Windows 98/ME support

[Link19]

Do you think Windows 98/ME should still be supported for today's hardware and software? If so, how much? Why or why not? Share your thoughts on this now as we approach mid 2005.

 

[spherrod]

No - there is very little reason to still be running either (the only thing I can think of would be a legacy app). When I worked for Matrox (video-editing) we cut support for 98/ME in 2002 for many reasons, mainly the IRQ and FAT (2GB+) related issues

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: spherrod
No - there is very little reason to still be running either (the only thing I can think of would be a legacy app). When I worked for Matrox (video-editing) we cut support for 98/ME in 2002 for many reasons, mainly the IRQ and FAT (2GB+) related issues

I so agree. There is NO REASON you should be running Windows 98/ME unless you have the need to run a legacy application. However, just because you have the need to run a legacy application, does NOT mean you should use Windows 98/ME as your primary OS to run modern applications as well on modern hardware! You should just dual boot between Windows 98 and Windows XP and only boot to 98 to run legacy applications, but that is it! Therefore, maybe the hardware should still support them, but it should require the system BIOS to run in a fail safe legacy mode so the CPU, RAM, and FSB all run slower, and that way generic chipset and video card drivers can be written to just enablke enough fucntionality to boot into Windows 98/ME to run legacy applications. That way, hardware manufacturers won't have to waste time trying to update drivers for POS Windows 98/ME operating systems because in NO WAY should one think they are acceptable operating systems to install on today;s hardware and run today's applications with.

 

[spherrod]

You could always use VMWare or Virtual PC to emulate a 98 machine if a legacy app won't work in compatibility mode

 

[Link19]

You could always use VMWare or Virtual PC to emulate a 98 machine if a legacy app won't work in compatibility mode

Exactly!! And the fact you can do that is enough reason on of itself that POS Windows 98/ME should be phased out all together. My example above was just a reinstating of the minimum amount of support they deserve to have. But if support were almost non-existent for those opertaing systems by now, that is really what I think would be best. It just puzzles me that DirectX 9.0 and so many other modern hardware and software supports POS Windows 98/ME. All gaming and multimedia applications ought to be Windows 2000/XP/2003 only by now when it comes to the Microsoft OS world. Heck, all high end games and high end applications should have ditched support for piece of junk Windows 98/ME more than two years ago!

 

[spherrod]

I thought most games/apps were now 2k/XP only anyway?

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Link19
Do you think Windows 98/ME should still be supported for today's hardware and software? If so, how much? Why or why not? Share your thoughts on this now as we approach mid 2005.

Why? Windows 2k and XP are 10x better...

 

[Link19]

Why? Windows 2k and XP are 10x better...

I so agree.

 

[Fern]

Support should continue. This from 12/03, about 18 months ago:

The study, released this week by technology consultant AssetMetrix, found that more than 80 percent of companies still have some machines using Windows 95 or Windows 98. Of those companies still using the older operating systems, an average of 39 percent of desktops were running either Windows 95 or Windows 98.

"We found a significant occurrence of Windows 9x," said Steve O'Halloran, managing director for the research arm of AssetMetrix. The study looked at 372,129 PCs from 670 companies ranging in size from 10 to 49,000 employees.

The size of the business did not seem to dictate how prevalent the older operating systems were, with larger companies as likely as smaller ones to have a high prevalence of older operating systems. In total, Windows 95 made up 14.7 percent of operating systems, and Windows 98 made up 12.5 percent. Windows 2000 was the most common OS, running on slightly more than half of machines, while its predecessor, Windows NT4, was still used on 13.3 percent of desktops.

Windows XP, the most current version of Windows, was found on just 6.6 percent of the machines.

Consumers are also still widely using Windows 98. Google reported that 29 percent of searches done in September came from machines running Windows 98, as compared with 38 percent from Windows XP-based PCs and 20 percent from Windows 2000 machines.

Although one would expect in the last 18 mo.s that more users have shifted to XP, there are still lots of users of the older OS's. Thats why support was extended to June '06 by MS.

As a small biz owner, we find no compelling cost-benefit to pay MS money for the switch. Eventually, the apps we use in biz will force us to change. I'm hoping to make it to Longhorn and 64bit b4 changing OS's.

Those who say that there is no reason to be running 98se are IMHO looking at it from the wrong perspective. It s/b, what is the compelling reason to SWITCH (and pay money) from 98se.

Most peeps/businesses get their OS along with the PC, and have been able to get 98se until recently.

For most businesses, we have no in-house IT guy to keep busy. An office wide change of OS's would be very expensive for us. The cost of the OS is only a small part, the downtime and training employees in new software is often overlooked. And again, to what benefit? Apparently, many of us are not having any problems that win XP would solve.
Fern

 

[MrChad]

I don't have a problem with businesses sticking with an older technology that works for them, but they shouldn't expect the software company to support it indefinitely without paying for a special contract. As big as Microsoft is, they have limited resources that they need to spread around a wide variety of software packages and versions. Windows 98 is 7 years old, which is ancient in computer terms. If it works for you, that's great, but don't get upset when other software and hardware vendors abandon their support.

 

[tiap]

Pretty hard to sell newer software if your make your older stuff work forever. If it works reliably for you, use it.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Fern
Support should continue. This from 12/03, about 18 months ago:

The study, released this week by technology consultant AssetMetrix, found that more than 80 percent of companies still have some machines using Windows 95 or Windows 98. Of those companies still using the older operating systems, an average of 39 percent of desktops were running either Windows 95 or Windows 98.

"We found a significant occurrence of Windows 9x," said Steve O'Halloran, managing director for the research arm of AssetMetrix. The study looked at 372,129 PCs from 670 companies ranging in size from 10 to 49,000 employees.

The size of the business did not seem to dictate how prevalent the older operating systems were, with larger companies as likely as smaller ones to have a high prevalence of older operating systems. In total, Windows 95 made up 14.7 percent of operating systems, and Windows 98 made up 12.5 percent. Windows 2000 was the most common OS, running on slightly more than half of machines, while its predecessor, Windows NT4, was still used on 13.3 percent of desktops.

Windows XP, the most current version of Windows, was found on just 6.6 percent of the machines.

Consumers are also still widely using Windows 98. Google reported that 29 percent of searches done in September came from machines running Windows 98, as compared with 38 percent from Windows XP-based PCs and 20 percent from Windows 2000 machines.

Although one would expect in the last 18 mo.s that more users have shifted to XP, there are still lots of users of the older OS's. Thats why support was extended to June '06 by MS.

As a small biz owner, we find no compelling cost-benefit to pay MS money for the switch. Eventually, the apps we use in biz will force us to change. I'm hoping to make it to Longhorn and 64bit b4 changing OS's.

Those who say that there is no reason to be running 98se are IMHO looking at it from the wrong perspective. It s/b, what is the compelling reason to SWITCH (and pay money) from 98se.

Most peeps/businesses get their OS along with the PC, and have been able to get 98se until recently.

For most businesses, we have no in-house IT guy to keep busy. An office wide change of OS's would be very expensive for us. The cost of the OS is only a small part, the downtime and training employees in new software is often overlooked. And again, to what benefit? Apparently, many of us are not having any problems that win XP would solve.
Fern

That's no reason to keep DOS on life support. win98 shouldn't be supported by anything.

 

[spherrod]

If 98 works for you still then great, but new applications/hardware should not support it

 

[CrispyFried]

Simple or common apps (like webbrowsers), security and educational stuff should still be supported. So should simpler hardware. There are tons of 98se/me machines out there still runing that would probably choke on XP. And a copy of XP is more than the cost of the whole machine anyway.

 

[LiLithTecH]

Little reason?

You do realize that are millions of PC's still running 95, NT 4 (desktop & server), and 98?

Only reason for updating for many people, corporations, etc. is when they need to
utilize more modern architectures.

Many are reluctant to due to the high cost and Microsoft's past track record.

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: LiLithTecH
Little reason?

You do realize that are millions of PC's still running 95, NT 4 (desktop & server), and 98?

Only reason for updating for many people, corporations, etc. is when they need to
utilize more modern architectures.

Many are reluctant to due to the high cost and Microsoft's past track record.

Yes, and if they're happy with their current systems then fine but why should new hardware/software need to support such old systems?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: LiLithTecH
Little reason?

You do realize that are millions of PC's still running 95, NT 4 (desktop & server), and 98?

Only reason for updating for many people, corporations, etc. is when they need to
utilize more modern architectures.

Many are reluctant to due to the high cost and Microsoft's past track record.

Yes, and if they're happy with their current systems then fine but why should new hardware/software need to support such old systems?

I'd guess it's a savy biz decision. Given the huge number of user's with the old OS's, Why sell a printer or piece of biz software which can't be used on older OS's. You immediatley write off a huge consumer base which your rival will likely exploit.

Fern

 

[n0cmonkey]

They should upgrade for security reasons alone. Ostracize the DOS users!

 

[Link19]

I'd guess it's a savy biz decision. Given the huge number of user's with the old OS's, Why sell a printer or piece of biz software which can't be used on older OS's. You immediatley write off a huge consumer base which your rival will likely exploit.

Fern

Maybe new things that are very simple and don't require a reasonably modern PC to run should still support Windows 98. BUT IN NO WAY should even somewhat resource intesnive applications or hardware continue to support Windows 98/ME. High end games and other resource intensive applications should have ditched support for POS Windows 98/ME more than 3 years ago.

 

[Link19]

BUMP as this is an interesting topic. Lets get more votes.

 

[IGBT]

..last stats I saw indicated 25% of all computers..world wide.. still run a variant of w98 and still many w95 users out there..heck I know people that have old 386 boxes wit windows 3x still running...and somebody said morse code is making a comeback..so what do we do??

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..last stats I saw indicated 25% of all computers..world wide.. still run a variant of w98 and still many w95 users out there..heck I know people that have old 386 boxes wit windows 3x still running...and somebody said morse code is making a comeback..so what do we do??

Support them for software designed to run on older system. That is it though. In NO WAY should POS WIN 98/ME be supported for modern software designed to run on a system with a 1GHz or faster CPU.

 

[Slowlearner]

I dont understand why this topic keeps reappearing. The decision of whether or not to support an older OS rests with the mfg in this case MSFT, not with anandtech forum subscribers. If Win 98 and ME were POS why did MSFT release them and not fix them, why didn't it indicate right at the outset how long it would support them. Even in DOS days it would sell a so-called upgrade for 10$ after fixing a small number of known problems.

Currently what does this support consist of - frequent patches for new vulnerabilities being discovered every day - is the situation any different for XP? Okay so we have less BDODs now, but XP locks up just as frequently as Win 98 or ME did. USB 2.0 has been around for ages yet MSFT never supported it for Win 98. Instead of parroting the current company line, we in the anandtech community should be making creative suggestions and exploring alternatives.

All monoplies are bad and among the worst is MSF and its partner Intel, which happened right before our eyes, not a hundred years ago; without any protest whatsoever from the general user community, businesses and most importantly the US government. After a phony trial and a bogus settlement, we are left where we were to begin with, yeah a coupon for 12.50$ to be redeemed for the monopolist's products. Long live free markets and capitalism.

Incidentally, MSFT sits on a cash hoard of some $40+ billion, yeah billion.

I know I am going to be slammed by million people who bought its stock for 70$ only to to see it slide to what 25 bucks, sad for everyone's 401k. I keep hearing about the innovation that came from MSFT and Mr BG whearas all I remember is an editor with DOS 101 called edlin.

 

[Mildlyamused]

Originally posted by: Link19

You could always use VMWare or Virtual PC to emulate a 98 machine if a legacy app won't work in compatibility mode

Exactly!! And the fact you can do that is enough reason on of itself that POS Windows 98/ME should be phased out all together. My example above was just a reinstating of the minimum amount of support they deserve to have. But if support were almost non-existent for those opertaing systems by now, that is really what I think would be best. It just puzzles me that DirectX 9.0 and so many other modern hardware and software supports POS Windows 98/ME. All gaming and multimedia applications ought to be Windows 2000/XP/2003 only by now when it comes to the Microsoft OS world. Heck, all high end games and high end applications should have ditched support for piece of junk Windows 98/ME more than two years ago!

Um because there are fairly good systems that have windows98/me. Most ppl don't know/have the money to upgrade to windows 2k/Xp. My sister has a P4 1.5GHZ Sony that came with windows ME so...

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: Slowlearner
I dont understand why this topic keeps reappearing. The decision of whether or not to support an older OS rests with the mfg in this case MSFT, not with anandtech forum subscribers. If Win 98 and ME were POS why did MSFT release them and not fix them, why didn't it indicate right at the outset how long it would support them. Even in DOS days it would sell a so-called upgrade for 10$ after fixing a small number of known problems.

Currently what does this support consist of - frequent patches for new vulnerabilities being discovered every day - is the situation any different for XP? Okay so we have less BDODs now, but XP locks up just as frequently as Win 98 or ME did. USB 2.0 has been around for ages yet MSFT never supported it for Win 98. Instead of parroting the current company line, we in the anandtech community should be making creative suggestions and exploring alternatives.

All monoplies are bad and among the worst is MSF and its partner Intel, which happened right before our eyes, not a hundred years ago; without any protest whatsoever from the general user community, businesses and most importantly the US government. After a phony trial and a bogus settlement, we are left where we were to begin with, yeah a coupon for 12.50$ to be redeemed for the monopolist's products. Long live free markets and capitalism.

Incidentally, MSFT sits on a cash hoard of some $40+ billion, yeah billion.

I know I am going to be slammed by million people who bought its stock for 70$ only to to see it slide to what 25 bucks, sad for everyone's 401k. I keep hearing about the innovation that came from MSFT and Mr BG whearas all I remember is an editor with DOS 101 called edlin.

XP does not lock up as frequently as ME or 98 - a properly configured and managed system should never freeze or bluescreen with XP