Well, let me know what you think of Windows 98/ME and if they should stay around, or die already I mean, I think tbose piece of junk operating systems should at least die when it comes to supporting them on modern motherboards, video cards, and all other high end hardware and software!! I mean what point is there in making Windows 98/ME drivers for the latest AMD and Intel motherboard chipsets??? I mean why would anyone buy awesome high end parts to construct a great PC and run a crappy piece of junk OS in WIN 98/ME on it?? That would be like buying a a brand new 35 foot camper and using your 25 year old pickup truck with over 300,000 miles on it that hogs oil and gas, and struggles to run in order to tow it. I mean, I just can't wait for the time to come where those piece of trash operating systems in WIN 98/ME can be put to death for once and for all!!! I mean it makes sense to support them for harwdare and software that requires less than a 1GHz CPU to run, but why the heck supporet those junker operating systems on relatively modern hardware???? I mean, it is almost 2005. It ought to be Windows 2000/XP only by now for the most part as Windows 2000/XP are at least quality operating systems What do you think?
Windows 98/ME support for modern hardware and software
- Thread starter Link19
- Start date
To see what you all think of Windows 98/ME if they should still be kept around, or be ditched all together, especially for modern hardware and software.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
HERE'S a link to CNET news story. If you check it out you'll find a LOT of peeps are still using 98se/ME (and older) OS's. So continued HW support seems reasonable.
The rig in my sig usually runs win98se as the main OS. It's a pure gaming rig. There is no benefit (FPS) between any of the OS's in gaming. And much benching has been done...
I find 98se has less problems and requires fewer patches than XP in gaming. When a patch is released for a game, read the accompanying notes. Usually the patch fixes XP probs.
I think that M$ has dropped the ball for gamers. Try a CPU or vid card from 1998 or 1999, see if you still get the same FPS. Well, an OS from '98 or '99 will give you the SAME FPS as todays newest OS (XP).
No, and I don't have any stability issues. All the OS's in my office are 98se (and one ME).
I guess the benefit in usuing XP just doesn't reveal itself in gaming or business apps. Must be in something else?
Fern
The rig in my sig usually runs win98se as the main OS. It's a pure gaming rig. There is no benefit (FPS) between any of the OS's in gaming. And much benching has been done...
I find 98se has less problems and requires fewer patches than XP in gaming. When a patch is released for a game, read the accompanying notes. Usually the patch fixes XP probs.
I think that M$ has dropped the ball for gamers. Try a CPU or vid card from 1998 or 1999, see if you still get the same FPS. Well, an OS from '98 or '99 will give you the SAME FPS as todays newest OS (XP).
No, and I don't have any stability issues. All the OS's in my office are 98se (and one ME).
I guess the benefit in usuing XP just doesn't reveal itself in gaming or business apps. Must be in something else?
Fern
You've got to be kidding me that the rig in your signature runs Windows 98SE and still gets the same FPS as todays operating systems. I could see that being the case for a PC with a 1.3GHz CPU or slower, but it surpirses me that would happen with a good system like yours. It also says says Windows 2000 SP4 in your signature. So don't you use Windows 2000 SP4 as your main OS? I think Windows 2000 is a quality operating system and I would agree that there is not much benefit of having Windows XP when you already have Windows 2000. But it is a much different issue if you have Windows 98/ME instead of Windows 2000 when comparing to Windows XP. If you have Windows 2000 SP4, why not just use that for all your gaming needs? I mean I don't think Windows 98/ME support should be stopped completely, but I mean why support those junky operating systems based on very old code for the latest Intel and AMD chipsets. I mean what point would there be in buying parts to construct an awesome Athlon 64 FX-55 system with motherboard bus speeds in the GHz and 1GB or more RAM if you are going to use such a old crappy operating system that probably wouldn't survice very long on such a system. I mean why won't people just let go of those piece of junk operating systems and get a grip with reality. I hear some people say that they hate Windows XP and use that as their reason to stay with Windows 98 even on a new system they buy or build. Well, there is one much better answer to that. Get Windows 2000 if you don't like how Windows XP is intrusive on how you work with the OS and don't want to waste all the time to disable all the bloated junk it comes with. At least Windows 2000 is a quality 32-bit operating system and is not much lower than XP and is at least thousands of times better than Windows 98/ME ever were. I'm not trying to flame anyone for using Windows 98, but I mean don't you realize that Windows 2000 and Windows XP are not just an upgrade to Windows 98/ME. I have read and heard from so many technicians that Windows 2000/XP are based off of completely different code than Windows 98/ME thus being two distinctly different operating systems internally. And what's based off Windows NT is capable of being tremendously more reliable than anything based off MS-DOS. I mean can't the time come by now where real operating systems are the only ones supported anymore. I mean we would have all been running real 32-bit operating systems ever since 1995 had IBM and Microsoft never broke up on the agreement they had with developing a real 32-bit operating system being OS/2, which Microsoft never owned the licensing rights to use the OS/2 code by themselves. I bet most of the people who are using Windows 98/ME and are reluctant to change because they hate the bloated eye candy interface and such in Windows XP, may realize the importance of using something like Windows XP once they realize that they are two distinctly different operating systems, and that Windows 2000/XP is not just an upgraded version of Windows 98 or ME. And if they decide they really hate the interface in Windows XP, they can go with Windows 2000 which has almost the exact same interface as Windows 98/ME, but is by far a superior OS from a technical standpoint and isn't much behind Windows XP. And there's plenty of downloadable emulators for Windows 2000/XP to run old DOS and Windows games that have problems running without any 3rd party software for 2000/XP.
Windowns 98 and 98se are great. Windows ME is SHIT. You shouldn't even compare them. I don't know what the difference is exactly but ME is horrible to use, it just goes bad real quick.
I love 98 SE though and XP.
I love 98 SE though and XP.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
I just put win2k pro Sp4 in there to play Doom 3. When I get around to reformating again I'll put 98se on there again. When I threw win2k on there to play D3 and I intended to add 98se for a dual boot system. Appears I'll have to load 98se first then 2k pro.
OS's don't make a diff in your framerate. No kidding! I think it sucks to spend good money on an OS and see no diff.
If you put 98se on your rig, you'd prolly faint. It boots way quicker than XP and is very fast with today's new hardware.
But WIndows 98 can't even handle anymore than 512MB of RAM. And it is not any faster if you have a modern computer. If it is, I would think it would be temporary, until your system starts slowing to crawl and crashes when you open anything RAM or CPU intensive. With Windows XP, I can leave my PC on for months without having to reboot and it still runs just as fast and perfectly stable. I wouldn't even think of trying something like that with Windows 98. If I tried Windows 98 on my Pentium 4 3GHz machine, my HDD would probably be fragemented every couple of hours, and it would probably crash every few hours, assuming Windows 98 could even handle a few hours on a Pentium 4 3GHz machine. And no MrChad, this isn't about flaming Windows 98 users. It is about trying to make a point of what's technically a superior OS family when it is configured right. I mean, we could probably have faster performing machines and applications if it weren't for having to support Windows 98/ME and all of us went on the Windows 2K/XP only bandwagon by now. I mean, I would imagine it must be extrmely difficult for programmers to have to write software that is compatible with two distinctly different operating systems which Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000/XP are when it comes to internal operation. That's why it would be nice if everyone would just let go of those operating systems as soon as possible. But if one wants to use Windows 98/ME instead of Windows 2000/XP, that is completely their choice, I'm just saying that they are taking a much higher chance of a serious system fault like a corrupted file system. So do Fern think that Windows 98SE would run faster than Windows XP (with all the bloated junk disabled) on a Pentium 4 3.6GHz with a PCI-E video card and 1GB of RAM? If it could, I couldn't imagine it lasting very long without a serious system failure on hardware that high end.
Win98 or Me is a better solution for older hardware. Many people are still running P2's with 128MB of ram for simple office duties or e-mail, try that hardware with XP!
As for as benchmarks in gaming, XP still isn't any faster than 98SE, no matter how modern the video card or cpu. Yes, I prefer XP on my faster machines and it certainly has its merits.
But that doesn't make 98 a POS. Most people are like me and use turn their machines on and off many times a day as the use it, so long range stability isn't a factor.
While it is limited to 512MB of ram is most cases, I still find it very stable. There are some very simple tweaks for memory management that work. One advantage is to completely strip at all microsoft add-ons including Internet Explorer, try that in WinXP.
As for as benchmarks in gaming, XP still isn't any faster than 98SE, no matter how modern the video card or cpu. Yes, I prefer XP on my faster machines and it certainly has its merits.
But that doesn't make 98 a POS. Most people are like me and use turn their machines on and off many times a day as the use it, so long range stability isn't a factor.
While it is limited to 512MB of ram is most cases, I still find it very stable. There are some very simple tweaks for memory management that work. One advantage is to completely strip at all microsoft add-ons including Internet Explorer, try that in WinXP.
This is interesting because i'm trying to decide what to do with my laptop. It's a T-series Thinkpad, specs show PIII 900, 256, 20G. It originally came with 98SE on it, but was sold to me used with XP Pro. I'm re-installling and was going to put XP back on. Intended use is light to medium desktop software (Office suite, Visio, Dreamweaver, Acrobat, maybe Quark).
If i try to minimize some of the memory-intensive bells and whistles of xp, will my hardware support it without significant negative effects? Would I have to install more memory? Or would it be better to revert back to 98SE?
Thanks for any suggestions.
eplebnista
Lifer
- Dec 3, 2001
- 24,123
- 36
- 91
Definitely YES! Windows 98SE is a quality and stable operating system that deserves to be kept around.
I see your point there. Windows 98SE has it's place on older computers. What I'm referring to is that why should Windows 98/ME have any place on today's computers being sold?? I mean today's computers are so fast, that why would anyone want to run Windows 98 or ME on them, when Windows 98/ME can't even handle memory or CPU intensive tasks without serious trouble. And Windows 98/ME are not based off Windows NT. The reason Windows 2000/XP are by far better and should be the only ones left is because they are real operating systems being based off NT, where as Windows 98/ME are just a bunch of drivers that enable DOS to run 32-bit applications and do pre-emptive multi tasking.
I've got hold of a copy of XP today, they only reason I wanted it was so I can make use of the updated drivers and software for my video and soundcard - but even then it's not that important to me just doing it out of curiousity. I have 512MB of RAM in my system which is more than enough for Win98, but 512MB is the standard for XP and it'll probably end up abusing the swapfile too much. Need to confirm that though - will XP (home) be as fast as 98se on 512MB? I don't run any very intensive programs - paintshop pro and simcity 4 are the most intensive ones I have and I use them pretty often.
No of course not. I just want to see more votes and what people think of this topic. It's an interesting topic. Some people think Windows 98/ME are POS that should be phased out completely, while others think they should be kept around. And some prefer Windows 98SE over 2K or XP. It's just an interesting debate. I personally think Windows 9X/ME are really bad operating systems. I had Windows 98 crash on me at least a couple of times almost every day. Same with Windows ME. Ever since I've had Windows XP, I haven't had any crashes unless I've had bad drivers or faulty hardware. Windows 2000/XP seem far superior to me. Just how do some manage to get Windows 98SE to run very stable on relatively modern hardware, when I couldn't even get it to run without system crashes on a 600MHz Pentium III PC I used to have??
Not trying to be mean, but maybe you didn't have things set up correctly? WinXP is really designed for a novice, with support and default drivers for near everything. With Win98 you actually have to configure and do everything yourself.
The good thing is you actually have more control, the bad side is there is a much greater chance of screwing it up if you don't know exactly what to do.
And if you pull out IE, Outlook, Media Player and all that other microshaft crap and put in some quality non problematic programs to replace them, you can run Win98 all day long without a reboot or slowdown with 256MB of memory. Like I stated above, my main rig runs XP and I like it, but there are many things I would like to change or strip out and I can't.
I believe I had everything set up correctly on Windows 98, and it was still like that. I've also used Windows 2000 a lot, and you have to do a lot of things yourelf in it as well, and it was very stable for a long time. Can you strip IE and all the junk out of Windows 2000 as easily as you can strip it out of Windows 98. I mean there has to be an NT based OS that is modern and just as flexible as Windows 98SE. I mean the Microsoft opertaing systems based off Windows NT are so much better as far as I've noticed. I mean they are actually bsed on true 32-bit code, unlike any of Windows 9X/ME.
I've run 98se 24/7 on a server for up to six months at a time without problems until something new changed the setup. These days, I have dual boot systems with 98 and 2K, but don't use the W2K very often at all. I tried XP, both Home & Pro. Hated it. Someone else pointed out what a total POS that ME turned out to be. I agree. But XP simply didn't seem enough better than ME not to get rid of it as well. Doom3 was a toss-in with some hardware I won from eBay; I normally avoid kiddie games, and FPS's seem far better suited to a sub-teen's console toys than to real PC's. In other words, I've had it around here 3 weeks by now and haven't yet peeled the shrink-wrap, let alone checked the system requirements.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
I'll bet a lot of the instability in win98se back when happened more due to crappy chipset/drivers/apps than due to win98se itself.
Check this: on the hardware listed in my sig, earlier this year I had installed a nasty bit script and had to reformat. When I put win98se back on I was lazy and decided WTF, lets see what happens if I DON'T install any OS updates and just run 98se like it came on the original install disk (of course, I had all current chipset/gfx card drivers). Guess what? It played Far Cry all the way through without a hitch (as well as many other games). Never once crashed. Oh yeah, it was OC'd too.
BTW, why do you care if HW manufacturer's and SW developers continue to support 98se?
AFAIK, there are prolly only two things I do differently than you guys who complain about win98se stability (1) I just do gaming and biz apps. No dvd/mp3/ripping/burning stuff etc, and (2) I turn off my PC's at night and back on in the morning (although my secretary leaves her's on 24/7).
Fern
Support for 9x is slowly dwindling anyway. At least with nVidia - 9x drivers come out far less frequently than XP/2K drivers.
Oh yeah, is there a site that explains where the features of 98se are hidden in XP - device manager, swapfile setting etc?
Oh yeah, is there a site that explains where the features of 98se are hidden in XP - device manager, swapfile setting etc?
Do not expect the world to be modeled the way you like it Link19. While there are still a lot of users of win9X, the sofware and hardware developers will give suport to them. A friend of mine has a PIV 3.06 and a Geforce 6600. Of course Win XP is better for him, but he still plays (a lot) need for speed porsche and some DOS games (MW2 and descent). He prefers XP and needs 98. And i bet there are a lot of users with modern machines that still NEED win9X suport. The only reason for trashing those old OS is that they cause SERIOUS performance problems to developers almost all the time and that the users suffer form it. I don't think thats hapening
It's not about trying to revolve the world around me. I guess the point I was just trying to make is it would do the whole IT industry a big favor if we could let go of those operating systems. Well, it really doesn't matter I guess. But it would make the most sense to not support those operating systems fro the most modern software that requires robust hardware to run. But I can now see the point of supporting them for modern hardware just so you can dual boot and run old games on your new system. Therefore chipset and video card drivers for them should just be basic to make Windows 9X functional on modern hardware for running older stuff, and not to try and not to take advanatge of the elite fetaures the most modern hardwrae has. Would Windows 98/ME actually have any chance of being able to run CPU and RAM intensive tasks on today's hardware with great performance while maintaining great stability?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter