Microsoft will retire Windows 98 on January 16th

[Macro2]

98 prints large files much faster than 2000/XP. For that reason I still use 98 on a couple computers. Now they don't want to support it.
I won't say what I think about MS.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: Macro2
98 prints large files much faster than 2000/XP. For that reason I still use 98 on a couple computers. Now they don't want to support it.
I won't say what I think about MS.

Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to continue support for Win98? MS loses money in support.

 

[ceo2b]

I wonder if my computer can even handle XP without passing away. Its bad enough all the problems that come with win98se and it's inability to work with other programs. Not that I hate Windows, well I do hate IE.

 

[aswedc]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
the sick ones are the people who still run them...

Why shouldn't I? I've been using the Internet since my 486SX 25Mhz with Windows 3.1 and have never, ever, gotten a virus. The only Microsoft updates I ever install are for Internet Explorer and the only virus protection I use is my router not fowarding ports. AFAIK the only Windows viruses you can get without running a program or opening an attachment in Outlook Express only affect the NT codeline.

 

[Nothinman]

When did anyone say anything about viruses? The fact that Win9X has no RPC exploits available hardly makes up for the lack of real memory management, no SMP support, poor networking, no multi-user capabilities, POS filesystem, etc. I could probably go on but it's been so long since I've used Win9X I can't think of all the things I dislike about it any more.

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
When did anyone say anything about viruses? The fact that Win9X has no RPC exploits available hardly makes up for the lack of real memory management, no SMP support, poor networking, no multi-user capabilities, POS filesystem, etc. I could probably go on but it's been so long since I've used Win9X I can't think of all the things I dislike about it any more.

memory management problems? thats a myth.

i dont care about SMP.

i for one appreciate the fact that 9x doesnt have forced multi user support.

the POS file system works just fne.

please stop bashing 9x like youre getting paid big bucks for it.
we can easily talk the same trash about XP.

TIA

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: aswedc

Originally posted by: Nothinman
the sick ones are the people who still run them...

Why shouldn't I? I've been using the Internet since my 486SX 25Mhz with Windows 3.1 and have never, ever, gotten a virus. The only Microsoft updates I ever install are for Internet Explorer and the only virus protection I use is my router not fowarding ports. AFAIK the only Windows viruses you can get without running a program or opening an attachment in Outlook Express only affect the NT codeline.

This is not true PWS (which ran under windows 98) had a number of exploits; once more there were a number of security issues with the client for microsoft networks under internet/network facing windows 9x machines. Just because they werent to the scale of blaster doesnt mean they werent there.

 

[spyordie007]

memory management problems? thats a myth.

No it's not, and there are plenty of examples.

i dont care about SMP.

i for one appreciate the fact that 9x doesnt have forced multi user support.

you're right, not every single feature of modern OSs is going to offer an advantage to every single person. That is however the nature of product marketing and not what we are looking to discuss.

the POS file system works just fne.

Yawn, dont come here crying when it dies and you cant recover your files...

please stop bashing 9x like youre getting paid big bucks for it.
we can easily talk the same trash about XP.

No you cant. Nobody here is saying that Windows XP is perfect; the NT product line is however better in *almost* every measurable way than the 9x line.

 

[Nothinman]

memory management problems? thats a myth.

Hardly and if you don't think so you don't know what real MM is.

i dont care about SMP.

I refuse to run UP anymore.

i for one appreciate the fact that 9x doesnt have forced multi user support.

I appreciate the fact that I can assign rights to files to securely put sh!t on the Internet.

the POS file system works just fne.

Until one small thing takes out the entire thing because it's so fragile.

we can easily talk the same trash about XP.

Go ahead, you'll just look like a bigger idiot than you already do.

 

[aswedc]

Yawn, dont come here crying when it dies and you cant recover your files...

I manage computers running 2k and XP and they're the ones that usually get data loss, mainly because someone didn't shut down with the shut down command. On 98, I never shut down properly. Just cut the power and its always fine on the next start up.

All the other things are probably true, but you're the one that said "the sick ones are the people who still run them..." Whats so wrong with running it if I don't need SMP, large amounts of memory, multi user, ect. I like to have a system thats up in a matter of seconds (none of that couple minute delay after reaching the desktop in which you can't do anything that I see a lot on XP systems), almost never breaks, and reinstalls in 10 minutes when I want a clean system?

The only reason I could think of for not continuing to run 98 is viruses and other exploits, which is why I wrote about them.

 

[spyordie007]

I manage computers running 2k and XP and they're the ones that usually get data loss, mainly because someone didn't shut down with the shut down command. On 98, I never shut down properly. Just cut the power and its always fine on the next start up.

There must be something differant/wrong with your windows installs, generally NTFS is going to be more resilient than FAT32 when it comes to file system corruptions.

but you're the one that said "the sick ones are the people who still run them..."

No I didnt, I havent read above to find who said this but you must have me confused with someone else.

none of that couple minute delay after reaching the desktop in which you can't do anything that I see a lot on XP systems

I agree this behavior is quite annoying, generally you will only see this on machines that are very slow and/or have to little RAM.

almost never breaks

Windows 98 almost never breaks? You must be joking right? Windows 9x is the reason people came up with the old "FFR" acronymn, because it needed reinstalling periodically in order to maintain operation.

 

[buckmasterson]

It really is too bad. It had a lot of new features even though it had bugs. Sure was a step up from 95!!! I still say it was more stable than ME too.

 

[rbV5]

please stop bashing 9x like youre getting paid big bucks for it.

LOL @ Thugs for pimpin' 9x when we all know better

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

If they drop support, we should be able to do anything we want with the product!!!!

What color is the sky on your world?

ROFL! Yeah, they'll do like id software and make the source code opensource for their older products.

By the way folks there is still support for Windows 95 out there MS just outsources it. Gripe about support if you want but if you actually have an OS that was built in this century you still get the in-house support which is second to none.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

Originally posted by: Nothinman
When did anyone say anything about viruses? The fact that Win9X has no RPC exploits available hardly makes up for the lack of real memory management, no SMP support, poor networking, no multi-user capabilities, POS filesystem, etc. I could probably go on but it's been so long since I've used Win9X I can't think of all the things I dislike about it any more.

memory management problems? thats a myth.

i dont care about SMP.

i for one appreciate the fact that 9x doesnt have forced multi user support.

the POS file system works just fne.

please stop bashing 9x like youre getting paid big bucks for it.
we can easily talk the same trash about XP.

TIA

Oh please start an XP versus 9x thread with you on the 9x side. Oh please o please o please. That would be funner that a barrel full of greased monkeys on viagra.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Macro2
98 prints large files much faster than 2000/XP. For that reason I still use 98 on a couple computers. Now they don't want to support it.
I won't say what I think about MS.

2000 & XP use what is known as 'version 3' drivers which run exclusively in user mode, separate from executive mode. If you use version 3 drivers it's not possible to crash the OS with a faulty driver. Just ask any poor schmuck who runs an NT 4.0 terminal server (version 2 drivers). He'll tell you. Of course 9x doesn't even have user & executive mode so you can fart while holding the wrong key down and it will crash.

As for printing large documents I think you'll find the bottleneck in the whole process is the printer you are using not the OS. There may be a delay due to how queueing is handled since NT based spoolers are optimized for multiple users hammering a printer rather than one individual starting a single document and then hopping around the printer like homer simpson needing to pee.