Who liked windows 98 back when it came out? POLL

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Lemon lawWith Bill Gates now buying some mana for heaven---by giving away some of the money he ripped off you and me with his overcharges.

You didn't have to buy the OS's you know.

 

[funkbass81]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe getting into this hot debate late----but win98 had its day and that day is thankfully gone. I have used most of the 9x Os's---and microsoft never got any of them right.
And for that matter never will get one right until they start out with a clean sheet of paper approach. They just cobble together old code that have minor updates and expect it to work.
After many added years of developement and much brute force, microsoft finally rolls out another OS that is far more bloated than its predecessor---but still a bug infested
monstosity they never will get around to ever fixing--but every once in a while they may patch something.---but the selling points are not a better OS--but rather an OS that will do a few new tricks while still running that legacy base of other windows programs.

But it is and will remain to a microsoft world until an OS comes down the pike that will run that vast base of already written windows programs. OS2 could have had a chance---but IBM is even slower and more inept than microsoft---and linux won't go mainstream until it can run windows code at full speed.--and also the huge base of legacy hardware Linux won't plug and play.--thats at least an area microsoft got right.

But I must say---win xp is the first GUI OS microsoft got remotely resembling right--------my old win 98 machine would periodically fail to boot---I would cure it by booting up in safe mode, going to device manager---and doing absolutely nothing in device manager. Then I could boot into windows fine--until the next time that happened. At least in win XP it boots, and keeps booting. As for Vista---at this point I see nothing it adds that I need. And as to windows---half my time is spent keeping the crap it lets in off my computer--at microsoft, computer security always seems to be an afterthought that needs fixed only after the problem becomes way past scandalous.

But I see nothing to look forward to in terms of a better future for a GUI OS.---until a serious windows alternative exists or the justice department finally breaks the microsoft OS monopoly apart by setting up competing microsoft divisions in the OS areas.

I sure don't see that OS coming from US efforts---but India and China could become major players if they devoted some commitment.

With Bill Gates now buying some mana for heaven---by giving away some of the money he ripped off you and me with his overcharges.

zealotry at its finest. linux can do no wrong!

 

[jlbenedict]

Gotta love all the ones that bitch about Windows 98. You guys are the ones that couldn't set it up properly.
All you want is ease, like Windows XP provides. A true, enthusiast would know how to get Windows 98 running properly, and would absolutely have no issues once its installed properly. Today's hardware geeks want everything spoon fed to them, and don't want to actually work out any issues they might encounter.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
Gotta love all the ones that bitch about Windows 98. You guys are the ones that couldn't set it up properly.
All you want is ease, like Windows XP provides. A true, enthusiast would know how to get Windows 98 running properly, and would absolutely have no issues once its installed properly. Today's hardware geeks want everything spoon fed to them, and don't want to actually work out any issues they might encounter.

BULLSH!T!!! Windows 98 was a piece of crap!! Enough said!! All operating systems released since 1994 kick the living sh!t out of the turd Win95/98/ME operating systems!! Windows 2000 isn't so easy to set up like Windows XP is, yet I find it to be a very reliable operating system.

I even found Windows NT 4 to be halfway decent, and it didn't even have plug and play, nor much user friendliness!! So don't spout off that BULLSH!T nonsense that people who hated Windows 98 didn't know how to set it up properly!! Because we are the same people who can run Linux, OS/2 and even Windows NT 4 very stable. And you think OS/2 WARP, Linux, and Windows NT 4 automated everything for you like Windows XP does. I think NOT. It has nothing to do with whether we know how to set up or not because that IS NOT an ISSUE. It has to do with which OS kernel is good, and which ones suck and the fact remians is that Windows 98 is one of the worst operating systems released since 1994.

 

[corkyg]

Some people just don't have enough to do. Let it be!

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: funkbass81

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe getting into this hot debate late----but win98 had its day and that day is thankfully gone. I have used most of the 9x Os's---and microsoft never got any of them right.
And for that matter never will get one right until they start out with a clean sheet of paper approach. They just cobble together old code that have minor updates and expect it to work.
After many added years of developement and much brute force, microsoft finally rolls out another OS that is far more bloated than its predecessor---but still a bug infested
monstosity they never will get around to ever fixing--but every once in a while they may patch something.---but the selling points are not a better OS--but rather an OS that will do a few new tricks while still running that legacy base of other windows programs.

But it is and will remain to a microsoft world until an OS comes down the pike that will run that vast base of already written windows programs. OS2 could have had a chance---but IBM is even slower and more inept than microsoft---and linux won't go mainstream until it can run windows code at full speed.--and also the huge base of legacy hardware Linux won't plug and play.--thats at least an area microsoft got right.

But I must say---win xp is the first GUI OS microsoft got remotely resembling right--------my old win 98 machine would periodically fail to boot---I would cure it by booting up in safe mode, going to device manager---and doing absolutely nothing in device manager. Then I could boot into windows fine--until the next time that happened. At least in win XP it boots, and keeps booting. As for Vista---at this point I see nothing it adds that I need. And as to windows---half my time is spent keeping the crap it lets in off my computer--at microsoft, computer security always seems to be an afterthought that needs fixed only after the problem becomes way past scandalous.

But I see nothing to look forward to in terms of a better future for a GUI OS.---until a serious windows alternative exists or the justice department finally breaks the microsoft OS monopoly apart by setting up competing microsoft divisions in the OS areas.

I sure don't see that OS coming from US efforts---but India and China could become major players if they devoted some commitment.

With Bill Gates now buying some mana for heaven---by giving away some of the money he ripped off you and me with his overcharges.

zealotry at its finest. linux can do no wrong!

Who is the real zealot here?

The guy mentioned nothing about Linux being better then windows what-so-ever in that post. (in fact it's obvious that in his opinion it's not even a suitable replacement) But you immediately assumed that he was burning on Windows and praising Linux when he did nothing of the sort.

Very odd.

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Stumps
Link19 makes baby jesus cry

NO I DON'T!! You do because you insist such a piece of craqp OS was really good.

 

[stash]

Good Christ can we lock this abortion of a thread yet?

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: Stumps
Link19 makes baby jesus cry

NO I DON'T!! You do because you insist such a piece of craqp OS was really good.

trust me dude...you do

 

[tooltime]

i liked it

i really miss how it only took minutes to reinstall remember that? that was great

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: tooltime
i liked it

i really miss how it only took minutes to reinstall remember that? that was great

Minutes?
Sure you're not talking about DOS?
Now that was a nice OS, a few minutes to install, a few seconds to boot 🙂

 

[Link19]

I don't believe Stumps that NF4 drivers can be modified to work with piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME. Some games and applications maybe will work? But drivers are another story. The drivers in Windows 2000/XP are totally different from the drivers in Windows 98/ME.

There are no NF4 drivers nor any GeForce 7XXX drivers for piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME. Of course you won't be able to get them to work. Well, yes you can install the OS, but you won't be able to utilize the features of the video card nor the chipset because there are no true drivers, just generic ones.

 

[corkyg]

Who cares! Sheesh! Let this freaking thread die of literary starvation.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Link19
I don't believe Stumps that NF4 drivers can be modified to work with piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME. Some games and applications maybe will work? But drivers are another story. The drivers in Windows 2000/XP are totally different from the drivers in Windows 98/ME.

There are no NF4 drivers nor any GeForce 7XXX drivers for piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME. Of course you won't be able to get them to work. Well, yes you can install the OS, but you won't be able to utilize the features of the video card nor the chipset because there are no true drivers, just generic ones.

I'm not gunna even bother wasting my time with this one...I proved you wrong with Q4 ,BF2 and F.E.A.R I'll just end up doing it again with the NF4 drivers...while I can't vouch for the GF7 series drivers (It can be done with a little bit of time and effort) the NF4 drivers(I should really say that they are modified NF3 drivers) can be and have been modified to work with Win98, I have done this on a few occasions, not that the result was spectacular...those damn NV IDE drivers are still sh!t and will cause BSOD no matter what...oh what they do the same on Win2K or XP, oh well Win98 works well with out them.

However like the GF7 drivers, SLI is one thing I have never tried and probably never will as the only NF4 board I had to try with was a lowly GA-K8NF-9...no SLI on that one 🙁.

whats next? Link19, you'll claim that win98/ME can't work with more than 512mb RAM?

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: Link19
I don't believe Stumps that NF4 drivers can be modified to work with piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME. Some games and applications maybe will work? But drivers are another story. The drivers in Windows 2000/XP are totally different from the drivers in Windows 98/ME.

There are no NF4 drivers nor any GeForce 7XXX drivers for piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME. Of course you won't be able to get them to work. Well, yes you can install the OS, but you won't be able to utilize the features of the video card nor the chipset because there are no true drivers, just generic ones.

I'm not gunna even bother wasting my time with this one...I proved you wrong with Q4 ,BF2 and F.E.A.R I'll just end up doing it again with the NF4 drivers...while I can't vouch for the GF7 series drivers (It can be done with a little bit of time and effort) the NF4 drivers(I should really say that they are modified NF3 drivers) can be and have been modified to work with Win98, I have done this on a few occasions, not that the result was spectacular...those damn NV IDE drivers are still sh!t and will cause BSOD no matter what...oh what they do the same on Win2K or XP, oh well Win98 works well with out them.

However like the GF7 drivers, SLI is one thing I have never tried and probably never will as the only NF4 board I had to try with was a lowly GA-K8NF-9...no SLI on that one 🙁.

whats next? Link19, you'll claim that win98/ME can't work with more than 512mb RAM?

Yeah they are modified NF3 drivers to work with NF4. There were in fact NF3 drivers for piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME. And since NForce 4 is based on NForce 3, it is very possible that the native Win98/ME drivers for NForce 3 could be made to work with NForce 4. But the NForce 4 drivers for Windows 2000/XP IN NO WAY will work with piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME because the drivers are totally different for Windows 98/ME than they are for Windows 2000/XP.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Link19

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: Link19
I don't believe Stumps that NF4 drivers can be modified to work with piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME. Some games and applications maybe will work? But drivers are another story. The drivers in Windows 2000/XP are totally different from the drivers in Windows 98/ME.

There are no NF4 drivers nor any GeForce 7XXX drivers for piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME. Of course you won't be able to get them to work. Well, yes you can install the OS, but you won't be able to utilize the features of the video card nor the chipset because there are no true drivers, just generic ones.

I'm not gunna even bother wasting my time with this one...I proved you wrong with Q4 ,BF2 and F.E.A.R I'll just end up doing it again with the NF4 drivers...while I can't vouch for the GF7 series drivers (It can be done with a little bit of time and effort) the NF4 drivers(I should really say that they are modified NF3 drivers) can be and have been modified to work with Win98, I have done this on a few occasions, not that the result was spectacular...those damn NV IDE drivers are still sh!t and will cause BSOD no matter what...oh what they do the same on Win2K or XP, oh well Win98 works well with out them.

However like the GF7 drivers, SLI is one thing I have never tried and probably never will as the only NF4 board I had to try with was a lowly GA-K8NF-9...no SLI on that one 🙁.

whats next? Link19, you'll claim that win98/ME can't work with more than 512mb RAM?

Yeah they are modified NF3 drivers to work with NF4. There were in fact NF3 drivers for piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME. And since NForce 4 is based on NForce 3, it is very possible that the native Win98/ME drivers for NForce 3 could be made to work with NForce 4. But the NForce 4 drivers for Windows 2000/XP IN NO WAY will work with piece of sh*t Windows 98/ME because the drivers are totally different for Windows 98/ME than they are for Windows 2000/XP.

so you've studied the code for both sets of drivers for each OS hey?

I have and they are very similar, thats how I made NF4 drivers for Win98, I took all the relavant code that I needed to make the NF4 components work and used the Win98 NF3 drivers as a base...they work remarkebly well(execpt for the IDE driver...but who cares it doesn't work properly any way) very stable and very fast.

but with that said, while I do run Win98 on a 2.66ghz@3.06 P4/SIS655FX mobo with 1.5gb ram(it's more effort than it's worth)so I can experiment with games, drivers and lots of other stuff, I really can't see the point of running Win98 on a AMD/Intel NF4 platform, it's a waste of a really good system, and for the average user not worth the effort.

 

[zacharace]

Originally posted by: corkyg
Who cares! Sheesh! Let this freaking thread die of literary starvation.

Agreed.

 

[spikespiegal]

And if you couldn't do that then there was MacOS which was and still is a better operating system then Windows.

Steaming piles of horsesh!t.

Window NT 3.51 was a quantum order of magnitude superior to *any* Mac OS prior to OSX. I was running multiple platforms of each for several graphics labs, and NT 3.51 made OS9 look like an utter joke. Spare us the accolades about Mac operating systems, or please go to a Mac forum where they believe anything Mr. Jobes tells you.

By the time most of you children had installed Win98 SE, I had over 10,000 NT4 deployments under my belt, and there was no comparison in terms of stability. I ran entire divisions of companies on NT4 Terminal Server and had better uptime that most of you running XP.

Unless you are a complete and utter retard, NT4 would do anything better than Win98, and do it with 1000x the stability. The only thing NT4 woulnd't do as well was gaming because graphics weren't allowed to hump the kernel like Win98 could, and run legacy DOS based programs for all you single taskers out there to cheap to upgrade to 32-bit code.

Those two issues alone kept Microsoft from pushing the NT4 kernel in the consumer marketplace like they should. I agree that WinME was a piece of crap and Win98 stayed around way longer than it should. However, I'd appreciate it if you Linux thought police would get off Microsoft's back because it was the consumers buying those obsolete OS's to run their legacy garbage software and play games that kept them in play, and not Microsoft forcing them down people's throats.

ALmost all applications were written for classic Windows because Microsoft wanted it that way by forcing PC manufactirers to pre-load Windows on the PCs they sold.

Another lie. Consumers are not prohibited form loading another OS if they want, and win95/98 ran on a far greater diversity of hardware than those *alternative* OS's you keep talking about. Consequently the price of hardware dropped dramatically, which is not would have happened in the alternative universe of either Unix or OS/2 winning the desktop market.

 

[GreenMonkey]

I got nostalgic for win98, and so I'm buildnig a 98se box with my old k6-2/voodoo3 stuff.

Just kidding. I actually got nostalgic for some DOS games that are flaky under DOSbox. Win98se will work great for playing the ol' DOS games.

 

[Stumps]

ughhh you had to dig up this old thread and now there will be weeks of Link19's constant PMS bitching

But yes Win98 is good for all of those old dos games...Duke3D and DARK FORCES anyone? 😀

 

[Link19]

Another lie. Consumers are not prohibited form loading another OS if they want, and win95/98 ran on a far greater diversity of hardware than those *alternative* OS's you keep talking about. Consequently the price of hardware dropped dramatically, which is not would have happened in the alternative universe of either Unix or OS/2 winning the desktop market.

There were never any rules prohibiting consumers from loading whatever OS they wanted on computers. But the problem is that most consumers didn't know any better and just took whatever OS came preloaded on the PC they bought and assumed it was the best.

When I say Microsoft forced those opertaing systems down people's throat, I don't mean it literally, because they can't force ahything down anybody. What I mean is that they dominated the market through predatory practices by influencing all software developers to write software for only Windows and not other opertaing systems. They made deals with OEM system builders that those OEMs would not have received had they offered to load other opertaing systems on the systems they sold.


In fact, the reults of this poll just got worse. How could so many people think such a POS OS was good for its time considering the fact that compared to what we could and should have had, it was a lousy piece of junk.

 

[Bill Kunert]

The main problem I had was that as it aged it ran slower and slower. I used to reformat and reaload about every 6 months. My first install of XP wnt about 18 months before I screwed up and had to reload.

Bill

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: Link19

Another lie. Consumers are not prohibited form loading another OS if they want, and win95/98 ran on a far greater diversity of hardware than those *alternative* OS's you keep talking about. Consequently the price of hardware dropped dramatically, which is not would have happened in the alternative universe of either Unix or OS/2 winning the desktop market.

There were never any rules prohibiting consumers from loading whatever OS they wanted on computers. But the problem is that most consumers didn't know any better and just took whatever OS came preloaded on the PC they bought and assumed it was the best.

When I say Microsoft forced those opertaing systems down people's throat, I don't mean it literally, because they can't force ahything down anybody. What I mean is that they dominated the market through predatory practices by influencing all software developers to write software for only Windows and not other opertaing systems. They made deals with OEM system builders that those OEMs would not have received had they offered to load other opertaing systems on the systems they sold.


In fact, the reults of this poll just got worse. How could so many people think such a POS OS was good for its time considering the fact that compared to what we could and should have had, it was a lousy piece of junk.

SHUT THE FVCK UP TROLL

 

[Link19]

The fact remains is that anyone who thinks that Windows 98 was just as good for its time as Windows XP is for tis time, doesn't know what they are talking about. You can't even compare how good Windows XP is today to how POS Windows 98 was for tis time because Windows XP is light years ahead of POS Windows 98/ME, even for its time!!! That is a technical fact!!!

Three more POS votes that support such a POS OS. The results of this poll disgust me even more.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: Link19
The results of this poll disgust me even more.

Good! We're all glad! 😀

Now go cry to your mommy, cos nobody here gives a f*ck about any of the useless crap you write.
900 odd posts of the same continuous drivel, and not anything even remotely constructive in any of them.
Way to go! You're a real credit to the forums. NOT!