Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Windows 98

T

Trotterwatch

New member
Yeah, but I would have assumed he already had that, but if he didn't well, he should download that or:

Rivatuner
NVreffix

Or one of the many other refresh rate fixes available.
 
M

Mitch74

New member
98SE, a piece of shit? as soon as you shut down Shell enhancements (use TweakUI) and set it up correctly, it's rock stable (1 WEEK spent packing DivX, and not a single crash... system on at all time, no reboot). Not that XP isn't more stable mind you, it just makes apps unstable... you run XP to run XP, is all (I find Win2000 FAR better for emu softs).
 
Doomulation

Doomulation

?????????????????????????
Mitch74 said:
98SE, a piece of shit? as soon as you shut down Shell enhancements (use TweakUI) and set it up correctly, it's rock stable (1 WEEK spent packing DivX, and not a single crash... system on at all time, no reboot). Not that XP isn't more stable mind you, it just makes apps unstable... you run XP to run XP, is all (I find Win2000 FAR better for emu softs).
Click to expand...
Windows 98 is piece of crap.
It isn't just the thing that it crash all the time, it's also the bugs.
Windows 98 has problems to handle large amounts of ram.
Besides that, is that new products and stuff like usb 2.0 doesn't get designed for windows 98.
 
flow``

flow``

flow``
*shrugs* i like xp

but you have your choice of 2k, xp, nt

so if you dont like xp use 2k and vise versa =p
personally i've never had any compat problems with xp but then all i really use is norton 2002, nero 5.5, q3, and some shareware apps that are usually updated often (winamp, gamespy, irc, ect). of course using the latest drivers and all that good stuff ;-)

i use my machine mainly for gaming so i dont have a lot of stuff running at the same time (so save bandwidth), and xp hardly uses much of my 768 ram (maybe 166 or a little more at times?)

although i can see some people reason's for not wanting to update due to older [unsupported] hardware or certain software compat issues or buggy drivers
 
M

Mitch74

New member
Of course, I'd rather use Linux instead of Windobe any time.
Compatibility problems with hardware in Win98SE? Where? I couldn't run Win2000 without a lot of hassle when I swapped mobo and proc' (talk about hardware overhaul), while Win98 ran right away.
USB 2.0 not suported? Not natively of course, but I don't see why a driver update wouldn't work... Chipset support (from iBX to Aladdin KT266A) is more strenuous on the system, yet it worked...
In fact WinXP turns me off because of the LACK of parameters you have access to! The most annoying is one from Win2000, the fact that you CAN'T set a refresh rate to each resolution! You have to manually select one in a boringly long list when you want to switch resolution, while Win98 is at least able to remember them... When you switch from window to full screen (1024*768 to 800*600 for example), you have to modify your screen settings, refresh rate (back to a default of 75mHz) and so on...
And I don't even wanna talk about all these resource consuming wizards slowing down the system and threatening its stability in WinXP.
 
Doomulation

Doomulation

?????????????????????????
I didn't point out that win2k or xp is good. They both suck. At least in point of gaming.
But that doesn't mean that win98 is good. It sucks too.
 
songoku

songoku

Black Swordsman
Mitch74 said:
Compatibility problems with hardware in Win98SE? Where?
Click to expand...

In fact, I think flow`` was meaning WinXP incompatibility, saying that some people don't want to upgrade TO XP since their hardware does'nt work with it.
I don't know about USB 2.0, but if your Video CArd is a Geforce, that's why the refresh isn't kept every time you switch the res... download Nvidia Refresh Fix or Riva Tuner, or another program that allows setting a refresh rate for every resolution.

However, I must say my PC after XP is waaaay more stable ;)
 
EddyB43

EddyB43

British Old Gamer
Doomulation said:

...Windows 98 has problems to handle large amounts of ram...
Click to expand...

If you're referring to the 98 goes insane with >512Mb RAM bug, that's fixable with a simple modification to an INI file or similar. Basically Win98 defaults to making a page file the same size as your RAM, and >512Mb page files break it. The fix is just to limit it to a 512Mb page file, which works fine.

As far as I know, Win98(SE) should work fine with 512Mb RAM, just not above it without the mentioned fix. It should only really bother people who dualboot for compatibility reasons back to 98, since a system with >512Mb RAM should have the power for any of the more stable NT based Windows or a Linux/BSD OS.
 
Doomulation

Doomulation

?????????????????????????
EddyB43 said:


If you're referring to the 98 goes insane with >512Mb RAM bug, that's fixable with a simple modification to an INI file or similar. Basically Win98 defaults to making a page file the same size as your RAM, and >512Mb page files break it. The fix is just to limit it to a 512Mb page file, which works fine.

As far as I know, Win98(SE) should work fine with 512Mb RAM, just not above it without the mentioned fix. It should only really bother people who dualboot for compatibility reasons back to 98, since a system with >512Mb RAM should have the power for any of the more stable NT based Windows or a Linux/BSD OS.
Click to expand...
I know there's a fix, but windows 98 is still bad. That's just an example of the bugs m$ put in it. And they're not gonna solve it, since they want you to get XP.
 
M

Mitch74

New member
In fact, they were the one who said how to solve this... A LONG time ago. You don't need to make a fix for it, since it's not really a bug. In fact, anybody using a 512 Mo system when Win98 came out had to know at least a little about what Win98 uses when it loads, and try to optimize it a bit... Of course, it would have been better had Microsoft included a panel allowing to set up the file caching along with the swap file. It's stupid since this existed under Win3.1/DOS 5
I still consider Win98SE the best Win386 OS existing (after careful tuneup) in terms of memory use and compatibility. It can't compare with a Linux, though.
 
pj64er

pj64er

PJ64 Lubba
Doomulation said:
I didn't point out that win2k or xp is good. They both suck. At least in point of gaming.
But that doesn't mean that win98 is good. It sucks too.
Click to expand...

then what do you game on? win95?!? or do you :linux: ? or Macs? I dunno why your complaining when there isnt much of an alternative.
 
Doomulation

Doomulation

?????????????????????????
pj64er said:


then what do you game on? win95?!? or do you :linux: ? or Macs? I dunno why your complaining when there isnt much of an alternative.
Click to expand...
You're right...
I actually have to stand it that I have a crap OS...
There's really nothing to do about it...
 
crhylove

crhylove

Banned
actually...

...i'd have to agree with mitch. with a good tuneup win 98se is by far the fastest most stable windows *i* have tried. xp is another phenomenal example of bloatware from ms. i want to go all debian/wine, but there's too much stuff that doesn't work under wine for my full switch over.

besides which, win98se actually works very nicely for me, with the caveat that i have to watch it like a HAWK on the virus/conflict front. and of course when testing vid plugins in 1964 i end up doing plenty of reboots. but not in any other program. just betas cause reboots in general for me.

rhy
 
Doomulation

Doomulation

?????????????????????????
Re: actually...

crhylove said:
...i'd have to agree with mitch. with a good tuneup win 98se is by far the fastest most stable windows *i* have tried. xp is another phenomenal example of bloatware from ms. i want to go all debian/wine, but there's too much stuff that doesn't work under wine for my full switch over.

besides which, win98se actually works very nicely for me, with the caveat that i have to watch it like a HAWK on the virus/conflict front. and of course when testing vid plugins in 1964 i end up doing plenty of reboots. but not in any other program. just betas cause reboots in general for me.

rhy
Click to expand...
Well,
for me 98 crashed as soon as i tried to use the modem to dial-up (lol! :D ). And besides, in XP, i don't have to restart with the betas ;)
 
HigherHeat

HigherHeat

Grand Marquee
:sly: But if I change from Windows 98, my broadband cable
connection won't work.
I have to use ..... DSL! :eek:
 
F

Flea

New member
I hate to be the Mac zealot here, but after reading this thread I can't believe you guys put up with this crap. I've been using Macs for 8 years and I haven't had a anywhere near the number of problems listed here. I guess market share != quality in this case ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top