Upgrading Windows 98
in [Home Built PC]
|
From: Toolpackinmama on 5 Jan 2010 17:39 "GEO" Me(a)home.here wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:44:55 -0500, Toolpackinmama > <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> I don't mind fussing with a new computer. It's fussing over old ones >> that irritates me. :) > > Ah, but that is where 'taste' comes in. I actually enjoy fussing with > older equipment. (It helps that I don't spend any money doing this) Well, enjoy doing that, and bless you.
From: John Doe on 5 Jan 2010 18:49 "GEO" Me(a)home.here wrote: > John Doe <jdoe(a)usenetlove.invalid> wrote: >> Please elaborate. Are you stuck using Windows 98? > > If you look at my headers you will see that I am using Windows > 3.1. :) > > It all depends on what you want/need to do with your computer. Yes, like use it with modern hardware and applications. Are you using a homebuilt computer running Windows 3.1? I seem to recall that there are USENET groups for antiquated/obsolete hardware. -- > For > most things it does what I need. > > Geo > >
From: 98 Guy on 5 Jan 2010 22:00 John Doe wrote: > > For office and small business use, there is nothing that XP does > > that a win-98 system can't do. > > But seriously... Most current office applications (CAD, graphics > design, office software, etc) require Windows XP or higher. The > reason is because of Windows 98/ME (and prior) shitty memory > management. No - it's not shitty memory management. The number-1 reason why any given piece of software won't run on win-98 are API-related DLL incompatibilities and unsatisfied dependencies. That can be remedied to some extent by the use of KernelEx: http://sourceforge.net/projects/kernelex/ http://www.msfn.org/board/kernelex-4-0-final-2-t130936.html > You do not have to believe it or admit it, but that is > the way it is. Any intelligent reader can go to an online > store and see for himself (or herself), it is not a mystery > to any regular in this group. You can believe your faulty information and knowledge all you want, but your simplistic understanding is wrong. There are 4 fundamental areas where win-9x differed from NT-based OS's that have direct results on system stability and capability: 1) Ring-0 kernel mode / user mode operation: Win-9x runs all processes in i86 ring-0. NT-based OS's only runs the Kernel and some drivers in Ring-0, and all user-applications in less privledged rings. Consequence: An app that misbehaves in win-9x can crash the entire system, but in NT it will (usually) only crash itself. 2) Size of various data heaps. Win-9x has several data heaps that are (by design or intention) limited to 64kb in size, while the counterparts in NT are much larger. This can limit the number of installed fonts, or the number of file handles or open applications on 9x. 3) Win-9x/me can operate and have access to about 1 gb of memory, and there are some third-party hacks that claim to extend that to close to 4 gb. This is about 1/3 of the 3 gb that the 32-bit versions of, say, XP can utilize. 4) Multiprocessor symetric multitasking (the ability to make use of more than 1 installed CPU) All other differences are window dressing (including NTFS capability). The security and user-rights schemes in the NT-based OS's are largely a hindrence to home and soho users who don't have their PC's on managed corporate or institutional lans.
From: John Doe on 6 Jan 2010 04:26 98 Guy <98 Guy.com> wrote: > John Doe wrote: >> 98 Guy <98 Guy.com> wrote: >> > For office and small business use, there is nothing that XP >> > does that a win-98 system can't do. >> >> But seriously... Most current office applications (CAD, >> graphics design, office software, etc) require Windows XP or >> higher. The reason is because of Windows 98/ME (and prior) >> shitty memory management. You do not have to believe it or >> admit it, but that is the way it is. Any intelligent reader can >> go to an online store and see for himself (or herself), it is >> not a mystery to any regular in this group. > > You can believe your faulty information and knowledge all you > want, but your simplistic understanding is wrong. In other words... If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. -- > > There are 4 fundamental areas where win-9x differed from NT-based OS's > that have direct results on system stability and capability: > > 1) Ring-0 kernel mode / user mode operation: Win-9x runs all processes > in i86 ring-0. NT-based OS's only runs the Kernel and some drivers in > Ring-0, and all user-applications in less privledged rings. > Consequence: An app that misbehaves in win-9x can crash the entire > system, but in NT it will (usually) only crash itself. > > 2) Size of various data heaps. Win-9x has several data heaps that are > (by design or intention) limited to 64kb in size, while the counterparts > in NT are much larger. This can limit the number of installed fonts, or > the number of file handles or open applications on 9x. > > 3) Win-9x/me can operate and have access to about 1 gb of memory, and > there are some third-party hacks that claim to extend that to close to 4 > gb. This is about 1/3 of the 3 gb that the 32-bit versions of, say, XP > can utilize. > > 4) Multiprocessor symetric multitasking (the ability to make use of more > than 1 installed CPU) > > All other differences are window dressing (including NTFS capability). > The security and user-rights schemes in the NT-based OS's are largely a > hindrence to home and soho users who don't have their PC's on managed > corporate or institutional lans. > > > Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!weretis.net!feeder2.news.weretis.net!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail > From: 98 Guy <98 Guy.com> > Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt > Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98 > Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:00:28 -0500 > Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server > Lines: 55 > Message-ID: <4B43FCCC.C5E28A29 Guy.com> > References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net> <s_-dnYKNApRQOKPWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d supernews.com> <4B4171F4.57E7054B Guy.com> <00bd6049$0$23464$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <4B41F936.34074F6F Guy.com> <hht75v$a9q$1 news.eternal-september.org> <4B42B444.2D64DD86 Guy.com> <017b067e$0$11375$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <4B42BFEA.40AC6054 Guy.com> <00b42e40$0$8086$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> > NNTP-Posting-Host: /Rg06CALwARDXoIUo8hAwA.user.speranza.aioe.org > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) > X-Accept-Language: en > X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1 > Cancel-Lock: sha1:z8OfOmorAr9yVuEtFltrNR1dno4= >
From: DevilsPGD on 5 Jan 2010 13:18
In message <4B417102.A6457CB2(a)Guy.com> 98 Guy <98(a)Guy.com> was claimed to have wrote: >Meanwhile, you can hang a win-98 system directly on the net, no firewall >or nat-router, and nothing can penetrate it. And that's win-98se right >out of the box - no updates or patches. Sure, 98 is protected by the same thing that protects OSX and Linux: Relative obscurity. |