quote:Originally posted by Henk-Jan


Yea I know, Win9x has a broken PE loader. Then again, Win9x is dead.




If only that were true life would be alot easier :alright:

I broke TBPaint on Win9x once and got 100+ emails over 3 days bitching about it.


I wouldn't worry about complainers. People who aren't happy most of the time are that way because they
choose to be.

As far as Win 9X being dead.
A worldwide poll showed that Win 98 alone is used by 20%.

Win9X ain't going nowhere anytime soon.
Posted on 2004-02-18 06:13:11 by skywalker
As far as Win 9X being dead.
A worldwide poll showed that Win 98 alone is used by 20%.

Win9X ain't going nowhere anytime soon.


If MS doesn't support it, why should we?
Posted on 2004-02-18 07:11:20 by Henk-Jan



If MS doesn't support it, why should we?


MS has never really properly supported anything to be honest.

They have :

1. Given out bits and crumbs
2. Deliberately wrote apps that interfere with others
3. Got a mild hand slapping for false statements, lying under oath ....
4. Wrote even more loosely called "MS fixes" that were worse than the original problem

Unfortunately we live in a fallen world.

But why let their behavior affect you.

I look at it as a challenge to learn something new and not be defeated by
their attitude.
Posted on 2004-02-18 08:31:13 by skywalker

I wouldn't worry about complainers. People who aren't happy most of the time are that way because they
choose to be.

Hey, maybe it's a money problem. Win95 runs much better than XP in a Pentium, and upgrading your hardware because some programmer decided that "Win9X is dead" is not a real choice... :rolleyes:
Posted on 2004-02-18 13:45:21 by QvasiModo


Hey, maybe it's a money problem. Win95 runs much better than XP in a Pentium, and upgrading your hardware because some programmer decided that "Win9X is dead" is not a real choice... :rolleyes:


I agree, there are alot of my friends still running 98/98SE and frankly there is not alot of software that I can run and they can't, nothing that makes any difference anyway. Except that they can start the software and begin to work while I am still waiting for 2K to boot up on a system 5 times as fast as theirs :)
Posted on 2004-02-18 13:51:35 by donkey
Donkey, isn't it pretty nice that you'll only have to boot win2k once at the start of the day, while 9x will have to be rebooted on just about any non-trivial crash? I found this *very* noticeable on 9x while doing program development. NULL pointer dereferencing or HANDLE (especially GDI and other critical kernel mode object) leaks, and boom, BSOD.
Posted on 2004-02-18 14:19:43 by f0dder
Hi f0dder,

I like Win2K that's why I use it, but there are advantages to Win9x also. Granted that the 64K GDI memory was a dumb decision by Microsoft from the start and the unlimited version in NT is much nicer to work with. But in reality these are questions dealing with the quality of the software you are running not the OS version. The stability of Win98SE seems to be not so bad though I have to admit I have never spent more than a few minutes on it at a time, usually just to run a peice of test code and that's all. Funny thing is that I went to a buddy's to set up his computer and he was running 98SE and I was completely lost, before about a year and a half ago I had no experience at all with Windows or computers except to start an accounting application and do my work. So when I revisit these older OS versions they are pretty much new to me in the current context.
Posted on 2004-02-18 14:55:12 by donkey
Sure, win9x runs with (a lot less) RAM and generally less hardware. The processor doesn't seem that important, though, the RAM is much more crucial. NT4 runs perfectly on a pmmx-200 with 64MB of ram, so there isn't really any time I'd go 9x again. Win2k runs okay with 160 megs of ram, great with 256, super with 512, and like a dream with a gig :) - haven't used it extensively on anything less than a 700mhz athlon, but I suppose it's quite okay on lower hardware, too, once it has booted.


But in reality these are questions dealing with the quality of the software you are running not the OS version.

True... but when *developing* software, heh :P - also, the limited GDI stuff on 9x means *big* things like 3D Studio Max can quickly run into problems. On the other hand, the limited resources of 9x means you will certainly catch a GDI leak faster under 9x than NT - it would be nice if you could impose artificial limits per-process on NT, to test for leaks and error handling. (I think it's possible to set at least some of this stuff with Quotas?, and of course you can always use stuff like perfmon.msc or specialized tools to watch the usage of various stuff).

Heh, there's a whole bunch of differences between 9x and NT (and a few between NT4, 2k, XP). Took me a while to get used to win2k, but I definitely wouldn't go back. Can't really remember anything that was easier back on 9x - I do remember having to reboot after changing IP settings etc., though ;)
Posted on 2004-02-18 15:22:04 by f0dder