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

[Empyrean]

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.

Same as the floppy.

 

[mewannafastpc]

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!!!

wow ok....did 98SE/ME cost you an arm and a leg in debt after it crashed or something you seem to really hate it to it's core ???
i really don't see why XP is that much better than ME other than stability problems i hear from other users, and ease of use but once people use ME for along time it's just like me using any OS for a long time you get used ot it. But to most people that don't do Mission critical apps there is no reason to upgrade if all you're gonna do is surf and chat.... and Games dont' qualify as Mission Critical

 

[Super Mario]

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.

I don't know for sure because I am not a programmer, but I just have a feeling since the architecture of Windows 98/ME is completely different from Windows 2000/XP, that it probably makes it a PIA for game makers to write code that is comptible with two completely different platforms.

I mean just look at NOD32. http://www.nod32.com/download/trial.htm It has two separate versions, one specific for Windows 95/98/ME, and one specific to Windows NT/2000/XP/2003. I mean, why don't games have a separate version, one for Windows 98/ME, and another for Windows 2K/XP. The same exact version with the same exact files in almost all games and applications will install on both Windows 98/ME as well as 2K/XP. Also, why don't most other applications have a separate version as well. That makes me believe that almost all applications and programs aren't real native Windows 2000/XP applications which is sad. I had hoped to see Windows 2000/XP native games as far back as over 3 years ago. It's just sad it took all the way until almost a year ago to see even one game like that (aka Doom 3)

I mean it seems that games would be fatser and more efficient if they were designed for Windows 2K/XP only!! That is how supporting Windows 98/ME affects most of us.

 

[drizzt81]

I don't know for sure because I am not a programmer, but I just have a feeling since the architecture of Windows 98/ME is completely different from Windows 2000/XP, that it probably makes it a PIA for game makers to write code that is comptible with two completely different platforms.

(added emphasis)

So you don't know, you just assume .. why then do you say:

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.

Which clearly says that dropping support is going to improve games? Maybe you should be a little more careful with stating your assumptions as facts.

Ps.: Win98 was as real of an OS as DOS was. Current OSs have improved significantly from the way Win98 was, but it'd be sad if they did not.

[edit] As for your NOD32 example, it is most likely compiled with different preprocessor definitions, depending on the target OSs.

 

[Super Mario]

(added emphasis)

So you don't know, you just assume .. why then do you say:


Which clearly says that dropping support is going to improve games? Maybe you should be a little more careful with stating your assumptions as facts.

Ps.: Win98 was as real of an OS as DOS was. Current OSs have improved significantly from the way Win98 was, but it'd be sad if they did not.

[edit] As for your NOD32 example, it is most likely compiled with different preprocessor definitions, depending on the target OSs.

It's not necessarily a fact, but from everyone I know personally that I've talked too, they all tell me that Windows 9X is a complete POS and games would probably be a lot better if they were written to run on Windows 2000/XP only. These people I know of are in fact programmers.

 

[S1nF1xx]

Same as the floppy.

Same as the floppy, same as the CD-ROM. These goddamn comanies are so afraid of losing 1% of their sales for the idiot who doesn't have a $20 DVD drive that they publish their games/apps on half a dozen CDs.

They are getting so greedy that it's going to be impossible to move any software to the new formats that are coming out too. We may never see a game come on HD-DVD or blugay.


/rant

 

[Super Mario]

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..

Look at the total percentage of HL2 players using Windows 98/98SE/ME now. I added it up and it comes out to be 1.53%. That is a tiny tiny little bit compared to all the Windows 2000/XP users which make up the other 98.47%. They can afford to ignore less than 2% of the overall users who cling to such POS OSes for such a quality resource intensive game like HL2. Heck, are those even all HL2 players?? How do you know much of those statistics aren't for HL1 and the original Counterstrike as well?? Heck, I bet that 1.53% still using 98/ME are HL1 and Counterstrike 1 gamers? Game performance has no doubt suffered the last few years because of continued support for cross platform compatibility between 2 distinctly different OS kernels. That''s why 98/ME should be bahsed. Stick to one common Windows platform and not two completely different ones!! Then performance won't suffer.

 

[ccotenj]

PROVE that performance suffers as a result of supporting multiple platforms...

you are "not a programmer", etc. i doubt you even have a grasp of how internals work...

so how about some proof, not just noise... you can throw out all the "no doubts", "i feel", etc. that you want, none of that is proof... it's just noise...

 

[hulksterjoe]

Holy thread resurrection batman

 

[lithium726]

Holy thread resurrection batman

no joke

you are "not a programmer", etc. i doubt you even have a grasp of how internals work...

so how about some proof, not just noise... you can throw out all the "no doubts", "i feel", etc. that you want, none of that is proof... it's just noise...

programming is hard. its even harder when you have to program for two different platforms. 9x and NT are structured completly differently.

 

[ccotenj]

i've been a developer/programmer for almost 25 years (yea, i know, so what? that and a buck 40 gets you a coffee at dunkin', but...)... it's not that "hard"... especially since much of the coding on the internals is likely to be re-used, etc. an application can undergo significant external changes from release to release, with zero impact on the os level...

i understand that it takes more resources (although it's strongly possible that it's being overstated by some in here) to make something work on multiple platforms... however...

a) that doesn't necessarily translate into "lesser performance"...
b) if they didn't do multi-platform development, there's no guarantee that the software development company would put those "saved" resources to work on "making the single platform perform better"... as a matter of fact, having spent a goodly portion of my adult life in the corporate world, i'd bet that they'd "rightsize" those additional resources...
c) the trend in computing is generally to multi-platform development, not away from it... it's been that way for a long time...
d) shall i go on?

again, there's no "proof"... just a lot of ranting... ranting from someone who "believes", yet doesn't "know"... one thing i do "know"... companies don't just waste money doing development anymore, unless they feel there will be a payback for it... and i "think" it's highly unlikely that our ranting friend here has a better grasp of the financials of these development companies than they do themselves... i could be wrong on that... but i doubt it...

ps. holy thread resurrection is right. i thought this horse had been beaten to death already...

 

[Ranma_Sao]

I'm a programmer as well, but my view is different then the standard programmer. Problem with 9x is it's another platform that needs to be tested, wether the code works or not.

I got a ton of examples where people released software for all platforms they only tested on XP. (The D&D game comes to mind where the uninstall would delete C:\windows, only reason they didn't catch it is XP has SFP, so the machine would still boot.)

There are others all you need to do is search for 9x horror storys in the last year or two.

Anyway, I've said all I needed to say on this topic from the beginning.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[Super Mario]

What bugs me is this. Do you see programs written that run on Linux and Windows using the same files? No. I suppose someone could write a program for Windows and just say it supports Linux if Linux integrated WINEX into it. But no, it wouldn't be a native Linux program even if it ran on Linux through WINE and thus supported it. Many programmers have told me that all programs written that support Windows 2000/XP are really just standard Windows 9X applications, but they run on 2000/XP because 2000/XP provide backwards compatibility for Windows 9X applications. If that's the case, that really would make me believe performance suffers and that is just sad that for the last few years, the software we've been using isn't even native to the NT based OS sold on every PC! Like what would run better on Linux? A Windows program through WINE or a program written natively for Linux?? Of course the program written natively for Linux. That's really what bugs me about this.

Just look at NOD32. http://www.nod32.com/download/download.htm It has a separate version for an NT based platform from the 9X based platform. It has an excellent virus detetcion rate, and takes up the least system resources out of any other AV application I have used. It doesn't slow down my PC at all. Basically, any applications designed to run as background tasks should in no way support Windows 98/ME. if they do, there should be a separate version for each. Why don't you see separate version of games with one version for Windows 98/ME and a different version for Windows 2000/XP?

 

[neo86]

Evolve or die... Whether in the natural world or the computer world that is the truth.

 

[Ranma_Sao]

Clipped

Just look at NOD32. http://www.nod32.com/download/download.htm It has a separate version for an NT based platform from the 9X based platform. It has an excellent virus detetcion rate, and takes up the least system resources out of any other AV application I have used. It doesn't slow down my PC at all. Basically, any applications designed to run as background tasks should in no way support Windows 98/ME. if they do, there should be a separate version for each. Why don't you see separate version of games with one version for Windows 98/ME and a different version for Windows 2000/XP?

Because 9x and NT have completely different concepts of a TSR, and a lot of different ASEP points. NT has the concept of Services, where 9x does not.

 

[lbatten]

Evolve or die... Whether in the natural world or the computer world that is the truth.

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Super Mario]

Because 9x and NT have completely different concepts of a TSR, and a lot of different ASEP points. NT has the concept of Services, where 9x does not.

IS NOD32 written in low level language where most other programs are written in high level langauge?? Does that have anything to do with it? How come some older games don't work on XP that work on 9X. Could a game be written that would work only on XP but not 9X?? Or is it just an issue of testing on both platforms when a game says it supports Windows 2000/XP, but not Windows 98/ME?

What about DirectX 9?? Is the version the same for both Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000/XP. Or are they different but with cross compatibility to be able to write the same code that will work with any verison of DirectX 9 for any OS??

 

[-Sean Casey]

I voted no, but after thinking about I changed my mind. I now say "yes" in limited capacities.

The reason for the change has been some of the comments made by SJConsultant and a look at the business I admin for.

1: We have an NT4 box for our Docucolor 2045 CREO RIP. Since it is only sold on their certified hardware it would cost about $12,000 to upgrade to their newest RIP that run 2000, or $15,000 to go with a Sun based DocuSP RIP.

2: We still have a DOS box in production use. Actually two of them. One runs DOS 5 the other 6.2. One of them is used for a controlling a 4 color press and can not be upgraded, and the other is our voicemail system and until our phone system dies and we go VoIP it would not have any worthwhile benefits to replace.

 

[Super Mario]

I'm a programmer as well, but my view is different then the standard programmer. Problem with 9x is it's another platform that needs to be tested, wether the code works or not.

I got a ton of examples where people released software for all platforms they only tested on XP. (The D&D game comes to mind where the uninstall would delete C:\windows, only reason they didn't catch it is XP has SFP, so the machine would still boot.)

There are others all you need to do is search for 9x horror storys in the last year or two.

Anyway, I've said all I needed to say on this topic from the beginning.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

If software were tested on XP only, would it be safe to assume it is compketely compatible with Windows 2000? Or vice versa? Or is it only an issue with Windows 9X vs NT?

So, is it likely that untested software can contain bugs that not only make it malfucntion, but also make it destructive?? That is a scary thought. I sure would hope that the worst untested software could do is just not perform what is needed to do. I sure would hope untested software couldn't possibly erase important files.

 

[Super Mario]

PROVE that performance suffers as a result of supporting multiple platforms...

you are "not a programmer", etc. i doubt you even have a grasp of how internals work...

so how about some proof, not just noise... you can throw out all the "no doubts", "i feel", etc. that you want, none of that is proof... it's just noise...

Ok, so tell me this. How do you think software written for Windows would run on the MAC through a PC emulator for the MAC as opposed to that same program being written to run natively on the MAC. It would be a lot slower. I have seen it. That's how performance suffers when supporting multiple platforms. It seems it would be the same thing when running Windows software on Linux through an emulator. Of course performance will suffer.

 

[Super Mario]

It is now 2006. Let those POS Windows 98/ME operating systems die already!! I shake my head in disgust with how many new software applications that still support them to this day!! Shameful!! There is no excuse nor reason for games that require a fast system just to run should support junker Windows 98/ME. As for not everyone being able to afford to upgrade, that doesn't apply with games designed for fast systems. Fortunately, it seems most games designed for fast systems have stopped supporting thise junker operating systems.) However, there is still too many that do to this day!!

 

[Joves]

It is now 2006. Let those POS Windows 98/ME operating systems die already!! I shake my head in disgust with how many new software applications that still support them to this day!! Shameful!! There is no excuse nor reason for games that require a fast system just to run should support junker Windows 98/ME. As for not everyone being able to afford to upgrade, that doesn't apply with games designed for fast systems. Fortunately, it seems most games designed for fast systems have stopped supporting thise junker operating systems.) However, there is still too many that do to this day!!

Well they do it because, it is still profitable to support the old POSes. I agree they shouldnt but, they will so, long as, there are clueless people out there. Unfortunately I know a few of these. One guy I know, still has Win95 on his box.
Now as, far as, the programs that will only run on an earlier version. There is the compatibility wizard to run them. I have done this with some of my older programs that would not run on XP.

 

[MorfiusX]

I would have to say that the 9x support needs to be limited. But, there are just some times where it can't be avoided. I will give an example:

A company I used to work for re-manufactured transmisions for an automobile manufacturer. They used a machine that would test a transmisions to see if it passed a set of criteria after being rebuilt. These machines used a Windows 98SE PC as the brains. The manufacturer did not support anything but Windows 98SE. We could have chosen to upgrade to XP. But, at that point, if a transmision that past inspection locked up on a highway and threw granny through the wind shield, we would have be liable because we modified the testing equipment so that it was out of manufacturer comliance.

 

[MorfiusX]

There is the compatibility wizard to run them. I have done this with some of my older programs that would not run on XP.

Not everything works by running it in compatibility mode. One such example would be anything that uses drivers.

 

[the gamer]

God no, I cant remember how many times I had problems with Win98 back in teh day. Plus it's about time people upgrade to teh latest OS's, Hardware Technologies.

HECK NO!!!!

 

[Super Mario]

God no, I cant remember how many times I had problems with Win98 back in teh day. Plus it's about time people upgrade to teh latest OS's, Hardware Technologies.

HECK NO!!!!

Exactly!! Not only that, but software shgould also be written for the native Windows NT based OS, and not cross compatible between two completely different core operating system heritages made by Microsoft.

When it comes to the MS world. it ought to be Windows 2K/XP/2K3 and above only!! Let Windows 9X die.

 

[Scorpionjwp]

I could say let windows 98 die, but unfortunantly some companies still use 98 or ME in their networks. Lets say for example, where my father works, a Acrylics factory of about 1,000 employee's or more, most computers run 98, where as 5% run Windows XP.

His boss refuses to upgrade the computers to the Latest version, but he is one of those people that also opens every attachment and sends it to everyone w/o looking to see if has a virus or not.

Now tell me what is more smart, my father perfers to use the Windows XP, but has to use the POS of Windows 98 for his work because the company he works for doesn't get it yet. Nor does the IT department at the company about upgrading to Windows XP Pro.

 

[Super Mario]

I could say let windows 98 die, but unfortunantly some companies still use 98 or ME in their networks. Lets say for example, where my father works, a Acrylics factory of about 1,000 employee's or more, most computers run 98, where as 5% run Windows XP.

His boss refuses to upgrade the computers to the Latest version, but he is one of those people that also opens every attachment and sends it to everyone w/o looking to see if has a virus or not.

Now tell me what is more smart, my father perfers to use the Windows XP, but has to use the POS of Windows 98 for his work because the company he works for doesn't get it yet. Nor does the IT department at the company about upgrading to Windows XP Pro.

People can continue and use it as long as they want, but for expecting new software to continue and support it forever is absolutely ridiculous. New software written should have ditched support for Windows 98/ME as far back as 2002. Therefore, people running Windows 98/ME should have been stuck using old software as far back as 2002 if they refused to upgrade to Windows 2000/XP.

Therefore, there was nothing wrong with Windows 98/ME being supported only for existing software and upgrades to it. However, all new software should have been written natively for the Windows NT based OS as far back as 2002.

 

[Codegen]

I know in the case of my dad where he's forced to use older hardware (Engravers connect to a specific ISA Controller card). He just upgraded the second machine he uses from a 286 to a P166 (Monitor crapped out, can't use newer ones). . The first one was a P166 already.

I think it should be supported for upgrades, but other than that, probably not.

 

[Super Mario]

I know in the case of my dad where he's forced to use older hardware (Engravers connect to a specific ISA Controller card). He just upgraded the second machine he uses from a 286 to a P166 (Monitor crapped out, can't use newer ones). . The first one was a P166 already.

I think it should be supported for upgrades, but other than that, probably not.

It should only be supported for old hardware and software made in the year 2000 and eralier. Other than that, NO WAY!! All software written since 2002 should have been native to the Windows 2K/XP platform when it comes to the Microsoft OS computing world!!

 

[lithium726]

I know in the case of my dad where he's forced to use older hardware (Engravers connect to a specific ISA Controller card). He just upgraded the second machine he uses from a 286 to a P166 (Monitor crapped out, can't use newer ones). . The first one was a P166 already.

I think it should be supported for upgrades, but other than that, probably not.

you can get an Athlon XP with an ISA slot...

iirc, my asus a7v133 has an ISA slot, and that thing supports XP 2000+ (or more, cant remember)

but yeah, 9x needs to be dumped. anyone who is still hanging on to that $4,000 Dell XPS300 from 1997 just needs to bite the bullit and upgrade.

 

[Super Mario]

you can get an Athlon XP with an ISA slot...

iirc, my asus a7v133 has an ISA slot, and that thing supports XP 2000+ (or more, cant remember)

but yeah, 9x needs to be dumped. anyone who is still hanging on to that $4,000 Dell XPS300 from 1997 just needs to bite the bullit and upgrade.

Exactly!! Windows 9X support should have been ditched years ago!!

 

[djnes]

If someone wants to use 95/98 on their home computer, than so be it. That's a self support type deal, where answers and help can be found online in documentation form. No company in their right mind right now with an actual domain and network would or should be using 9x client systems. I could see in some unique cases that a small company would need to maintain a few systems for s specific use or old hardware, but these machines should be isolated to a lab environment, and off the main, corporate network.

 

[Super Mario]

If someone wants to use 95/98 on their home computer, than so be it. That's a self support type deal, where answers and help can be found online in documentation form. No company in their right mind right now with an actual domain and network would or should be using 9x client systems. I could see in some unique cases that a small company would need to maintain a few systems for s specific use or old hardware, but these machines should be isolated to a lab environment, and off the main, corporate network.

I agree. All new software shouldn't support them as well!! As far back as 2002, most applications written for Microsoft opertaing systems (at least high performance and high end applications) should have excluded Windows 98/ME compatibility and been written natively for the Windows 2000/XP OS.

 

[MetalX]

I would have to say that the 9x support needs to be limited. But, there are just some times where it can't be avoided. I will give an example:

A company I used to work for re-manufactured transmisions for an automobile manufacturer. They used a machine that would test a transmisions to see if it passed a set of criteria after being rebuilt. These machines used a Windows 98SE PC as the brains. The manufacturer did not support anything but Windows 98SE. We could have chosen to upgrade to XP. But, at that point, if a transmision that past inspection locked up on a highway and threw granny through the wind shield, we would have be liable because we modified the testing equipment so that it was out of manufacturer comliance.

That's interesting. Good example.

 

[figgie]

soory

win 95/98/me are dead

people still use them but let me offer some insight

we have a ton of workstation still using win95!! And they don't want to get rid of it because of the "cost". But when I priced a quote for MS to give us support

100,000 Per month + incident cost + development cost for drivers etc.

Total bill for 6 months was close to $1 million USD. Roughly about double what it would cost to upgrade the machines to inlcude time for validting the new OS and software.....

 

[figgie]

I would have to say that the 9x support needs to be limited. But, there are just some times where it can't be avoided. I will give an example:

A company I used to work for re-manufactured transmisions for an automobile manufacturer. They used a machine that would test a transmisions to see if it passed a set of criteria after being rebuilt. These machines used a Windows 98SE PC as the brains. The manufacturer did not support anything but Windows 98SE. We could have chosen to upgrade to XP. But, at that point, if a transmision that past inspection locked up on a highway and threw granny through the wind shield, we would have be liable because we modified the testing equipment so that it was out of manufacturer comliance.

sorry man that is an excuse,

<-- medical device industry where the parts we build if they fail, the person has a 100% chance of death.

Just like us, automobile manufactures validate systems. See my price quote int he post above this one that I made. I can guarantee you that upgrading all the equipment + validating the new equipment/software + man hours to do validation will be cheaper than paying for the suppport. Trust me on this one

 

[figgie]

If someone wants to use 95/98 on their home computer, than so be it. That's a self support type deal, where answers and help can be found online in documentation form. No company in their right mind right now with an actual domain and network would or should be using 9x client systems. I could see in some unique cases that a small company would need to maintain a few systems for s specific use or old hardware, but these machines should be isolated to a lab environment, and off the main, corporate network.

you are right

one word

SECURITY!!

why?

simple

the god aweful LMHASH in this crap software, yes even when it supposedly uses NTLMV2 with the DSclient... NOPE it doesn't!

 

[Heliocentrical]

Nope.

 

[Super Mario]

Nope.

Exactly. I just talked to a game designer who worked at EB Games, and he said that performance suffers a lot when games support POS Windows 98/ME because the architecture of Windows 2000/XP is so different from Windows 98/ME that they have to downgrade the coding to make the same files and installer compatible with two distinctly different OS architectures.

Good for EA Games for their 2006 sports series!! Finally they stopped supporting piece of junk Windows 98/ME!! NBA Live 2006 and NHL 2006 run so much better and smoother than the EA Sports 2005 and prior games beause they are finally native to the Windows 2000/XP based OS architecture!!