Windows 98/ME support

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos

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...

Exactly!! ME is a pile of crap!! I have a P4 1.7 ghz with ME and it just cant be connected to the net as spyware screws it up so badly... Even adaware n all that cant remove it. It crashes all the time, nothing works, nothings compatible, its crap, it crashes... its crap... did i say it crashes a LOT?

WOW! 5 people voted "Definitely Yes. Windows 98/ME are great operating systems that deserve to be kept around even for running today's applications on modern hardware"

Yea cuz u would buy a nice new FX-55 with 6800Ultra SLI and run it on windows ME.... Probably wouldnt even work.

 

[Link19]

Exactly!! ME is a pile of crap!! I have a P4 1.7 ghz with ME and it just cant be connected to the net as spyware screws it up so badly... Even adaware n all that cant remove it. It crashes all the time, nothing works, nothings compatible, its crap, it crashes... its crap... did i say it crashes a LOT?

WOW! 5 people voted "Definitely Yes. Windows 98/ME are great operating systems that deserve to be kept around even for running today's applications on modern hardware"

Yea cuz u would buy a nice new FX-55 with 6800Ultra SLI and run it on windows ME.... Probably wouldnt even work.

Very well said. I can't believe 5 people would have voted that. That just amazes me. Come on, we need more votes that state what a POS Windows 98/ME are. ANy Microsoft OS not based on NT is a complete and utter POS.

 

[Link19]

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...

So, THAT DOESN'T MEAN those POS Windows 98/ME operating systems should be supported on such hardware. People running those POS operating systems should be forced to upgrade if they expect to run today's software on their fairly good systems.

If Windows 2000 were no longer supported, people running that OS would have every right to complain about their OS not being supported because Windows 2000 is still a very reputable and quality OS. However, anyone running Windows 98/ME should be forced to upgrade if they expect to run even somewhat resource intensive software because Windows 98/ME are flat out POS!! So anyone running Windows 98 that tries to moan they shouldn't be forced to upgrade is missing the WHOLE POINT. The only reason they should be forced to upgrade is because Windows 98/ME are flat out POS operating systems!! If you are running Windows 2000 and it wasn't supported, people would have every right to complain about having to upgrade to XP.

 

[bupkus]

I just got a real POS computer from a guy requesting support. It's a K-6 350MHz running ME with 32MB SDR and a PCI vid card. I can only run it in Safe Mode cause I only have LCD. In Normal mode it drops the video signal. In Safe mode I try to get to the control panel and get the following:

Windows cannot access the specified device, path or file. You may not have the appropriate permissions to access the item

Is this because it's in safe mode or for some other reason?

 

[Nocturnal]

Can someone give me the low down of why XP/2000 is superior to 98/ME?

 

[Link19]

Can someone give me the low down of why XP/2000 is superior to 98/ME?

Windows 2000/XP always have been, and always will be superior to POS Windows 98/ME!! The reason is Windows 2000/XP are based on true 32-bit code and have real memory protection, where as Windows 98/ME are base don legacy DOS code, and have no control over the way they handle memory. Those reasons are by far more than enough to demonstrate why Windows 98/ME are a POS and why they always will be. The only thing Windows 98/ME were possibly ok for is running DOS programs and very simple non-resource intensive 32-bit applications on OLD OLD computers.

 

[Mildlyamused]

Originally posted by: bupkus
I just got a real POS computer from a guy requesting support. It's a K-6 350MHz running ME with 32MB SDR and a PCI vid card. I can only run it in Safe Mode cause I only have LCD. In Normal mode it drops the video signal. In Safe mode I try to get to the control panel and get the following:

Windows cannot access the specified device, path or file. You may not have the appropriate permissions to access the item

Is this because it's in safe mode or for some other reason?

When in doubt, FORMAT! It's fubared...

 

[Mildlyamused]

Originally posted by: Link19

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...

So, THAT DOESN'T MEAN those POS Windows 98/ME operating systems should be supported on such hardware. People running those POS operating systems should be forced to upgrade if they expect to run today's software on their fairly good systems.

If Windows 2000 were no longer supported, people running that OS would have every right to complain about their OS not being supported because Windows 2000 is still a very reputable and quality OS. However, anyone running Windows 98/ME should be forced to upgrade if they expect to run even somewhat resource intensive software because Windows 98/ME are flat out POS!! So anyone running Windows 98 that tries to moan they shouldn't be forced to upgrade is missing the WHOLE POINT. The only reason they should be forced to upgrade is because Windows 98/ME are flat out POS operating systems!! If you are running Windows 2000 and it wasn't supported, people would have every right to complain about having to upgrade to XP.

Most ppl don't know better... It's good for MS to keep supporting older OS's like that because it's more power to us. Windows NT is a good operating system (4.0/3.51) but MS isn't supporting it anymore so should I start bitching? Anyways compairing windows 98/SE to ME is just plain wrong because windows 98 was so much better than ME. Windows ME was such a POS that MS should have never created it but did so because they needed an OS to bridge between 98 and XP.... ME is still fairly new and MS should keep the support, remember most programs don't support 98 anymore, it's 98SE that they support. 98SE apparently has many more things than 98 did inorder for it to stay alive.

 

[Link19]

Most ppl don't know better... It's good for MS to keep supporting older OS's like that because it's more power to us. Windows NT is a good operating system (4.0/3.51) but MS isn't supporting it anymore so should I start bitching?

Well, its time for people to start knowing better. If you force them to upgrade to Windows 2K or XP, they will have no choice, and almost everyone will eventually do so. Windows NT may be a good OS, but it is also very old. Windows NT 4.0 is now 9 years old. Windows 2000 is modern enough and still a good OS that it should still be supported. And I'm not saying what Microsoft should support. I am talking about what other hardware and software vendors should support in general.

Another thing, how in the heck did 6 members vote "Definitely Yes. Windows 98/ME are great operating systems that deserve to be kept around even for running today's applications on modern hardware"?? Were you one of the members who voted "Definitely Yes. Windows 98/ME are great operating systems that deserve to be kept around even for running today's applications on modern hardware"??

 

[Link19]

Also must note there comes a point in time for everything where it is no longer supported. Sure, supporting things for longer gives more power to us, but I don't think Microsoft should ditch support for Windows 9X because I don't want more power to us. They should ditch support for it because it is a complete piece of junk. Sure, Windows NT users should have every right to start bitching when it is nmo longer supported, while Microsoft continues to support POS Windows 98/ME. Windows NT is a fine OS, but it is also very old. A large degree of support and the longevity should greatly depend on the quality of the OS, not just the business perspevtive. Yes, the business perspevitive is greatly important, but so is the quality of the OS.

Seriously though, I have a bad feeling that games and other applications are lagging behind from where they otherwise could have been because they still support those POS Windows 98/ME operating ssytems. If games and applictaions were Windows 2K/XP only, I bet they would run much more efficient and robust than they have the last few years. WHat's your take on that??

 

[yukichigai]

On modern equipment there is really no reason to use 98/ME. The Legacy Gaming argument went out the window with the introduction of DosBox and other emulation utilities.

There are, however, plenty of instances where 98/ME is the operating system of choice, at least in the case of older hardware. Sure, you have to go back about 7 years to find systems that won't meet Win2k's minimum requirements, but the question is whether or not 2k will run at an even remotely acceptable speed. (Not to mention XP) And while very few of us will ever run into such a problem, there are certain pieces of computer hardware which are not supported in 2k/XP. (The one you're most likely to see is the 3dfx 3d accelerator line) Remember, ME was released roughly the same time as 2k; it has many of the features that 2k did, but with support for 98-based hardware and software.

For example, at work there are certain pieces of equipment that do not cooperate properly with 2k or XP systems. Because of this we're presented with two choices: upgrade to the next-gen version of the hardware for some low low sum in the 5-digit range, or maintain a 98SE system to run the existing equipment. Which do you think we're going to choose?

ME was indeed a piece of crap in its day. That is, until that whole "Windows Update" craziness took off. There are hotfixes for a large number of the godawful problems ME had, and workarounds for the rest. After 5+ years of patches ME is finally what Microsoft wanted: an average end-user companion to 2k. It's a little dicey finding drivers for it sometimes -- I really wish they'd used more of the NT shell so that we could use 2k drivers -- but it's got more support for stuff than 98 does with pretty much all of the perks 98 has, at least in terms of legacy support.

The only real reason 98 and ME are so antequated(sp?) is that MS gave up on 'em years ago. It's not any severe flaw in their core design -- okay, maybe a little in ME's case -- but just the fact that nobody's bothered to keep up with 'em. (Which brings up an interesting point: why hasn't anybody started up a 98/ME revival project akin to the Calmira project yet?) For what they set out to do, 98 and ME accomplish the job wonderfully. While you can hardly expect MS to keep up with all of their products, it would be nice if they had a little support. (Not a lot, just some of those newfangled critical security patches that all you youngsters are so crazy about)

 

[Link19]

On modern equipment there is really no reason to use 98/ME. The Legacy Gaming argument went out the window with the introduction of DosBox and other emulation utilities.

Exactly. So why do ATI and NVIDIA have drivers for the latest cards for those POS operating systems?? Their drivers would be more stable and robust if they focused on writing them for ndows 2000/XP only. Supporting POS Windows 98/ME probably holds back the PC industry. It's one thing to suppot those operating systems for a software application or hardware that doens't need a relatively fast PC to run such as PCs that cannot handle Windows 2000/XP. But why on earth should those POS WIN 98/ME operating systems be supported for software and hardware that needs a fast PC to run. Just absolutely ridiculous if you ask me.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: Link19

On modern equipment there is really no reason to use 98/ME. The Legacy Gaming argument went out the window with the introduction of DosBox and other emulation utilities.

Exactly. So why do ATI and NVIDIA have drivers for the latest cards for those POS operating systems?? Their drivers would be more stable and robust if they focused on writing them for ndows 2000/XP only. Supporting POS Windows 98/ME probably holds back the PC industry. It's one thing to suppot those operating systems for a software application or hardware that doens't need a relatively fast PC to run such as PCs that cannot handle Windows 2000/XP. But why on earth should those POS WIN 98/ME operating systems be supported for software and hardware that needs a fast PC to run. Just absolutely ridiculous if you ask me.

Let's go back to something else I said in my post.

For example, at work there are certain pieces of equipment that do not cooperate properly with 2k or XP systems. Because of this we're presented with two choices: upgrade to the next-gen version of the hardware for some low low sum in the 5-digit range, or maintain a 98SE system to run the existing equipment. Which do you think we're going to choose?

This is the reason why ATI and nVidia continue to offer drivers for 98/ME systems. More to the point, they're really only offering drivers for ME systems; 98 just happens to be so close that ME drivers work for it.

EDIT: And if you want to know why anybody would need updated drivers for a 3d accelerator on an industrial system, try running AutoCAD with crappy drivers sometime.

Also, with graphics drivers it's very likely that many of the improvements made to the drivers from version to version are ones which do not require different coding between operating systems. There's likely some central chunk of code they modify, and when they release the drivers for different versions they just compile it with different included libraries for each version. (Libraries they don't have to update in the case of 98/ME) It's probably about 5 minutes of extra work, and it keeps their legacy user base happy. Why wouldn't they do it?

 

[Link19]

It's probably about 5 minutes of extra work, and it keeps their legacy user base happy. Why wouldn't they do it?

If that;s all it takes to update Windows 98/ME drivers, than yes, it makes sense to do it. But what about games and other applications. Does it only take 5 extra minutes to ensure 98/ME compatibility for them?? I mean I have herad that there are a lot of reasons to write applications for NT only. Writing applications is only unicode would probably result in much better performance and stability. I mean why are there separate driver revisions for Windows 2K/XP and 98/ME?? But almost all progarms are the same version using the same files that run on both Windows 98/ME and 2K/XP??