Windows 9x is finally done

Help and discussion about non-Linux operating systems

Moderators: ChrisThornett, LXF moderators

Postby towy71 » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:07 pm

TheDoctor wrote:This is the case with every version of Windows - it's a legacy from DOS - so the problem is integral to Windows, every flavour

Ah, this is because the visionary Mr. Gates said right at the beginning that nobody would need more than 640Kb of RAM, so in the rudimentary OS that he bought and fiddled with did not handle more than that. Similarly the boss of IBM said that we would need no more than 5 or 6 computers to service everybodies needs :roll: :roll: :roll:
still looking for that door into summer
User avatar
towy71
Moderator
 
Posts: 4262
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: wild West Wales

Postby TheDoctor » Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:56 pm

towy71 wrote:
TheDoctor wrote:This is the case with every version of Windows - it's a legacy from DOS - so the problem is integral to Windows, every flavour

Ah, this is because the visionary Mr. Gates said right at the beginning that nobody would need more than 640Kb of RAM, so in the rudimentary OS that he bought and fiddled with did not handle more than that.


No, thats someting else. Bill Gates, like every other member of the human race, finds it perfectly possible to make more than one mistake simutaneously.

towy71 wrote:Similarly the boss of IBM said that we would need no more than 5 or 6 computers to service everybodies needs :roll: :roll: :roll:


I'm not sure why the ':roll:'. He was only repeating the comon sense of the time. To understand why repeating common sense may be a stupid thing to do, and to find even worse cases than Watson's lack of vison, read Arthur C. Clarke's Profiles of the Future.
TheDoctor
LXF regular
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:02 pm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Windows 9x is finally done

Postby wyliecoyoteuk » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:25 pm

GMorgan wrote:
donoreo wrote:I do not understand the people liking 98! I got rid of it as soon as I got 2000 and that was not soon enough! It was horrible, the only things worse were 95 and ME.


A stronger CLI than NT based versions and far less intrusive than later Windows versions. The endless blue screens were even avoidable if you didn't try to remove a floppy disk or anything.


You never ran windows for workgroups 3.1 then :-)
The sig between the asterisks is so cool that only REALLY COOL people can even see it!

*************** ************
User avatar
wyliecoyoteuk
LXF regular
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:41 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Windows 9x is finally done

Postby towy71 » Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:47 pm

wyliecoyoteuk wrote:You never ran windows for workgroups 3.1 then :-)

That was WfW 3.11 ;-)
still looking for that door into summer
User avatar
towy71
Moderator
 
Posts: 4262
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: wild West Wales

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Windows 9x is finally done

Postby GMorgan » Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:56 pm

I used it but very rarely. Windows 95 was the first MS OS I tried to escape from on any regular basis.
GMorgan
LXF regular
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: South Wales, UK

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Windows 9x is finally done

Postby wyliecoyoteuk » Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:47 pm

towy71 wrote:
wyliecoyoteuk wrote:You never ran windows for workgroups 3.1 then :-)

That was WfW 3.11 ;-)

well, it was just the network enabled w3.1, and whats a .01 version between freinds? :-)
The sig between the asterisks is so cool that only REALLY COOL people can even see it!

*************** ************
User avatar
wyliecoyoteuk
LXF regular
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:41 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Windows 9x is finally done

Postby GMorgan » Sun Jul 16, 2006 5:26 pm

What I want to know is where did Windows 3.2-3.10 disappear to or did MS really mean 3.1.1.
GMorgan
LXF regular
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: South Wales, UK

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Windows 9x is finally done

Postby nelz » Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:29 pm

towy71 wrote:
wyliecoyoteuk wrote:You never ran windows for workgroups 3.1 then :-)

That was WfW 3.11 ;-)


The second W stood for Workgroups? I always thought it was something else :)
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
nelz
Site admin
 
Posts: 8468
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Warrington, UK

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Windows 9x is finally done

Postby alloydog » Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:39 pm

back on track...

I can't really see what all the fuss is about. To me it is the same as, say, Ford, now stopping support of the Model T.

As for others experiences with 98, I always found it to be relatively problem free. OK, when we first got our IBM Aptiva back in early 99, it crashed every 10 minutes. The only disc we had was the IBM recovory CD. Running Norton's WinDoctor soon sorted that (148 faults, with 114 of them possibily fatal...). Then I got a genuine copy of Windows 98SE, did a clean instal, and everything ran smoothly.

The said PC is still running Windows 98SE, with a few tweaks and fixes (none of them Microsofts). Too be honest, I have had to do less fixes and fiddles with Windows 98SE to get it doing what I want it to do, smoothly and with no problems, that I have with most Linux distributions.

Now the last of DOS based OS has been dropped from Microsofts sales/support, the honourable thing for them to do would be to open source it! Though I figure Pigs will land on Mars before that happens...

Windows 98 is dead!
Long live Windows 98!!
User avatar
alloydog
LXF regular
 
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:32 pm

Postby TheDoctor » Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:30 pm

Can somebody please explain to me what the support is that Microsoft have ceased to give?

I have been running MS software since 1989. In that time, I have asked for support from MS on two occasions. Neither of these was a particularly satisfactory experience.

The earlier support request ended up with a sensible answer, but it took two phone calls. And it left me feeling dubious about MS technical support. It was in 1994, after I'd bought MS Office to run under Windows 3.1. During the course of my first phone call about this, the MS technician infomed me that it was not possible to integrate the components of MS Office and get them to work together. It took a second phone call before I got someone who actually knew the basics of MicroSoft's own flagship product.

The more recent of the requests was in 1997 when I bought a PC pre-loaded with Windows 95. I phoned about a compatibility problem with some software I had been previously running on Windows 3.1, and was told, effectively, to pig off (though not in those precise words) since I had got W95 through Dell. I was told, more or less in these precise words, Dell had to support me. Dell, on the other hand, said it was MS's job, since they only did hardware. I eventually - fortunately - got an answer from a third party.

I've never bothered to contact MS about any problem I've had under W98SE, since I doubted, given my earlier experiences, that I would get a sensible reply. So I don't think I'm going to notice the difference now.
TheDoctor
LXF regular
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:02 pm

Postby GMorgan » Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:45 pm

Yes but claiming to end support gives a false impression that they had support to begin with and lets them draw a line in time for the release of bloathorn.
GMorgan
LXF regular
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:58 pm
Location: South Wales, UK

Postby alloydog » Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:51 am

TheDoctor wrote:Can somebody please explain to me what the support is that Microsoft have ceased to give?


Yearly security patches?

TheDoctor wrote:The more recent of the requests was in 1997 when I bought a PC pre-loaded with Windows 95. I phoned about a compatibility problem with some software I had been previously running on Windows 3.1, and was told, effectively, to pig off (though not in those precise words) since I had got W95 through Dell. I was told, more or less in these precise words, Dell had to support me. Dell, on the other hand, said it was MS's job, since they only did hardware. I eventually - fortunately - got an answer from a third party.


We had the same thing with our IBM Aptiva. The installation from the 'recovery' CD was a crock of shi-brown smelly stuff....

I phoned the local Microsoft, who passed the buck to IBM who passed it onto the place we bought it from, who knew sweet FA about PCs and said call Microsoft...

A copy of Norton's utilities and some quick answers from the PCAnswers forum helped fix most problems.[/i]
User avatar
alloydog
LXF regular
 
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:32 pm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Windows 9x is finally done

Postby buchaille » Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:55 pm

towy71 wrote:
wyliecoyoteuk wrote:You never ran windows for workgroups 3.1 then :-)

That was WfW 3.11 ;-)


heh, heh. I have a 33Mhz machine running Wfw 3.11 networked to my Mandrake machine as I write this. It runs a point of sale app. that I wrote some years ago and have never needed to replace. It never gives any trouble, while I learned long ago to just accept the inevitable blue screens with Win98.
buchaille
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:18 pm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Windows 9x is finally done

Postby alloydog » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:03 am

buchaille wrote:... while I learned long ago to just accept the inevitable blue screens with Win98.


In nearly seven years, the Aptiva running Windows 98SE has hardly had a BSOD, or any other major failure of Windows.
- Admittedly, I set it up really carefully, removed IE, plus made a few other tweaks and tidying, but it needed nothing more, or rather less work than getting any Linux distribution I've used, to run without hitch.
User avatar
alloydog
LXF regular
 
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:32 pm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Windows 9x is finally done

Postby buchaille » Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:41 pm

alloydog wrote:In nearly seven years, the Aptiva running Windows 98SE has hardly had a BSOD, or any other major failure of Windows.
- Admittedly, I set it up really carefully, removed IE, plus made a few other tweaks and tidying, but it needed nothing more, or rather less work than getting any Linux distribution I've used, to run without hitch.


Removing IE will have helped, I'm sure. Just installing IE6 killed one of my W98 installations if I remember correctly.

I still have two W98 partitions. One is used only for a specific video editing app and is stable. The other is used mainly for games and regularily needs to be reinstalled. In my experience trying out new programs rarely affects a Linux distro adversely, but with W98 it is a slippery slope to BSOD :)
buchaille
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Other OS

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests