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

[Gorankar]

Constantly calling 98se a "peice of junk" OS, is rather silly.. You have said it numerous times, we understand how you feel.. We have heard your opinion.. Restating it over and over; a) will not change any one elses opinion, and b) makes you look silly....

Win 98se was an OK os in it's time.. What else was there? Support for 98 is fading away and has been little by little for a while..
Game and other software and many hardware makers still support win98 because people still use the OS.. They want to SELL, SELL, SELL, their product to as many people as they can.. If they think they can make a profit by continuing to support win98, they will..

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

Scroll down and you will be astounded by how many HL2 players still use 98/98se/me.. Thousands, and that is just for that game... Millions prolly still use those os's.. And these people are still buying software and hardware..

You figure it out yet? There is still money in supporting those "piece of junk" os's.. Arguing about how badly you think they suck will not change that..
Hence the continued support of those "piece of junk" os's..

 

[Super Mario]

Constantly calling 98se a "peice of junk" OS, is rather silly.. You have said it numerous times, we understand how you feel.. We have heard your opinion.. Restating it over and over; a) will not change any one elses opinion, and b) makes you look silly....

Win 98se was an OK os in it's time.. What else was there? Support for 98 is fading away and has been little by little for a while..
Game and other software and many hardware makers still support win98 because people still use the OS.. They want to SELL, SELL, SELL, their product to as many people as they can.. If they think they can make a profit by continuing to support win98, they will..

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

Scroll down and you will be astounded by how many HL2 players still use 98/98se/me.. Thousands, and that is just for that game... Millions prolly still use those os's.. And these people are still buying software and hardware..

You figure it out yet? There is still money in supporting those "piece of junk" os's.. Arguing about how badly you think they suck will not change that..
Hence the continued support of those "piece of junk" os's..

I don't think support for these OSs should be 100% ditched yet. What I think is that they are still suppiorted WAY TOO MUCH!! Those operating systems falt out do suck and it amazes me why that many HL2 players would cling to those piece of junk operating systems for a game that is resource intensive. Any quality games and digital media application sin today's world DON'T HAVE ANY place for support on those fake non-real operating systems.

Game makers would make more of a profit by not supporting those junk operating systems because they would save a lot of money by not having to ensure comptaibility with those obsolete inferior WIN 98/ME OSes. Heck, games and applications would probably run a lot better if they were Windows 2000/XP/2003 only. That is enough reason for me to really emphasize how much Windows 98/ME flat out suck. Phasing out WIN 98/ME compatibility may be the only way to force people still sticking to those POS operating systems the nudge they need to upgrade if they expect to run the latest applications. Just read all the other posts in this thread and see all the responses that it is time for people still lviing in the past to move on, that is if they want to run the latest applications and games.

 

[ccotenj]

supermario, just WHY do you hate 98 so much??? what did it ever do to you??

putting your theories on economics aside for a moment... think logically for a minute, and put aside your blind hatred of 98 ... if game makers could make more money/profit by not supporting 98, they wouldn't support it... so take a guess why they DO support 98...

your rationale on this is reminiscent of the the thread along the lines of "games for pc's would be better if software developers weren't so lazy"... software manufacturer's aren't in the business for altruism... they are in it to make money...

listen to gorankor... merely repeating over and over about how much it "flat out sucks" etc. isn't going to convince anyone... especially those of us who used it for a very long time and know it doesn't "flat out suck" and isn't a "piece of junk"...

and fwiw, not everyone can simply just afford to go out and replace their hardware and software on a regular basis... maybe you are fortunate enough to be able to do that... but i used the last pc i had for 8 years before i got a new one... i'm not alone in that... stopping support for 98 in games (and frankly, that really seems to be your primary beef, that games would be better if support for 98 went away) would not necessarily result in people buying new hardware and software... it WOULD result in people buying fewer games (which would result in less money for the software companies, which would result in fewer developers, which would result in WORSE games)... again, not everyone can simply afford to go out and spend the type of money it takes for that type of upgrade to just play a game...

sheesh... at least TRY and look at the other side...

 

[Super Mario]

Lets put it this way. Microsoft won't make any profit by continuing to support Windows 98/ME. Microsoft would make more money if they didn't support Windows 98/ME. When is the next version of DirectX coming out? Hopefully it will be for Windows 2000/XP/2003 only and support for Windows 98/ME will be dicthed all together. Then all games won't
support those operating systems anymore which will be a great thing and tremendous better health for the PC gaming community.

What did Windows 98 ever do to me? When I used it, it constrantly crashed on me and made me reboot my system all the time. My drives always got fragmented and such. It was such an unstable inferior OS when I had experience with it on a 600MHz PC. That is why I say it is a flat out piece of junk. Whenever I have used Windows XP/2000, it has always been rock solid and stable for the most part. That's my experience.

Once again, Windows 98/ME maybe should still be supported, but it shoud very limited and restricted to only older applications, and maybe modern applications that are very simple and basic. ANy modern applications that are somewhat resource intensive or even the slighest complex should be Windows 2000/XP/2003/newer versions only when it comes to writing applications for Microsoft operating systems.

Maybe modern hardware chipset drivers and video cards should still support them, BUT ONLY for the purpose for what SJConsultant said about his clients using software that onlu runs on Windows 9X and the possibility of hardware failing and his clientsd having to get new hardware to run the same applications. Also for people who want to run legacy games and programs on their new system. However, the video card and chipset ,makers should just make drivers for Windows 9X that just provide enough functionality for the OS to recognize and be compatible with the chipset or video card, and require that the system is running in an underclocked, backwards comptaibility state before booting to Windows 9X. That way, they could just make generic chipset or video card drivers for just enough functionality. BUT IN NO WAY should hardware device drivers be made to support Windows 9X for the sole puprose of taking advanatge of running the latets applications on the latets hardware in Windows 9X. Only drivers for backwards comptainility for running legacy older applications on modern hardware!!

 

[Gorankar]

Force people to switch.. I live in the US, thank you very much..

If there wasn't any money in programming sofware, or writing drivers for 98, they would NOT do it.. Obviously, they, the software devs, and publishers, see profit in supporting 98..
Trust me, they have accountants, they have done the math.. They are not just blindly supporting 98 with no expectation of a return.. Obviously it cost less $ to add 98 support than the amount of $ they get back in sales of their product.. Economics 101..

I'm sorry you have had such a bad time with 98.. 98 treated me ok, once I figured the bitch out.. Wasn't without it's problems, but XP has not been a walk in the park either..

As far as I can see, MS no longer truly supports 98.. Only updates I have seen in a while are for IE..

Out of spite ,the comp I wrote this post on is an athlon classic 800 with 512 megs of ram running windows 98.. Been over a year since my last re-install.. Play mostly legacy games, and wife surfs web with it. (with proper antivirus and every port I can stealth, stealthed with my firewall of course)..

 

[Gorankar]

Also, this should make you happy, 64bit is here.. XP64 will be released in a few months.. It will be much harder to support win9x when they start writing software for native 64 bit.. Of course then you will be able to complain about the millions of Athlon Xp's and P4's that those damn devs keep writing sofware for.. They should just stop supporting those "piece of junk" processors and FORCE everyone to upgrade to 64 bit.

They will stop supporting 98 when it no longer makes fiscal sense.. Relax, it will not be that far down the road imo..

 

[Super Mario]

Also, this should make you happy, 64bit is here.. XP64 will be released in a few months.. It will be much harder to support win9x when they start writing software for native 64 bit.. Of course then you will be able to complain about the millions of Athlon Xp's and P4's that those damn devs keep writing sofware for.. They should just stop supporting those "piece of junk" processors and FORCE everyone to upgrade to 64 bit.

They will stop supporting 98 when it no longer makes fiscal sense.. Relax, it will not be that far down the road imo..

No, I won't be saying that. I had hoped to see almost all games and applications be Windows 2000/XP/2003 and above only when it comes to the Microsoft OS world (of course Linux support would be great too) long before 64-bit is here. It's sad those inferior 98/ME operating systems still live to this day

Yes, it does make fiscal sense to support Windows 98 for games and applications that are simplistic and don't need a decent PC to run. But where is the fiscal sense reality in supporting POS Windows 98/ME for games and applications that require a decent PC to run like 1GHz or faster CPU with 256MB or more RAM.

There is no fiscal sense in supporting Windows 98 for games and applications that require a 1GHz or faster PC with 256MB or more RAM.

I mean, how in the heck is it that iTunes and Napster support only Windows 2000/XP, but most games still support POS Windows 98/ME?? That is just crazy. iTunes and Napster are much more simple programs, and would make more sense to support Windows 98/ME, but games are high end and complex, and should require a quality OS to run!!

 

[The_Mage18]

perhaps if Microsoft would tell you IN ADVANCE of purchase that as of Y date you will have X years support and make it obvious for all users (including the "Joe Sixpacks" of the world who buy the lowest end stuff) as well as application/hardware makers - then this would not be an issue.
However, their choice of not letting their customer know until after the decision is made and well after purchase leads to the present problems discussed in this thread.

To expect Microsoft, or any software/hardware company for that matter. to know when exactly they will stop support is outrageous and plain ignorant. You can't expect them to anticipate every change in the market and customer's expectations and design a product that will satesfy these critera for X years.
Case in point XP. When it was released in 2001 MS had no intention of a 64-bit version nor was there a reason to have one. Now that A64 has gained popularity they modified XP into a 64-bit version but it's still quirky. XP was supposed to be MS's flagship OS until Longhorn debued and they've had to make a major modifictation already. Do you really think they saw that comming?

 

[The_Mage18]

Throwing my hat into this heated discussion....


Should MS continue support for 95/98/98SE/ME? Going by the market precendent, no. Now before you flame me consider this. When was the last time you saw an ISA slot on a motherboard? How about a VLB slot? Extended ISA? Oh Hell let's really dig deep and go with an upgrade socket. Newer technology was developed that was faster, cheaper to manufacture and market and offered more benefits so the market as a whole phased out these older technologies.

Now look at Windows 9x cores. They don't support as much RAM (put a gig in a 9x box and watch what happens. I dare you to straight face say it's stable), can't support as large of file system sizes without possible data degradadation and/or loss, don't support newer technologies such as SATA, "Winaudio" solutions (built in sound on motherboards with 192kHz 8 channel sound solutions, etc), SMP and hot-swappable devices.

NT cores. 4GB of RAM (maybe 3 due to OS restrictions, can't remember exactly) for 32-bit, more for 64. Supports multiple gigs on the file system, supports hot-swapping, SMP (XP Home supports Hyperthreading CPUs which is similar to SMP), services instead of TSRs enabling support for "soft" based hardware and better user level security.

Game makes will continue to support a 9x core as well as some of the hardware manufacturers to a point because they want money. They know people aren't going to upgrade their OS knowing that it doesn't have support and are going to try and use their game/hardware on an outdated OS. Rather than suffer loses from open boxes and returns, they bite the bullet and hack in support. Who here has installed a USB 2.0 card into 98? Remember how much fun that is? How about a USB pendrive or USB to IDE drive? What happens when you disconnect the drive without taking time to tell Windows to stop the device, then wait for it to tell you it can be unplugged? Not exactly convenient, is it?

The final piece of the puzzle is the generation gap. Take a moment to think, REALLY think about the age of the people who still use a 9x core and vehemotly refuse to upgrade their OS and/or PC. The majority of those people are older and from a time that when you bought something it was meant to last for years and didn't have an undefined limited life span. The only reason software and hardware makers are continuing to drag 98SE support is to avoid losing market share. If they didn't offer support, the children of those who insist on keeping 9x and not upgrading would either buy them anyways and try to make them work ultimately returning them in many cases, or loss the sale to begin with. Rather than tangle with that support/cs nightmare post sale, they plan for it pre-sale and hack in 98 capability.


And as for the point made about MS still selling Win98 and ME, that wasn't so much MS as it was vendors and OEMs. MS stopped pressing CDs and honoring orders long before the copies of 9x left the shelves. OEMs and vendors did a collective "Oh Shit" and pushed the stuff to get it off the shelves, out the doors, and off the books before they took a big loss. There is nothing a retail buisness hates more than product on the shelf that they paid $X for that they now have to sell for less due to high supply/low demand. MS adds another problem to this by dictating what resellers can and can't resell MS software for. A violation usually means fines and/or revocation of the reseller license. For many MS based computer stores that's pretty much death (kinda hard to sell complete PCs when you can't provide the most demanded OS for it).

 

[Unknown-One]

I think what Super Mario is trying to say is:
If the computer needed to run a program is inherently also powerful enough to run windows 2000 and later, than you should not be using Windows 9x/ME.

Now, wasn’t that much nicer than saying “Windows 9x/ME flat out suck!”?

 

[Super Mario]

Very well said The_Mage18.

SO far, with the results of this poll, the total NOs have outscored the total yes's by a score of 90-23. That should really say something about how support for POS Windows 98/ME should be dicthed for the most part.

It so friggin amazes me why some people still insist on using those opetaing systems, especiallcy on a decent PC. Just carzy if you ask me.

Hardware and software makers should have bit the bullet a couple of years ago and dicthed support for POS Windows 98/ME all together, especially when it comes to software and hardware that requires a decent PC to function

Nobody should try to flame you The_Mage18 because you are in fact completrely correct in that Windows 9X/ME are a flat out disgust that they are kept around this long. Those POS Windows 98/ME operating systems should have been put to death more than 3 years ago when it comes to supporting the latest software and device drivers running on the latest hardware!

Running an oudated POS opertaing system like Windows 98/ME on CPUs and motherboards produced in the last three years would be like buying a brand new 30 foot camper and expecting to use your 25 year old pickup truck with over 200,000 miles on it that hogs gas and oil as well as runs rough and rugged (just functional enough to get around). Sure, that horribly old and in crumby shape 25 year old pickup truck may tow it, but not without severe problems along the way until it eventually stalls on the road and smells horrible. The same can be said about the logic of using POS Windows 98/ME for your primary OS on modern hardware to run modern applications and games!!! Just flat out ridiculous if you ask me.

 

[S1nF1xx]

It so friggin amazes me why some people still insist on using those opetaing systems, especiallcy on a decent PC. Just carzy if you ask me.

Because people hear things like "XP is such a resource hog!" XP adds tons of eye candy that slows down your computer!" etc. While this is true if you're trying to run it on an older computer, it performs just fine on any machine made in the last 4 years.

Some people think gaming on 98 is faster because newer hardware can spank around that OS at lightning speed. Which may be true, but you can't game well when your OS is blue screening every 35minutes.

XP is 100x more stable than 98, hence offering a better experience. Uh.... yeah, I'm kinda running out of the energy to rant anymore, so I'll leave it at that.. lol

 

[Sco-bar]

Pure junk, any of the 9x OS'es were crap.

That said. It should still be supported. Lots of people still use them to this day.

In fact I just finished migrating a network from 98 to XP (all new systems of course) but still.

And the company still uses an accounting package that runs in DOS.

 

[psxpaul]

I voted NO. The way I see it, its not really necessary.

For hardware-
Most consumers who buy new hardware will have the money to buy XP. If they don't, they probably have the technical know how to get a pirated version (since they'll be installing their own hardware).

For software-
Again, if you're buying new software, you probably have the money to buy XP. Having older hardware isn't an excuse either- I just saw in the paper this morning a complete Sempron pc for $150 (no OS though). And considering your computer would have to be below 500Mhz to not be able to run XP, most new software would be unbareably slow anyways.

For businesses-
I really don't see what the problem is with the given example in this thread. If a business chooses not to upgrade to XP compatible software, they can simply stockpile a bunch of older 9x compatible machines. Hardware failure isn't really that common, so having even just a few backup machines handy would likely award numerous years of reliable service.

And remember that even though some hardware/software is, "unsupported", it will still function on Win9x. A brand new Dell could probably run Win9x pretty well, even without all of the proper drivers. Also lots of new software could probably run on Win9x even though such a configuration isn't supported.

 

[sieb]

Because people hear things like "XP is such a resource hog!" XP adds tons of eye candy that slows down your computer!" etc. While this is true if you're trying to run it on an older computer, it performs just fine on any machine made in the last 4 years.

I tell people that this is a non issue. All you do is change the visual setting through System Properties and your right back at Windows 2000. I've had XP running just fine on a P133. XP scales decently on smaller systems. I've gotten it to use a base 70MB of ram after an install, impressive.

Win9x is dead, let it stay dead. Its a hacked 16/32 bit system. With the advent of the Win2k Kernel, win9x is inefficient, unstable, and unsecure. Within the next year or two, I can bet Win98 won't even install on most new machines. Which is fine by me. Forcing companies it backward support old decrepit systems is why PCs are still laggin behind compared to many of the well established features of Macs. Which is sad..

 

[Super Mario]

I tell people that this is a non issue. All you do is change the visual setting through System Properties and your right back at Windows 2000. I've had XP running just fine on a P133. XP scales decently on smaller systems. I've gotten it to use a base 70MB of ram after an install, impressive.

Win9x is dead, let it stay dead. Its a hacked 16/32 bit system. With the advent of the Win2k Kernel, win9x is inefficient, unstable, and unsecure. Within the next year or two, I can bet Win98 won't even install on most new machines. Which is fine by me. Forcing companies it backward support old decrepit systems is why PCs are still laggin behind compared to many of the well established features of Macs. Which is sad..

AMEN!! COuldn't have said it any better. You can use a porgram called nlite to strip out the unneeded junk Windows XP comes with so it isn't such a resoure hog. Go to http://www.nliteos.com/nlite.html to see more about it and download it. If you don't like XP, no excuses to stick with Windows 98. Use Windows 2000 if you hate XP so much. It's the kernel that is the tremendois difference and why Windows 9X is completely dead and an inferrior POS OS.

That is why I hate Windows 98 so much because I hate Windows 9X period. All of Windows 9X was complete and utter crap!! It has probbaly held the PC industry back like you said which is sad.

 

[Unknown-One]

And considering your computer would have to be below 500Mhz to not be able to run XP, most new software would be unbareably slow anyways.

NOT TRUE!
I've had XP running on a 366MHz Pentium II system befor! I just gave it a decent ammount of RAM and it had no problems running at all.
I'll admit, it was a little slow (slightly slower than 98 would have been) but it was perfectly workable

 

[Super Mario]

Force people to switch.. I live in the US, thank you very much..

If there wasn't any money in programming sofware, or writing drivers for 98, they would NOT do it.. Obviously, they, the software devs, and publishers, see profit in supporting 98..
Trust me, they have accountants, they have done the math.. They are not just blindly supporting 98 with no expectation of a return.. Obviously it cost less $ to add 98 support than the amount of $ they get back in sales of their product.. Economics 101..

I'm sorry you have had such a bad time with 98.. 98 treated me ok, once I figured the bitch out.. Wasn't without it's problems, but XP has not been a walk in the park either..

As far as I can see, MS no longer truly supports 98.. Only updates I have seen in a while are for IE..

Out of spite ,the comp I wrote this post on is an athlon classic 800 with 512 megs of ram running windows 98.. Been over a year since my last re-install.. Play mostly legacy games, and wife surfs web with it. (with proper antivirus and every port I can stealth, stealthed with my firewall of course)..

Nobody should be forced to swicth to anything. But if you plan on using using a halfway decent PC for your computing, YOU should be forced to run at least a quality OS on it. It amazes me how many people still cling to those POS WIN 98/ME operating systems.

Game makers support Windows 98 based on overly exxaggerated statistics with the mere though that a lot of people use Windows 98/ME. It doesn't mean they would loose money by not supporting them though. Doom 3 doesn't support those POS operating systems, and it has sold millions of copies. I don't see how the same can't be said for other games?

I mean sure, games that don't require a halfway fast system to run certainly makes fiscal sense to support 98/ME. But why in the heck should any games that need a 1GHz or faster CPU to run support those POS operating systems. Now in that case, it doesn't make much fiscalk sense other than overly hyped rumors and statistics that a lot of people use 98/ME even on faster systems.

The bottom line is i you want to run modern software and halfway decent hawrdare, you SHOULD be forced to run a quality OS, and NOT be able to run an utter POS like WIN 98/ME!!

 

[tdg]

You can group 98 and ME together as 9x, and yes they should still be supported by at least software vendors. There are still MANY people and business running the OS, and saying "trash it" does not work for a business that uses a propriatary application that will only run on 9x systems.

If you think 9x is old, talk to one of my clients that still uses ISA controller cards, I recently upgraded his machines and ISA slots were a requirement since he has hundreds of thousands invested in equipment that needs those cards.

 

[The_Mage18]

You can group 98 and ME together as 9x, and yes they should still be supported by at least software vendors. There are still MANY people and business running the OS, and saying "trash it" does not work for a business that uses a propriatary application that will only run on 9x systems.

If you think 9x is old, talk to one of my clients that still uses ISA controller cards, I recently upgraded his machines and ISA slots were a requirement since he has hundreds of thousands invested in equipment that needs those cards.

What you're proposing is a specific situation that most people in this thread have already come to agree with you. Buisnesses have the resources and SHOULD (keyword: should) have replacement hardware to keep those systems up and running. Yes it has been agreed that support for 9x should still continue for those software companies whos products are not NT compatable however, if they do have NT compatable products there comes a time when they have to consider the lifetime of said 9x only product.

Many companies in this situation resort to "pay as you need" or a support contract instead of giving free support. This to me is perfectly acceptable as the product as reached the end of its lifetime cycle. There is no such product on the market today that you can buy and not have to pay for service or support several years down the road.

My 14 year old Subaru still runs quietly but Subaru won't even look at it unless I pay them. Do I need a new car? Not really as my old car still runs and doesn't need major repairs. So why should Subaru be forced to work on it free of charge simply because "I still use it"?

 

[The_Mage18]

If you really want to split hairs, the medical company I work for still has DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 machines not to mention the various Win 9x boxes for legacy systems that can't be upgraded yet (damn government hasn't oked newer ones yet). If they break, we have to call the vendor and pay them to get the system repaired. There have been a couple of smaller systems that the vendor basically told us upgrade or do without and we had no choice but to replace them. Yeah there was some complaining but when it came down to it everyone involved knew that sooner or later it HAD to be done.

 

[RocketFast321]

^wow that sounds like fun, and I'm being a smartass. I would enjoy working on that.

 

[Super Mario]

Sure, WIndows 98 was fine for older computers, but why should modern games and applications support it??


I mean, it just seems embarrassing that new quality, high end games like HL2 support those POS Windows 98/ME opertaing systems.

Windows 98 was ok for a high end Pentium II or low end Pentium III. But for high end Pentium III machines and higher, it should be Windows 2000/XP only!!


Modern and quality hardware as well as quality games deserve to use the features of a quality OS which of what Windows 2000/XP are. Windows 98/ME are not!!!

Just about everyone I have talked to uses Windows XP. There has been some very rare few who still use Windows 98, but all of them have computers with CPU speeds 800MHz or slower. How could it make fiscal sense to support Windows 98/ME for games, hardware, and applications that require a 1GHz or faster CPU minimum to work??

 

[Super Mario]

Also, keep in mind that cars and computers are a completely different ball game. An old car can still serve a very useful purpose as long as it is in great shape and works. Sure, it may no longer be under warrenty from the manufacturer, but it can still be just as useful as a new car. An old computer can still be useful, but only if it's making use out of using oild software.

You have to have a newer computer to run newer software. You can't just expect to install today;s software on a computer made in 1994. However, with cars, you can still put a brand new CD player in a car more than 10 years old.

Computers and software have evolved so much the last 10 years and only continue and evolve. The technology in cars hasn't changed significantly in the last 10 years. I mean the sole purpose of a car is to get you from one place to another. The purpose of a computer is to do many different things.

 

[huxley]

If you really want to split hairs, the medical company I work for still has DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 machines not to mention the various Win 9x boxes for legacy systems that can't be upgraded yet (damn government hasn't oked newer ones yet). If they break, we have to call the vendor and pay them to get the system repaired. There have been a couple of smaller systems that the vendor basically told us upgrade or do without and we had no choice but to replace them. Yeah there was some complaining but when it came down to it everyone involved knew that sooner or later it HAD to be done.

LOB (line of business) apps are totally different than video games. Hell, most retail computers were based on friggin basic or something up until the past few years. The home business video game market is much different than the business line application market.

 

[carlos39]

Well, my opinion on this is yes and no.

Yes, I agree that 98 support should end.
No, I want the Milennium support and drivers to be kept. In fact, I use the Millenium in my pentium IV 2,8 computer and I prefer it to the XP, that I had to retire, it only caused me problems!
Millenium already has usb 2.0 support, etc.

Milenium is, like its name says, for this milenium!

Xp, office xp, etc, are only done to continuosly create consumers´ new and superflous (90% of features are never used) needs. The problem is that their expensive advertisement in tv´s and papers they spend in making our heads, is payed by... us all, incorporated in the price of the computer products ( without that they could be much less cheaper!) we buy!

 

[Super Mario]

Well, my opinion on this is yes and no.

Yes, I agree that 98 support should end.
No, I want the Milennium support and drivers to be kept. In fact, I use the Millenium in my pentium IV 2,8 computer and I prefer it to the XP, that I had to retire, it only caused me problems!
Millenium already has usb 2.0 support, etc.

Milenium is, like its name says, for this milenium!

Xp, office xp, etc, are only done to continuosly create consumers´ new and superflous (90% of features are never used) needs. The problem is that their expensive advertisement in tv´s and papers they spend in making our heads, is payed by... us all, incorporated in the price of the computer products ( without that they could be much less cheaper!) we buy!

Are you sure you aren't referring to Windows 2000 when you say Millenium?? I mean, the year 2000 was the new millenium. But don't let the name fool you. I think it was Windows 2000 SP4 that contained USB 2.0. Windows ME or 98 nevered contained any native USB 2.0 support. You needed third part drivers for USB 2.0 in 98/ME.

Yes, I strongly agree that Windows 2000 should still be supported, and it still heavily is. Windows 2000 is a very good OS still in this day

However, Windows ME is probably the biggest pile of crap ever released from Microsoft!!

DO NOT let the names and very similar interface fool you!! Windows 2000 and Windows ME are NOT the same thing nor are they similar!!!

WIndows ME/98/95/3.1/DOS are all part of the same OS family and based on old legacy DOS code

Windows 2003/XP/2000/NT are part of the same OS family and based on a completely different kernel and resource management than the Windows 9X family

 

[carlos39]

Well i wrote usb 2.0 support, not native support; I meant It can support and work with... And in my case, well. Also I did the upgrade from the mediaplayer 7 to 9.

As this software goes well for me - I must add that I use internet a lot and until now without ANY problem, then why should I upgrade, If it works well on my pentium 2,8 computer...

Also about the DOS: all windows are still and will still be based in the Dos, if not in the code itself, in the definition-concept of the Disk Operating System;Or, if I am wrong, try to operate one computer without an hard Disk installed with a proprietary Operating System in it, and try if you can.

The fact is that now there is a stupid and frenetic run - with a regular and healhy run, I agree, of course - from the hardware industry that is leading to an super production of computers, what causes that this extremely toxic and pollution trash is now populating the trash places around the cities- with its great risk for the public healh and enviromnent. And that stupid speed is caused mostly because of the stupid and ever increasing weight ( 90% of their features will never be used by most consumers)of the new operating systems like xp and longhorn that require new hardware equipment.

 

[Super Mario]

Also about the DOS: all windows are still and will still be based in the Dos, if not in the code itself, in the definition-concept of the Disk Operating System;Or, if I am wrong, try to operate one computer without an hard Disk installed with a proprietary Operating System in it, and try if you can.

Don't read too much into what the name DOS stood for. When I say DOS, I mean the legacy operating that they so happened to call Disk Operating System. It's the legacy and ancient code and architecture that an OS was built from which was called DOS. They could have easily called it something else.

Because of the limitations DOS, newer operating systems had to be designed from scratch that would far exceed the limitations DOS had. They just decided to call them something else. They could have eaisly made an OS based on a much newer code base and design, and still called it DOS. Because after all, all operating systems for a computer run on a disk. SO therfore, you have Disk Operating System.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

But never the less, the results of this poll are great!! 110-31 in favor of NO support for Windows 98/ME. Man, just like a huge 79 point blowout in a basketball game!

 

[Wesley1357]

come on people.
i think they should, because there are people on this planet that cannot afford better systems. and therefor microsoft shouldn't dictate to people if there computer is old or not, you can print, have databases, play games in win98se. why throw it in the trash?

 

[Super Mario]

come on people.
i think they should, because there are people on this planet that cannot afford better systems. and therefor microsoft shouldn't dictate to people if there computer is old or not, you can print, have databases, play games in win98se. why throw it in the trash?

For software designed to be comptible with older computer, it's one thing to support Windows 98/ME. But what place do they have for support for any program or hardware that requires a PC with a 1GHz or faster CPU minimum to run?? No point in supporting them. Windows 98/ME flat out stink!!

 

[mewannafastpc]

i say it should because some people don't have enough to spend on a new OS they rather spend that on games haha
not me i get Microsoft software discount from my college

 

[xXaNaXx]

let me clarify one thing to some of the people who have posted here:

the OP never asked if MS should still support Win9x OS'es, because....well....they already have stopped supporting them.

he asked if software developers (meaning any group of people who write applications/games/etc. for windows, and not the Windows development team themselves) should still support Win9x.

there is only one instance in which Win9x should be supported, and that is by developers who write proprietary software (by proprietary, i mean software that is "personalized" for one specific company). if they are going to continue to write proprietary software that only works on Win9x, then yes, they should still support it.

however, for everyone else, it needs to die for good. most any software developer nowadays writes their software with WinXP/Win2k/Win2k3 in mind, then if they can get it to work on 9x without too much trouble (i.e., cost), then OK. but i believe that they should have a disclaimer with the software that says something to the effect of: "although this software MAY run on a Win9x-based computer, there is no guarantee that it will run on your particular Win9x setup, and we assume no responsibility if it does not".

many software manufacturers have already ditched support for 9x, and i say good for them. they're just trying to bring the computer industry out of the digital "Dark Ages" as it were. they actually have the integrity to possibly lose a few sales due to no support for Win9x, in exchange for potentially getting people to stop using old, crappy hardware/software. having to provide support for the older stuff makes it harder/more costly for them to support their product, which prevents them from applying that time/money to better things, like creating the next new thing.

businesses who do not rely on proprietary, Win9x-only software to run their business should get with the times and upgrade when hardware goes bad, rather than trying to stretch out that ancient hardware/software. if they have used the stuff for 7+ years, they have already gotten their money's worth, and then some.

for the businesses who do rely on proprietary, Win9x-only software, they should already have backup hardware to repair those old PC's when they decide to take a dump. even if they don't have backups already, a lot of that antiquated hardware can be found extremely cheap nowadays, so when they find a source for it, they can buy a ton of it cheaply so that they do have plenty backups.

for normal, everyday people, i think that once something goes bad, it's time to upgrade. many of the people who buy computers nowadays either buy new ones that have support from the manufacturer, or they are given (or sold at a low price) older computers by people they know, such as friends or relatives who are into computers. those friends/relatives who are into computers should already be well aware of the lack of support for the older stuff, and strive to get the newest stuff possible. otherwise, they're just creating more of a hassle for themselves for having to support the older crap that is becoming outdated, and they're screwing grandma/grandpa (or mom/dad, or whoever) out of a good computing experience.

now one thing that is a stupid move is trying to use newer software on older hardware that obviously can't support it very well.

case in point: my company 1.5 years ago "upgraded" from Win2k to WinXP on some old, crappy Celeron 400's with like 128MB RAM. the machines ran pretty good under Win2k, but when they switched to XP, it was actually causing me physical pain to use them. finally, they decided to get new computers (P4 2.6's w/512 RAM), and guess what? they're usable again!

and guess what? for anyone who says that they don't want to have to upgrade the whole computer to run an OS like Win2k, get real. my dad & sister both have 380Mhz computers with 128MB RAM running Win2k, and those systems run just fine, and can still run most any software that doesn't have hardware requirements higher than what they have. which is just fine for most of the peole using the older hardware in the first place, as they mostly use it for email/web surfing anyway. people who are not well-off enough to upgrade their computers/OS are generally not well-off enough to afford to spend $40+ on the latest & greatest games.

but please don't make ME have to suffer from sub-par hardware/software because of their lack of willingness (or lack of ability) to upgrade. the less time the manufacturers spend on supporting legacy crap, the more time they have to devote to making a better product.

 

[Super Mario]

i say it should because some people don't have enough to spend on a new OS they rather spend that on games haha
not me i get Microsoft software discount from my college

So, do you think those piece of junk Windows 98/ME operating systems should have support when it comes to the latest and greatest video chipsets and hardware. If someone has enough money to buy a halfway decent PC, they have enough money to buy Windows 2000 or XP. If not, I'm sure those same people would probably be willing to just use an unlicensed copy of 2K/XP.

Ne4ver the less, THERE IS NO WAY those piece of junk Windows 98/ME operating systems should be excpeted for running modern software on modern hardware!! NO WAY!!

Face it Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers!!! Any Windows 9X based OS sucks and you can't continue and use such a piece of junk OS as you continue to upgrade your applications and hardware!! Windows 2K/XP are 100X better and that is a pure technical fact!! So get that mere blind ignornat thought out of your head that you live in this fantasy world where you think Windows 98SE is so great and better than any other version of Windows, because IT IS NOT!! It' called the differences in the kernel, and modern hardwrae and applications deserve the ease of using a quality OS kernel to run on!!!

 

[Party2go9820]

Face it Windows 98SE obsessers and lovers!!! Any Windows 9X based OS sucks and you can't continue and use such a piece of junk OS as you continue to upgrade your applications and hardware!! Windows 2K/XP are 100X better and that is a pure technical fact!! So get that mere blind ignornat thought out of your head that you live in this fantasy world where you think Windows 98SE is so great and better than any other version of Windows, because IT IS NOT!! It' called the differences in the kernel, and modern hardwrae and applications deserve the ease of using a quality OS kernel to run on!!!

So glad you were able to keep this thread logical. I'm glad to know that there is a "pure technical fact!!" as to why "Windows 2K/XP are 100X better". Thanks for showing us how superior you are.

</sarcasm>

 

[drizzt81]

98 yes, ME no!

seriously, ME was junk, Win2K came out at the same time and was much nicer to use.

 

[S1nF1xx]

My question is why does this stupid thread keep coming back?


Why doesn't MS support DOS anymore? Why doesn't Apple support the Mac Classic anymore?

Because no one is buying them anymore. They are gaining ZERO revenue from them. Yes people still use these OS's. Yes some of those people can't afford to upgrade. But do you want to know the sad truth about it? MS is a business. Not a good-will almighty holy helper of people with computers. They are out to make money. No new hardware is being specifically designed for these OS's. No software is being made for these OS's. There is no demand for 98 from the masses. MS would lose money writing service packs and patches for the OS. PLUS, there is an OS that is magnitudes better, XP, and there is crazy demand for it.

Same thing goes for third party software and hardware devs. There is no demand for 98, so there will be no demand for their software. (However, these idiots are the ones who won't let the DVD-ROM out of the bag. They are worried that Pablo in Bum-Fuck-Egypt only has a CD-ROM and they'll lose his money if the have DVD-only games/apps. So I'm sure they'll support 98 for years to come...cheap bastards.)

So if you look at it from a view outside your boxes, no, MS should not support 98 anymore. 98 is dead, it's time to let her go and move on.

 

[drizzt81]

So glad you were able to keep this thread logical. I'm glad to know that there is a "pure technical fact!!" as to why "Windows 2K/XP are 100X better". Thanks for showing us how superior you are.

</sarcasm>

thanks for putting that so nicely.

Hey Mario: does your keyboard has a POS key, because you sure like to use that acronym. I am not even going to start counting how many times you used it.

anyway, I do not understand your random hatred for that OS.As someone else said, developers are going to consider cost and benefit when creating apps:
If they have M resources available for a new app, and they know that they can get Z reward from spending Q resources on XP/2k/2k3 support and Y reward from spending (M-Q) resources on 9x/Me support, yet only W reward from spending all M resources on XP/2K/2K3, where Z - W < Y, they will continue to spend money on supporting 9x.

The nice thing about the USA is -at least that is what the US-citizens are trying to make me believe- that people have a free choice. You are not allowed to force them to upgrade from their "oudated POS opertaing system", since it is their money that they are allowed to spend on whatever they want, be it new hardware on which to run their Win9x.

As for your other points, please elaborate how dropping 9x/Me support is going to "be a great thing and tremendous better health for the PC gaming community"? I really do not understand that, but maybe I have yet to reach your state of enlightenment.

 

[drizzt81]

Why doesn't MS support DOS anymore? Why doesn't Apple support the Mac Classic anymore?

Because no one is buying them anymore. They are gaining ZERO revenue from them. Yes people still use these OS's. Yes some of those people can't afford to upgrade. But do you want to know the sad truth about it? MS is a business. Not a good-will almighty holy helper of people with computers. They are out to make money. No new hardware is being specifically designed for these OS's. No software is being made for these OS's. There is no demand for 98 from the masses. MS would lose money writing service packs and patches for the OS. PLUS, there is an OS that is magnitudes better, XP, and there is crazy demand for it.

Read the question again, it doesn't say "should we force HW/SW manufacturers to still support 9x/ME" but it says "Should ... still be supported.." and the answer to that is yes, provided that the companies make money in doing so. I do not lose anything by a company supporting 9x/ME, so let them do it, since the market is demanding it.

 

[carlos39]

Again, I use the win. Milenium on about two years ( on my new 2.8 pentium IV on about 4 months) and eveything fine. Xp only had it installed 4 or 5 days that caused me so many problems I had to reinstall the Milenium.

When I´ll upgrade I´ll go directly to the longhorn, but I´ll expect to hear then some people to call trash what is now beautiful. By that kind of thinking the new mobiles and desktops now new in the stores are already ...postponed ( 5 months?, ah, ah, ah, lol, -for some people it seems! ) trash.

So why buy one thing that tomorrow or after tomorrow will be already trash?

Consumerism?
Or trash producing, maybe... ! ^ --- :;;: --- ^ !