is not what a modern multi taksing OS should have been in the mid to late 1990s. It is based on a legacy, anceint 16-bit DOS which had a 640KB memory limit. A true 32-bit OS shopuld have been installed on widely used on home computers purchased the last 10 years. Not some Windows manager on top of 16-bit DOS with 32-bit extensions wihich is all POS Windows 98/ME were.

 

[spyordie007]

NT and 9X were marketed toward two totally different markets...
NT was initially targeted toward business users.. 9X series was mainly a home user operating system...

I think it's important to add that they weren?t very compatible; a lot of software flat-out wouldn?t run under NT.

NT of course was a far superior platform, I eventually ended up dual-booting NT and 98 so that I could run a couple of applications that wouldn?t run under NT and play games.

As I asked earlier, Link19.. could you care to enlighten us with why is Windows 98 such a POS operating system?

Windows 98 was mediocre at best even at the time of its release. There are a lot of documented ?issues? with 9x such as Memory Management and Stability problems. Calling it a ?POS? may be a little on the extreme side, but not by much?

 

[pkme2]

Win 98 SE was a very stable system for most users, like Win XP Pro today. Win ME was a definite mistake and Win x64 may be headed that way too. With the upcoming intro of Win Vista next Jan for the general public, Win 64 may fall by the wayside.
Vista's compatibility with 32bit and 64bit will make it more desireable to most users. Well, we have to wait and see.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: pkme2
Win 98 SE was a very stable system for most users, like Win XP Pro today.

Hahahahahahahahaha.... <falls over with sides aching>

Even with high-quality drives and without carelessly written applications installed, Windows 98 couldn't run for any extended period of time without "issues" of some sort or another cropping up. Could Windows 98 run for a month or more under a similar load to what modern Windows XP workstations handle without problems? Absolutely not!

Win ME was a definite mistake

Yup

and Win x64 may be headed that way too.

Putting those two in the same sentence is a very idiotic thing to do. There is absolutely no comparsion; Windows XP x64 has its issues with driver support, but none of those relate to the many more issues that WinME had.

With the upcoming intro of Win Vista next Jan for the general public, Win 64 may fall by the wayside. Vista's compatibility with 32bit and 64bit will make it more desireable to most users. Well, we have to wait and see.

That is the only thing I can agree with. Vista's x64 support will likely be better, but we will have to wait and see.

 

[spyordie007]

The only "issue" with Win XP x64 is lack of native drivers and software. The OS itself is solid. Comparing it to Win Me is an outrage.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
The only "issue" with Win XP x64 is lack of native drivers and software. The OS itself is solid. Comparing it to Win Me is an outrage.

Well said. Windows XP x64 is a very good OS. We just need all hardware makers to start wiriting native drivers for it.

 

[CrispyFried]

still running 98se and win me on 2 laptops and 2 desktops, including the laptop Im typing this on. why would I want to spend over $250 to update them when they run fine for what we use them for. that would be the ultimate in wasting money..

I use XP sp2 for the main desktop but the older OSes are fine if you dont ask too much of them. plus the older games run better on the older OSes.

 

[Missing Ghost]

I think that once Vista will be released, it will be easier to find drivers and softwares for winxp64

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: spike spiegal

I'm sure when Windows 98 was out, you were running it .. so stop bitching about it..

Uh, I was running NT 3.51 Server, and using to run an entire lab along with Photoshop. This was well before Windows 95 OSR3 (Win98) hit the streets. Even as a desktop, NT 3.51 was a lightyear ahead of ME in terms of stability.

NT 3.5x, NT4, Windows 2000, and XP all share a similiar kernel while the Win95 family died (thank god) at ME. So, to imply that Win98 was the only game in town when it wasn't is a lie.

The biggest advantage with NT 3.51 (that MS wrecked with NT 4.0) is the video subsystem didn't have access to Ring(0), so faulty Direct X commands couldn't lock your system like they do in XP and Windows 2000. Microsoft *finally* fixed that debacle with Server 2003.

Many of you claiming you can't run legacy apps on Win2k or XP don't have your NTVDM system variables set up right. While I can't get all DOS/Win95 (is there really a difference?) apps to work on XP/Win2K, I can get most of them.

In other respects Microsoft's biggest FUBAR wasn't killing off the Win95/98 Kernel soo enough because all it did was slow down the evolution of the much superior NT4 to Win2k/XP migration. I figure all foot dragging MS did with Win98 and ME put Windows development behind by 3-4 years.

Well said!! I totally agree!! Finally someone says it exactly right!! Windows NT 3.1 was light years ahead of POS Windows 98/ME!!

oh my...
NT and 9X were marketed toward two totally different markets...
NT was initially targeted toward business users.. 9X series was mainly a home user operating system...

As I asked earlier, Link19.. could you care to enlighten us with why is Windows 98 such a POS operating system?

Windows 98 is such a POS opertaing system because it is not a true 32-bit OS. It is a native 16-bit OS with 32-bit extensions. It is not what a modern multi taksing OS should have been in the mid to late 1990s. It is based on a legacy, anceint 16-bit DOS which had a 640KB memory limit. A true 32-bit OS shopuld have been installed on widely used on home computers purchased the last 10 years. Not some Windows manager on top of 16-bit DOS with 32-bit extensions wihich is all POS Windows 98/ME were.

Damn.... what did windows 98/ME do to you? Wreck your enitre life or somthing? Reading your posts you really seem to have a deep hatred for it. I remember another similar thread where you tore the old DOS based os's to pieces too.

Anyways what i was originally gonna say was, i saw a cash machine thing running windows 95. So it has its uses also an internet phone booth with windows 98.

 

[pkme2]

Remember that I mentioned it in my previous thread that Windows 64 may fade when Windows Vista comes on the scene. Why would MS support two 64bit programs when Vista can handle 32bit and 64bit at the same time? Would you, if you were in the position that MS will soon be? Well, we shall see........

 

[bjc112]

IF you still use 95/98 for your PRIMARY machine.. There isn't any hope left.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: pkme2
Remember that I mentioned it in my previous thread that Windows 64 may fade when Windows Vista comes on the scene. Why would MS support two 64bit programs when Vista can handle 32bit and 64bit at the same time? Would you, if you were in the position that MS will soon be? Well, we shall see........

You aren't making sense, and besides, some of us have no clue about this "previous thread" of yours, so that reference isn't terribly useful. Vista will have 32 bit and 64 bit editions, just like XP, and there will be people on both 32 bit and 64 bit sides of the camp who won't move to Vista for various reasons, at least for some time. MS will continue to support XP for a little while after the release of Vista, and XP x64 is newer than normal XP, so it will be supported at least as long (supported in the sense of security updates, etc.). Your speculation about the impending death (or whatever it is you're predicting) of XP x64 seems rather pointless.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: bjc112
IF you still use 95/98 for your PRIMARY machine.. There isn't any hope left.

Good. That is how I wanted it to be years ago. In NO way are POS Windows 98/ME acceptable opertaing systems for running today's software on today's hardware. I would say the same thing as far back as 2002 becaudse that is how I weished it would have been.

 

[bunbun]

I feel kinda silly saying this but linux would fix all of the problems mentioned here (runs on almost any hardware and is incredibly stable).
Sorry for that but had to say it...

Bunbun

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: bunbun
I feel kinda silly saying this but linux would fix all of the problems mentioned here (runs on almost any hardware and is incredibly stable).
Sorry for that but had to say it...

Bunbun

I agree, most current distros of linux are much better than win 9x.

 

[Bassyhead]

I have a pentium 166MHz laptop still that runs 98SE :Q

 

[Philippine Mango]

How old is link19 anyways?

 

[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:

 

[MadRat]

you should try CALMIRA Xp on that Windows 3.1 install. It will look alot like XP afterwards.

 

[Boo Boo]

i have 4 of them loaded up on my virtual drive and play havoc with the kids in chat