Should Windows XP and possibly even Windows 2000 stick around for a long long time even after Vista is released?

[nweaver]

Let this thread die...for the love of all things geeky, let this tread die a flaming death!

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: scottws
Windows 2000 and Windows XP will be supported for quite some time by a lot of business software and some consumer-level software. The first thing to drop support will be games, and that's mostly due to DX10 being Vista exclusive.

That will really stink if games drop support so soon. I want games to support Windows XP for a long long time. They should port DirectX 10 over to Windows XP. WHy won't Microsoft do that?

It ticked me off that all games still supported POS Windows 98/ME for a long time after Windows XP was released. That is because Windows 98/ME had next to nothing in common with Windows 2000/XP. Vista is the successor to Windows XP which is still native to Windows NT. So why would Microsoft make DirectX 9 compatible with POS Windows 98/ME, but they wouldn't make DirectX 10 compatible with Windows XP. Windows XP deserves to stick around for a long time after Vista is released because it is still a good OS. POS Windows 98/ME should have died as soon as Windows XP was released. It disgusts me that DirectX 9 was made to be compatible with POS Windows 98/ME. DirectX 9 should have been for NT based opertaing systems only being Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only. WHat a shame that DirectX 10 won't be available for Windows XP because Windows XP is still a good OS and still based on the same OS heritage as Vista will be. Yet the latest verison of Direct X when Windows XP was relatively new (about a year old) was back ported to the completely different OS heritage in POS Windows 98/ME!! 🙁 🙁 🙁 : 🙁

Im gonna send you my "I :heart: WINDOWS 98" T-shirt.

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: Soviet

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: scottws
Windows 2000 and Windows XP will be supported for quite some time by a lot of business software and some consumer-level software. The first thing to drop support will be games, and that's mostly due to DX10 being Vista exclusive.

That will really stink if games drop support so soon. I want games to support Windows XP for a long long time. They should port DirectX 10 over to Windows XP. WHy won't Microsoft do that?

It ticked me off that all games still supported POS Windows 98/ME for a long time after Windows XP was released. That is because Windows 98/ME had next to nothing in common with Windows 2000/XP. Vista is the successor to Windows XP which is still native to Windows NT. So why would Microsoft make DirectX 9 compatible with POS Windows 98/ME, but they wouldn't make DirectX 10 compatible with Windows XP. Windows XP deserves to stick around for a long time after Vista is released because it is still a good OS. POS Windows 98/ME should have died as soon as Windows XP was released. It disgusts me that DirectX 9 was made to be compatible with POS Windows 98/ME. DirectX 9 should have been for NT based opertaing systems only being Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only. WHat a shame that DirectX 10 won't be available for Windows XP because Windows XP is still a good OS and still based on the same OS heritage as Vista will be. Yet the latest verison of Direct X when Windows XP was relatively new (about a year old) was back ported to the completely different OS heritage in POS Windows 98/ME!! 🙁 🙁 🙁 : 🙁

Im gonna send you my "I :heart: WINDOWS 98" T-shirt.

😀
Haaa
I'll follow up with some "Windows 98 For Life!" bumper stickers!

 

[Link19]

Im gonna send you my "I WINDOWS 98" T-shirt.

I would burn it to pieces because Windows 98/ME are POS operating systems!! They aren't even real 32-bit operating systems. They are Window Managers on top of 16-bit DOS with 32-bit extensions!!

 

[stash]

OMG stop. Please. I'm begging you.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: stash
OMG stop. Please. I'm begging you.

Do you actually work for Microsoft? I thought Microsoft had a biased opinion on being against POS Windows 98/ME as well and would tell you they were a piece of junk. If you work for them, why wouldn't you favor what they say?

 

[Kibbo86]

I've decided to view this thread as some kind of nerdy, avant-garde performance piece.

Bravo, Link, Bravo.

 

[stash]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: stash
OMG stop. Please. I'm begging you.

Do you actually work for Microsoft? I thought Microsoft had a biased opinion on being against POS Windows 98/ME as well and would tell you they were a piece of junk. If you work for them, why wouldn't you favor what they say?

My place of employment is irrelevant to your incessant and obnoxious ranting against 9x.

 

[Link19]

My place of employment is irrelevant to your incessant and obnoxious ranting against 9x.

Do you actually like Windows 9X?

 

[nweaver]

9x was a decent OS in it's day...it's day is passed, but that should not diminish the place it held in nerdy gamer's hearts

 

[jlbenedict]

Windows 98 brought to the table what Windows 95 failed to deliver.
Windows 98 was a period when DirectX gathered large support, with proven DirectX releases right after another. I can't recall how many versions DirectX went through during Windows 98's lifespan (Version 3.x - 8.x, I believe.. correct me if I'm wrong). It also was the beginning of the end for Glide/3DFX as more game developers hopped on DirectX/D3D.

Windows 98 was revolutionary, in its own sort of way. Whether its 32-bit gui on top of a 16-bit operating system or not, is irrelevant. It brought change. It was a start to getting out of "command prompt" mode. It had to come from somewhere. Operating systems have advanced. Full 32-bit operating systems can not be developed overnight. Windows 98 was released; deal with it. It sold millions; deal with it. Gamers loved it. Its in the past, just as Windows 2000 will follow, and after that Windows XP.

 

[spikespiegal]

Windows 98 was a period when DirectX gathered large support, with proven DirectX releases right after another.

Who hoestly gives a capital 'F' about DirectX? If I want to play games, I'll buy an Xbox, and not listen to game geeks who put LED fans in computers try to re-write history. Some of us who use computers to actually perform work could care less that Win98 had faster game frame rates than NT 4 and 3.51 when both the later were 1,000,000 more stable. Thanks to directX, you can now crash a Windows server with an errant screen saver when you couldn't with NT 3.51.

Windows 98 was revolutionary

Win98 was technically Win95 OS/R3. While I agree that Win98 was the best variant of the Win95 kernel, there was nothing "revolutionary" about it because it was simply Win95 with minor kernel hacks.

Win95 was written as a compromise to appease gamers, 32-bit developers, and corporations wanting to run crappy DOS apps that requires direct hardware access that the NT kernels at the time woulnd't allow you to do. The biggest mistake Microsoft made was not Windows ME, but not killing off Win95/98 support much earlier and forcing developers to move over to NT API development. You want to know why OSX has such a more evolved interface than Windows? Blame Win95/98/ME development sucking resources from NT development. When NT 3.51 and 4 were on the board Apple didn't have an OS within a lightyear of Microsoft in terms of stability, but thanks to all this fartin' around keeping gamers and Win.INI retards happy, Windows lost about 5 years of development.

Windows XP did not evolve from Win98. Win95/98/ME were a distinct kernel set that (thank god) died with ME, as as I jokingly refer to were 16-bot OS's with 32-bit sub systems. XP, Win2000, Win2003 and Vista have evolved from the NT line.

Anybody that defends Win98 compared to NT/Win2K/XP is either an idiot who's job has already been out-sourced to India, or needs to take a basic computer class. The most basic example I can thin of is you can't even reset the print subsystem with Win98 without rebooting the machine, but can easily be done with the oldest NT variant with a simple net stop/start command.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
Windows 98 brought to the table what Windows 95 failed to deliver.
Windows 98 was a period when DirectX gathered large support, with proven DirectX releases right after another. I can't recall how many versions DirectX went through during Windows 98's lifespan (Version 3.x - 8.x, I believe.. correct me if I'm wrong). It also was the beginning of the end for Glide/3DFX as more game developers hopped on DirectX/D3D.

Windows 98 was revolutionary, in its own sort of way. Whether its 32-bit gui on top of a 16-bit operating system or not, is irrelevant. It brought change. It was a start to getting out of "command prompt" mode. It had to come from somewhere. Operating systems have advanced. Full 32-bit operating systems can not be developed overnight. Windows 98 was released; deal with it. It sold millions; deal with it. Gamers loved it. Its in the past, just as Windows 2000 will follow, and after that Windows XP.

Actually, full 32-bit operating systems already existed long before Windows 98 was even made. So your point is invalid. Windows 98 didn't bring anything to the table that any other well designed true 32-bit operating system (OS/2 WARP, Linux, Unix variants just to name a few) couldn't have, In fact, any other well designed 32-bit operating system could have brought those same DirectX improvements to the table far better than POS Windows 98 copuld have ever dreamed of bringing to the table.

 

[Link19]

Win98 was technically Win95 OS/R3. While I agree that Win98 was the best variant of the Win95 kernel, there was nothing "revolutionary" about it because it was simply Win95 with minor kernel hacks.

Win95 was written as a compromise to appease gamers, 32-bit developers, and corporations wanting to run crappy DOS apps that requires direct hardware access that the NT kernels at the time woulnd't allow you to do. The biggest mistake Microsoft made was not Windows ME, but not killing off Win95/98 support much earlier and forcing developers to move over to NT API development. You want to know why OSX has such a more evolved interface than Windows? Blame Win95/98/ME development sucking resources from NT development. When NT 3.51 and 4 were on the board Apple didn't have an OS within a lightyear of Microsoft in terms of stability, but thanks to all this fartin' around keeping gamers and Win.INI retards happy, Windows lost about 5 years of development.

Windows XP did not evolve from Win98. Win95/98/ME were a distinct kernel set that (thank god) died with ME, as as I jokingly refer to were 16-bot OS's with 32-bit sub systems. XP, Win2000, Win2003 and Vista have evolved from the NT line.

Anybody that defends Win98 compared to NT/Win2K/XP is either an idiot who's job has already been out-sourced to India, or needs to take a basic computer class. The most basic example I can thin of is you can't even reset the print subsystem with Win98 without rebooting the machine, but can easily be done with the oldest NT variant with a simple net stop/start command.

Well said!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 Right on!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 MS should have killed Windows 95/98 and forced developers over to the NT only API a long long time ago. Its such a shame they didn't. Heck, it is such a shame that MS didn't stop support for POS Windows 98/ME in January 2004 like they originally planned. They should have ignored whining customers and told them we aren't supporting it anymore is because it is a POS OS, not because we don't care about our customers.

Windows NT was superior to anything piece of crap Windows 9X based OS, even for games. The only argument against Windows NT for gamers was that not many games were made for it, so of course it had trouble running most games. Also, Microsoft didn't spend enough time implementing gaming support into Windows NT, and thus gamers didn't code many games for it. If Microsoft implemented gaming support into Windows NT and game devlopers wrote games for Windows NT, gaming on PCs would have been much more advanced the last 10 years, and probably better today as well.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
Windows 98 brought to the table what Windows 95 failed to deliver.
Windows 98 was a period when DirectX gathered large support, with proven DirectX releases right after another. I can't recall how many versions DirectX went through during Windows 98's lifespan (Version 3.x - 8.x, I believe.. correct me if I'm wrong). It also was the beginning of the end for Glide/3DFX as more game developers hopped on DirectX/D3D.

Windows 98 was revolutionary, in its own sort of way. Whether its 32-bit gui on top of a 16-bit operating system or not, is irrelevant. It brought change. It was a start to getting out of "command prompt" mode. It had to come from somewhere. Operating systems have advanced. Full 32-bit operating systems can not be developed overnight. Windows 98 was released; deal with it. It sold millions; deal with it. Gamers loved it. Its in the past, just as Windows 2000 will follow, and after that Windows XP.

Every Microsoft OS made probably sold millions of copies. It doesn't mean it was a good OS though. It is just that MS had good marletting to drive competeing products away from the market place. That is the only reason Windows 98 thrived. But it was still a POS OS.