Should Windows 98/ME still be supported by hardware and software manufacturers?

Should Windows 98/ME still be supported by hardware and software manufacturers?

  • Yes

    Votes: 47 13.2%

  • No

    Votes: 117 32.8%

  • Definitely Yes, Windows 98/ME are quality operating systems that deserve to be supported even on to

    Votes: 15 4.2%

  • HECK NO!! Windows 98/ME are pieces of JUNK!! Support for these OS's should have been ditched a lon

    Votes: 106 29.7%

  • Depends on the circumstances

    Votes: 72 20.2%
  • Total voters
    357
S

Super Mario

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
466
Do you think Windows 98/ME should still be supported by hardware and software manufacturers? Why or why not?

My opinion, I think Windows 98/ME should be dicthed all together if possible because they are such piece of junk operating systems. When it comes to Microsoft operating systems, it ought to be a Windows 2000/XP/2003 only computing world by now. Support for Windows 98/ME should at least be ditched for any software and hardware that requires a 1GHz or faster CPU. Maybe they should still be supported for hardware and software that doesn't require a decent PC (1GHz or faster CPU) to run.
 
I say it depends on the circumstances. One of my clients is a glass manufacturer who uses software that only runs in a 9x environment.
 
SJConsultant said:
I say it depends on the circumstances. One of my clients is a glass manufacturer who uses software that only runs in a 9x environment.
Click to expand...

In a way I would agree with you on that, However, what I don't get is why would any modern programs or hardware that are somewhat resource intensive support those junky operating systems in Windows 98/ME. Support for Windows 98/ME should be minimal at most now a days. In fact, 2 years ago, Windows 98/ME support should have been ditched all together when it comes to hardware and software that is resource intensive. To this day, I don't understand why most newly released high end 3-D games still support those piece of junk operating systems. High end 3-D games produced 2 years ago should have ditched support for Windows 98/ME.
 
I'll tell you what really pisses me off.


The fact that I can't run Win 3.1 on my sig system.

CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW BLAZINGLY FAST IT WOULD BE?!?!!? :eek: :D
 
There are still millions of systems running those OS's and for that reason alon ethey should still be supported..

Just like SJConsultant said I also have a large number of customers whose software is perfectly fine and in fact over kill for what they are doing on systems that are 6+ years old..

manufacturing is a prime example... If a machine just needs to move from point a to b then why change but if it need so talk to printer c then .............
 
hulksterjoe said:
There are still millions of systems running those OS's and for that reason alon ethey should still be supported..

Just like SJConsultant said I also have a large number of customers whose software is perfectly fine and in fact over kill for what they are doing on systems that are 6+ years old..

manufacturing is a prime example... If a machine just needs to move from point a to b then why change but if it need so talk to printer c then .............
Click to expand...

Do you think there are still millions of systems running Windows 3.1 or Windows 95? Millions out of how many millions? Maybe they should still be supported for software and hardware that doesn't require a decent PC to run. But why should they still be supported for software and hardware that requires a 1GHz or faster CPU with 128MB or more RAM to run? I mean do you think those junk operating systems should be supported for the latest hardware chipsets and video cards? Heck NO.

Systems that your clients have that are 6+ years old is a different story. When I say they shouldn't be supported, I mean for software that has a minimum hardware requirements for hardware manufactured in the last 3 1/2 years. For software that doesn't require a 1GHz or faster PC to run, they should still be supported.
 
No, plain and simple. The reason? End Users.

There is no reason someone should be surfing the internet with a Windows 95 based machine. It can't support newer hardware, there are no more security updates meaning any entry points will never become blocked and it doesn't support a lot of newer web content (granted this is due to a lack of a current browser that still runs natively on 95)

The only reason to keep driver support for such an OS is for industrial controllers that still rely on DOS based COM port controllers. Even then you're going to run into lack of hardware to repair those systems when they fail.
 
Super Mario said:
I mean do you think those junk operating systems should be supported for the latest hardware chipsets and video cards? Heck NO.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem. If an older machine crashes and needs to be replaced, then clients like mine are *forced* to buy old machines.

I'd much rather buy a Dell with a 3 year warrenty , transfer the OS and data from the crashed system and sleep comfortably knowing the system is stable and covered for a period of time.
 
I say phase it out, I think 5 years is a decent length of time in this fast paced industry. Developers should continue developing, not just leave their apps in the past or bolt on quirky support for a new OS. I understand the whole overkill thing, but hopefully no developer expects to force their clients to perpetually use outdated equipment.
 
OldPueblo said:
I say phase it out, I think 5 years is a decent length of time in this fast paced industry. Developers should continue developing, not just leave their apps in the past or bolt on quirky support for a new OS. I understand the whole overkill thing, but hopefully no developer expects to force their clients to perpetually use outdated equipment.
Click to expand...

Heh.. that assumes the vendors are still in existance or in business. :p
 
Oh how far we have come. When I first got onboard XP (right when it came out) I fell in love with it (at least compared to 98/ME) and have not looked back since. However, many 'pay-to-play' gaming centers insisted on staying on 98SE for a LONG time after the XP launch - they pointed to 'problems' with XP and it being 'slower.' Those of us that knew better got on the NT wagon as soon we could, and have been much happier since. Many of the big CS tournaments advertised the great gaming boxes they had...running 98SE.

I don't support 98/ME. If someone brings a box to me, it must meet the minimum requirements for 2K Pro, and if they say they're having a problem with 98/ME, I tell them to upgrade to XP Home/Pro. Fixes most software problems.

IIRC, Doom3 only runs on 2K/XP. Rock on! Cleaner code, more robust API calls, etc. There's a variety of reasons to develop for NT only.
 
It would be nice if they went away but that's not just going to happen. For home users, it's a minor detail that'll simply get corrected on the next upgrade. The real problem is small non-computer-centered businesses - they have their systems standardized on something and have no desire whatsoever to change. The only time they're going to see new hardware is when something dies - why upgrade something that 'just works'?

Compared to a lot of areas of computing technology, PCs process & drive older stuff into obsolescence at an alarming rate. I mean, Zilog is still making Z80s that are drop-in compatable with chips that were manufactured almost 30yr ago. Likewise,
wdc
is still making the 6502, a chip that's been out the same length of time. You may remember these chips from your 8-bit PCs and consoles of the early 80s.
 
DougLite said:
I don't support 98/ME. If someone brings a box to me, it must meet the minimum requirements for 2K Pro, and if they say they're having a problem with 98/ME, I tell them to upgrade to XP Home/Pro. Fixes most software problems.
.
Click to expand...

While that might work for home customers. I've got at least two business clients that *MUST* use older hardware and Win9x on a machines on the manufacturing floor simply because the software will not run properly under 2000/XP or faster hardware.

They are looking into eventually upgrading, however the costs associated with upgrading far outweigh the benefits at this point in time.
 
ameoba said:
Compared to a lot of areas of computing technology, PCs process & drive older stuff into obsolescence at an alarming rate. I mean, Zilog is still making Z80s that are drop-in compatable with chips that were manufactured almost 30yr ago. Likewise,
wdc
is still making the 6502, a chip that's been out the same length of time. You may remember these chips from your 8-bit PCs and consoles of the early 80s.
Click to expand...

I think those chips are still being made in support of embedded applications, not desktop computers. After all, the Pentium-comatpbiles only account for a few percent market share if you consider all processors sold. I'm not sure what your point really is in bringing them up here as they can be used in new designs and aren't simply replacement parts for old equipment.
 
hulksterjoe said:
There are still millions of systems running those OS's and for that reason alon ethey should still be supported..
Click to expand...

Then how long should these operating systems continue to be supported? It's been almost ten years since Windows 95 shipped. If you assume a 3-year development cycle, that code is thirteen years old; in reality, code that moved forward from Windows 3.1 is even older. Windows 98 ends up only slightly younger -- the code is probably ten years old.

Should Microsoft keep training support techs on this product? Should hardware vendors keep writing drivers for the Win95 driver model? For how long?

How do you think the Win98 call volumes compare to those for Windows XP and Windows 2003 Server?
 
Ok, I actually enjoyed 98SE - because I had modded it to my liking - via 98lite - no IE - no explorer based issues (as the IE proggy had been stripped from the system.)
It was rock solid stable (as stable as my present XP Pro set up) was faster than that crappy attempt to add NT based addons (Win Me)and took up very little memory and hard drive space in comparison to the newer OSes. Heck it was faster than XP too.
It was paid for - played older games that I had (remember Pirates, Colonization, and Railroad Tycoon?) and supported most everything fine. It would even run Mozilla based web browsers.
Then my system died (surge from lightening strike) and I was forced to move up to XP. Not by choice, but by the oem's no longer supporting 98SE. If I wanted a new sound card, I had to get XP as the audigy series had no real 98SE support - If I wanted to replace my video card, I had to upgrade to XP, as 98SE drivers were not supported. If I wanted a new motherboard, I had to upgrade to XP. Etc. Etc.
So much for choice.
If 98SE was still driver supported, I would still use it - as I had no issues with crashing, no issues with spyware/malware/viruses (remember IE had been stripped out of the system and the old 95 explorer installed via 98lite) and the writers of such offensive programs have moved on to the newer OSes. So the threat of those things happening to my system grew less and less as time went by.
Ok, if you make a program you should be able to support it as long as you exist. After all, did Microsoft not sell this program as an excellent piece? Where in the Eula, or any other agreement, is there a time limit to driver/OS support?
Anyway, I miss my lightweight, fast, and stable OS. XP Pro is fine, but the hassles of registering and updating (IE only) make me miss ole 98SE lite edition...
 
HvyMtl said:
Ok, if you make a program you should be able to support it as long as you exist.
Click to expand...

I think that's very naive. Do you really think Microsoft should still be offering support for Olypic Decatahlon, for example?

HvyMtl said:
Where in the Eula, or any other agreement, is there a time limit to driver/OS support?
Click to expand...

In Section 2, in the paragraph titled "Support Services", which references the company's life-cycle policies.
 
the fact of the matter though is that software companies come and go. Some software package could be great for a given application, but a year later the company that produced it is no more.

OldPueblo said:
I say phase it out, I think 5 years is a decent length of time in this fast paced industry. Developers should continue developing, not just leave their apps in the past or bolt on quirky support for a new OS.
Click to expand...
 
SJConsultant said:
Heh.. that assumes the vendors are still in existance or in business. :p
Click to expand...

Good point. In that case hopefully the business is looking to the future a bit so they dont get caught with their pants down. :p
 
OldPueblo said:
Good point. In that case hopefully the business is looking to the future a bit so they dont get caught with their pants down. :p
Click to expand...

I'm already helping them with that aspect. :D
 
Don't forget the other option businesses have in todays fast fast cpu world. ;) Emulation, VMWare, Virtual PC, etc... They get the benefit of Modern Multitasking operating systems, while still being able to use there old programs. ;) Granted, it's not cheap since they need to own an XP/2K3 license, and a win98/me license, but it's a great option for companies that depend on that one application before they would upgrade to XP. ;)
 
Ranma_Sao said:
Don't forget the other option businesses have in todays fast fast cpu world. ;) Emulation, VMWare, Virtual PC, etc... They get the benefit of Modern Multitasking operating systems, while still being able to use there old programs. ;) Granted, it's not cheap since they need to own an XP/2K3 license, and a win98/me license, but it's a great option for companies that depend on that one application before they would upgrade to XP. ;)
Click to expand...

How would that work say if an application doesn't function correctly on a faster machine . e..g. moving from a Pentium II or III to Pentium IV?

Reason I ask is because I have a client with a custom application that polls a serial port. We tried using a Pentium 4 machine, but the application would not poll the serial port correctly.
 
i dont think it should be supported anymore... it needs to die, especially windows ME... *shudder*
 
lithium726 said:
i dont think it should be supported anymore... it needs to die, especially windows ME... *shudder*
Click to expand...
I so agree with that. The sooner those piece of junk operating systems Windows 98/ME die, the better off the long term future of trhe PC industry will be. I mean we will have faster and more stable programs if they are written to only supported an NT based platform. I wish that had happened 3 years ago.
 
Super Mario said:
I so agree with that. The sooner those piece of junk operating systems Windows 98/ME die, the better off the long term future of trhe PC industry will be. I mean we will have faster and more stable programs if they are written to only supported an NT based platform. I wish that had happened 3 years ago.
Click to expand...

IMO, the pace at which hardware and software are developed is based on consumer demand (Business and home users alike). For whatever reason, most consumers will readily spend hundreds of dollars for the latest hardware, but are very reserved when it comes to upgrading to the latest software.

Microsoft has not been shipping Win9x OS for quite sometime now. I seriously doubt the PC industry at this point is being "held back" simply because Windows 98/ME are still out there running on PCs.
 
IMO, the pace at which hardware and software are developed is based on consumer demand (Business and home users alike). For whatever reason, most consumers will readily spend hundreds of dollars for the latest hardware, but are very reserved when it comes to upgrading to the latest software.

Microsoft has not been shipping Win9x OS for quite sometime now. I seriously doubt the PC industry at this point is being "held back" simply because Windows 98/ME are still out there running on PCs.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone buy the latest hardware, but not upgrade their software. What's the point of buying the latest hardware if you are going to run old software that doesn't need it? Especially such an awful OS on the latest hardware.

I mean Windows 98/ME are completely different under the hood than Windows 2000/XP, and isn't having to suppport them both a real hassle. If it were only Windows 2000/XP, programs would run more efficient and be stable. Seriously, Microsoft would save more money by ditching support for Windows 98/ME all together, and offering all Windows 98/ME owners a free upgrade to Windows XP or Windows 2000. Many people won't upgrade to Windows 2000 or XP because of the cost. That would take care of that and also save Microsoft the costs on support calls.
 
voted yes.

why? i'm a small business. me, my dad and my sister. do you realize what a financial hit we took when we had to upgrade perfectly adequate and functional os' and hardware because one piece of application software we use would no longer be supported under 98?

not to mention the fact that a lot of the specific application software that i developed many moons ago is still perfectly adequate and functional under 98, but runs like a fricking dead dog under xp? and that i haven't really got the months and months necessary to rewrite it, which means i have to do it piecemeal (which ain't the greatest way in the world to write an application)?

not everyone needs the "latest and greatest" to do the job. as a matter of fact, many would be better off keeping the money and investing it in other parts of their business. but they are forced to buy WAY overfeatured software (office 2003, anyone???) to support their off the shelf application software and hardware that has capabilities that they will never use to actually run that software.

98 isn't a "piece of junk". could it be more stable? yea, for some applications. but it ran on our equipment for years and years without causing any problems. not to mention many many many other small businesses (and millions of average joe home computer users).

every penny counts to a small business. and the great majority of them don't need 95% of the "features" in newer software (heck they don't need 95% of the "features" in older software)...

bigger, faster, stronger, more feature filled may drive the computer industry (and make [h] members happy), but for most small businesses, it's not a positive development...

and as a few others have brought up, GOOD LUCK if you have a piece of software integrated into your business model and that vendor doesn't exist anymore (and that's a LOT more common than vendor's that DO exist)...

heck, i'd be perfectly happy still running under dos.... :eek:

i'd disagree with you a small bit sjcons on "based on consumer demand"... i'd say it's based on "a small sector of consumers demanding stuff that the vast majority of consumers will never use"... when you are talking video cards, that's fine... but when you are talking os' and common application software, it becomes an unsustainable model after awhile (imo, and i freely admit that i've been known to be wrong :) )...

oh yea. me. me sucked. :D
 
Windows 98/ME were always pieces of junk and always will be even during their heydays. It has nothing to do with them not being the latest and greatest. Windows NT 4.0 is 9 years old by now, but it was a great OS during it's time!! Windows 95/98/ME are technically pieces of junk compared to almost all other 32-bit pre-emptive multi-tasking operating systems ever made. They always were and always will be based on how they handle memory. If it weren't for Microsoft's monopoly in the desktop OS market, the whole computing world would have been running a real 32-bit OS for the last 10 years, instead of the POS native 16-bit Windows 9X family of operating systems. That is why Windows 95/98/ME WERE NEVER considered acceptable operating systems by my standards, considering what a much better OS we could have all been using for the last ten years, if only it weren't for Microsoft's monopoly!! There was OS/2 WARP and Linux which were real 32-bit OS shells and they could have had the same easy to use interface slapped onto them.
 
Super Mario said:
Why would anyone buy the latest hardware, but not upgrade their software. What's the point of buying the latest hardware if you are going to run old software that doesn't need it? Especially such an awful OS on the latest hardware.

I mean Windows 98/ME are completely different under the hood than Windows 2000/XP, and isn't having to suppport them both a real hassle. If it were only Windows 2000/XP, programs would run more efficient and be stable. Seriously, Microsoft would save more money by ditching support for Windows 98/ME all together, and offering all Windows 98/ME owners a free upgrade to Windows XP or Windows 2000. Many people won't upgrade to Windows 2000 or XP because of the cost. That would take care of that and also save Microsoft the costs on support calls.
Click to expand...

My perspective is coming from the fact that I have small business clients (manufacturing) that have invested thousands of dollars into software packages that only run in a Win9X environment. Because 2000/XP is a different artchitecture, they must stay with an OS that works. The software does exactly what they need to to do with absolutely minimal problems on a 9x platform

The hardware will fail long before they need to upgrade the software, hence using newer machines with 9x OS. Offering free upgrades to these kinds of clients would save the clients absolutely nothing since a simple upgrade of their manufacturing software would cost them 50 times or more than the OS.

Why should they be forced to upgrade perfectly functioning systems?
 
Super Mario said:
Windows 98/ME were always pieces of junk and always will be even during their heydays. It has nothing to do with them not being the latest and greatest. Windows NT 4.0 is 9 years old by now, but it was a great OS during it's time!! Windows 95/98/ME are technically pieces of junk compared to almost all other 32-bit pre-emptive multi-tasking operating systems ever made. They always were and always will be based on how they handle memory. If it weren't for Microsoft's monopoly in the desktop OS market, the whole computing world would have been running a real 32-bit OS for the last 10 years, instead of the POS native 16-bit Windows 9X family of operating systems. That is why Windows 95/98/ME WERE NEVER considered acceptable operating systems by my standards, considering what a much better OS we could have all been using for the last ten years, if only it weren't for Microsoft's monopoly!! There was OS/2 WARP and Linux which were real 32-bit OS shells and they could have had the same easy to use interface slapped onto them.
Click to expand...

you are missing the point. "by your standards" isn't the point, and "technically pieces of junk" isn't the point. the point is is that they worked just fine for what they needed to do. "memory handling" isn't important at all to a large majority of users. 16 vs. 32 bit will get you blank stares from 99% of the populace. functional with commonly available application software that many others have and many people know how to use is what's important.

you don't need a porsche to drive to the end of the driveway to get your mail. it's nice. but it's awfully wasteful in terms of financial resources.

as far as linux, etc. yea, but no one bothered to slap that interface on it, did they? (frankly most linux folks are too busy congratulating themselves on how much better their os is to realize that without an adequate user i/f, it doesn't mean squat how much better it is) and there's not a whole heckuva lot of application software for it. and it's great if you are "technologically inclined", but if you are "technologically challenged", it's beyond challenging. it borders on worthless. again, you are using "yourself" as an example. you gotta keep in mind that you aren't an example of an "average computer user". ain't a whole lot of people on [h] that could qualify under than category (except me, who remains mystified by much of the pc world :) )...

again, to use my example of video cards. to a hardcore gamer, card xxx that costs 500 dollars is the ONLY card that will do, and all other cards are junk. to the 99% of computer users who aren't hardcore gamers, they might as well take 5 franklins and light a cigar with them for all the use they get out of that card. ;)
 
My perspective is coming from the fact that I have small business clients (manufacturing) that have invested thousands of dollars into software packages that only run in a Win9X environment. Because 2000/XP is a different artchitecture, they must stay with an OS that works. The software does exactly what they need to to do with absolutely minimal problems on a 9x platform

The hardware will fail long before they need to upgrade the software, hence using newer machines with 9x OS. Offering free upgrades to these kinds of clients would save the clients absolutely nothing since a simple upgrade of their manufacturing software would cost them 50 times or more than the OS.

Why should they be forced to upgrade perfectly functioning systems?
Click to expand...

How come so many programs written today can fucntion on two completely different architectures Windows 98/ME as opposed to Windows 2000/XP using the same installation and files?

If the hardware fails long before they need to upgrade their software, than buy older hardware from left over stock. Or there should be very low end new end hardware sold just for that purpose. The bottom line is, Windows 9X has no place for support on robust modern hardware. If it has any place for support, it should require you to run the whole system in fail safe mode to install those old junk operating systems. What's going to happen 5 years from now when your clients are still using perfectly good software that only works on Windows 9X. Are you going to expect modern hardware sold by then to still support WIndows 9X when the lowest end systems sold come with 1GB or more RAM which WIndows 9X doesn't even support?
 
Super Mario said:
How come so many programs written today can fucntion on two completely different architectures Windows 98/ME as opposed to Windows 2000/XP using the same installation and files?

If the hardware fails long before they need to upgrade their software, than buy older hardware from left over stock. Or there should be very low end new end hardware sold just for that purpose. The bottom line is, Windows 9X has no place for support on robust modern hardware. If it has any place for support, it should require you to run the whole system in fail safe mode to install those old junk operating systems. What's going to happen 5 years from now when your clients are still using perfectly good software that only works on Windows 9X. Are you going to expect modern hardware sold by then to still support WIndows 9X when the lowest end systems sold come with 1GB or more RAM which WIndows 9X doesn't even support?
Click to expand...

Software that runs on either platform usually have common or slightly different libraries and dlls that are specifically written to work on each platform.

As for my clients, they will continue to use the software so long as the hardware is available to run on it. Which simply means I will have them stockpile a few older systems. With recent upgrades to their front office and such, they will have plenty of standby systems we can use at a moments notice. They are aware that their system is "outdated" compared to today's standards, but they also cannot afford to simply replace everything all at once.

Even having a very "basic" set of drivers to make the video, network, and other ports work would be sufficient for these clients since they don't need anything like powerful graphics to complete their job.

You may think it's easy to simply upgrade as time goes on, but when your a business owner and have thousands of dollars invested in a system that just simply works, its almost impossible to justify shelling out thousands more a few years later just because the OS is no longer supported by software or hardware vendors.
 
SJConsultant said:
While that might work for home customers. I've got at least two business clients that *MUST* use older hardware and Win9x on a machines on the manufacturing floor simply because the software will not run properly under 2000/XP or faster hardware.

They are looking into eventually upgrading, however the costs associated with upgrading far outweigh the benefits at this point in time.
Click to expand...

I am aware of industrial apps - many CNC controller boards, etc, are still on 8 bit ISA for pete's sake, and still use DOS commands, etc. These are, IMO, better classified as embedded applications than fully functional desktop systems. Any office/productivity/workstation/server/gaming work with modern applications needs to be designed for modern OSes, and that is 32bit native, with preemptive multitasking, and robust memory management, none of which you will find on 95/98/ME. Only NT based Windows products bring this to the table. Linux and OS/2 Warp do as well, but not 32 bit GUIs on 16bit DOS.
 
To quote Mikeblas and respond:
"Quote:
Originally Posted by HvyMtl
Ok, if you make a program you should be able to support it as long as you exist.

I think that's very naive. Do you really think Microsoft should still be offering support for Olypic Decatahlon, for example?
No, support for light weight games should not be considered as important, nor imperative, as operating systems. However, supporting forever is not a true option. Let me rephrase that into - they should be able to support as long as demand is decent enough for the support. Millions should be considered large enough, under say 1/2 million, then the support should go. The idea is this: should someone be left in the lurch because you want them to buy an overpriced, so called "new," operating system by forcing the older, yet still effective (for you)OS into obsolescence? Why not sell it as addons that enable 98SE to keep support for programs that were written to run on it, while adding new support for newer OS designs (this could be done and open up another revenue stream)? The sales model and need of ever higher profits (greed?) mandates that Microsoft dictate that everyone should, if not must, upgrade when they see fit. I am not against reasonable profit, but you must balance the needs of your customers better than what Microsoft is doing. This discussion points to this flaw. Hmm, on a side note, does a linux program written for an earlier kernel work on a newer one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HvyMtl
Where in the Eula, or any other agreement, is there a time limit to driver/OS support?

In Section 2, in the paragraph titled "Support Services", which references the company's life-cycle policies."
Interesting, but flawed, arguement - that life-cycle policy was NOT in place AT THE TIME of 98SE - but rather, to quote the site,"On October 15, 2002 Microsoft announced a new support life-cycle policy." Retroactive changes like that are generally frowned upon in other areas, why should that be acceptible in software/computers?
Hmm. Since there still seems to be a high demand for 98SE support, why then does Microsoft not support what their customers want/need? - Yes there are millions of 98SE machines still running out there, as not all businesses can afford/ see the need to upgrade every time new OSes or new cpus arrive ( unlike the uber-geek crowd that upgrades at the hint of new tech.) Their view - if it ain't broke... and is it worth the expense (usually not) and is it compatible with the application software we have already spent high dollars on (sometimes not.) So, Microsoft's business plans do not agree with the business plans of many of their buyers. Then why not give your buyers what they want? More backwards compatibility (like they did with the dos prompt) on their new OSes could entice businesses to bite the bullet and upgrade. But what does Microsoft do? The opt not to have compatibility a priority. Even with the SP2 update of XP - there are several programs no longer compatible that were designed to run on XP. Even some written by Microsoft are not compatible.
Note: no direct offense is ment to Mikeblas - all opinions that are wanted to be voiced by their owner should be heard on this topic - and arguements can be fun.
 
Hardware & software? No.

Hardware? Yes.

Software? No.

Just give me drivers for the hardware and let the rest sort itself out. The manuf. example is perfect. Some of this software is HIGHLY specific, and because of that there are only so many customers. Because of that, the software manufs. can't afford to make new versions for every new OS.

That would allow me to install DOS on a brand new machine, if my programs can only run under DOS if I had to.

BTW, DOS support is still provided for NIC manufs. :)

 
I am aware of industrial apps - many CNC controller boards, etc, are still on 8 bit ISA for pete's sake, and still use DOS commands, etc. These are, IMO, better classified as embedded applications than fully functional desktop systems. Any office/productivity/workstation/server/gaming work with modern applications needs to be designed for modern OSes, and that is 32bit native, with preemptive multitasking, and robust memory management, none of which you will find on 95/98/ME. Only NT based Windows products bring this to the table. Linux and OS/2 Warp do as well, but not 32 bit GUIs on 16bit DOS.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! That is why it would be best for support for Windows 98/ME to be dicthed all together!!
 
DOS support for NICs makes sense because even now a whole lot of techniques employ DOS to bootstrap an XP or Server 2003 build. Most new NICs will run with DOS on one of a handful of standard drivers. AFAIK no one bootstraps a build using 98SE.

As far as applications go that only run on 98 or ME, IMO whoever is selling 98-only software has pretty much run out of time and excuses, no matter how vertical or niche their LOB is. If someone wants to keep an old 98SE system around for old games and a general sake of nostalgia, then that's fine. Someone who uses 98 or ME as their main system and feels that every new piece of hardware out there should include a driver for them is overlooking the cost associated in doing so. I don't want to pay more money for hardware to support the development of drivers for an obsolete operating system. Simple economics tells me that 98/ME support is paid for nowdays largely by XP users.

I support eliminating 98/ME support.

I also support the enforcement of motorcycle helmet laws, seatbelt laws, and higher health and life insurance premiums for smokers for pretty much the same reasons. Enlightened self-interest.
 
I think that 98 and, if necessary, ME should be supported because people paid money for the OSes that might not be able to afford/want a newer OS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top